A history of the Irish poor law, in connexion with the condition of the people

by Sir George Nicholls

CHAPTER II.

Rebellion of 1798—The Union—Acts of the Imperial Parliament: respecting dispensaries, hospitals, and infirmaries—Examination of bogs—Fever hospitals—Officers of health—Lunatic asylums—Employment of the poor—Deserted children—Report of 1804 respecting the poor—Dublin House of Industry and Foundling Hospital—Reports of 1819 and 1823 on the state of disease and condition of the labouring poor—Report of 1830 on the state of the poorer classes—Report of the Committee on Education—Mr. Secretary Stanley’s letter to the Duke of Leinster—Board of National Education—First and second Reports of commissioners for inquiring into the condition of the poorer classes—The author’s ‘Suggestions’—The commissioners’ third Report—Reasons for and against a voluntary system of relief—Mr. Bicheno’s ‘Remarks on the Evidence’—Mr. G. C. Lewis’s ‘Remarks on the Third Report.’

The commencement of the nineteenth century is memorable for the legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland. This measure, fraught with such important benefits to both countries, was probably hastened by what occurred in Ireland in 1798, when the partizans of democracy, excited by the events of the French Revolution, and stimulated by French emissaries and promises of support, broke out into open rebellion. |1798.
Irish Rebellion.|The rebellion was however soon put down, although not without the sacrifice of many of the ignorant misguided people who had been led on to take a part in it; and the speech from the throne at the opening of the session on the 20th of November 1798, announced that “the French troops which had been landed for its support were compelled to surrender, and that the armaments destined for the same purpose were, by the vigilance and activity of our squadrons, captured or dispersed.” On the 22nd of January following, a royal message relative to a union with Ireland was delivered to parliament, in which the king expressed his persuasion, that the unremitting industry with which the enemy persevered in their avowed design of effecting the separation of Ireland from this kingdom, cannot fail to engage the particular attention of both houses, and he recommended them to consider of the most effectual means of counteracting and defeating such design.

1800.
Mr. Pitt’s speech on proposing the Union, January 22.

In the debate which followed the delivery of the royal message, Mr. Pitt observed—“Ireland is subject to great and deplorable evils, which have a deep root, for they lie in the situation of the country itself—in the present character manners and habits of its people—in their want of intelligence—in the unavoidable separation between certain classes—in the state of property—in its religious distinctions—in the rancour which bigotry engenders and superstition rears and cherishes.” If such circumstances combine to make a country wretched, the remedy ought, he said, to be sought for in the institution of “an imperial legislature, standing aloof from local party connexion, and sufficiently removed from the influence of contending factions, to be the advocate or champion of neither. A legislature which will neither give way to the haughty pretensions of a few, nor open the door to popular inroads, to clamour, or to invasion of all sacred forms and regularities, under the false and imposing colours of philosophical improvement in the art of government.” This, he said, “is the thing that is wanted in Ireland. Where is it to be found?—in that country or in this?—certainly in England; and to neglect to establish such a legislature when it is possible to do so, would be (he declared) an improvidence which nothing could justify.”

Much of the evil which Ireland then laboured under arose, Mr. Pitt considered, from the condition of the parliament of that country. “When there are two independent parliaments in one empire,” he observed, “you have no security for a continuance of their harmony and cordial co-operation. We all have in our mouths a sentence that every good Englishman and good Irishman feels—we must stand or fall together, we should live and die together—but without such a measure as that which is about to be proposed, there can be no security for the continuance of that sentiment.” And he concluded a long and powerful address, by saying, “I am bound to convey to this house every information which it may be in my power to give; but however acceptable to the one or to the other side of the house, however acceptable or otherwise to those whom I respect on the other side the water, my sentiments upon this subject may be, my duty compels me to speak them freely. I see the case so plainly, and I feel it so strongly, that there is no circumstance of apparent or probable difficulty, no apprehension of popularity, no fear of toil or labour, that shall prevent me from using every exertion which remains in my power to accomplish the work that is now before us, and on which I am persuaded depend the internal tranquillity of Ireland, the interest of the British empire at large, and I hope I may add, the happiness of a great part of the habitable world.” The address in answer to the Royal message was carried without a division.

1800.
Mr. Pitt’s speech on submitting resolutions for the Union.

On the 31st of January following, Mr. Pitt submitted to the house of commons certain resolutions declaratory of the principles on which it was proposed to establish the union between the two countries, and explained most fully the various circumstances connected with the measure. It was not merely in a general view, he said, that the question ought to be considered—“We ought to look to it with a view peculiarly to the permanent interest and security of Ireland. When that country was threatened with the double danger of hostile attacks by enemies without, and of treason within, from what quarter did she derive the means of her deliverance?—From the naval force of Great Britain—from the voluntary exertions of her military of every description, not called for by law—and from her pecuniary resources—added to the loyalty and energy of the inhabitants of Ireland itself, of which it is impossible to speak with too much praise, and which shows how well they deserve to be called the brethren of Britons.” Great Britain has, he observed, always felt a common interest in the safety of Ireland; “but the common interest was never so obvious and urgent as when the common enemy made her attack upon Great Britain through the medium of Ireland, and when their attack upon Ireland went to deprive her of her connexion with Great Britain, and to substitute in its stead the new government of the French Republic. When that danger threatened Ireland, the purse of Great Britain was as open for the wants of Ireland as for the necessities of England.”

Among the great defects of Ireland, Mr. Pitt remarked, “one of the most prominent is its want of industry and capital—How are those wants to be supplied, but by blending more closely with Ireland the industry and the capital of this country?”—The advantages which Ireland will derive from the proposed arrangement are, he said, “the protection she will secure to herself in the hour of danger, the most effectual means of increasing her commerce and improving her agriculture, the command of English capital, the infusion of English manners and English industry necessarily tending to ameliorate her condition, to accelerate the progress of internal civilization, and to terminate the feuds and dissensions which now distract the country, and which she does not possess within herself the power either to control or to extinguish.” And he added, “while I state thus strongly the commercial advantages to the sister kingdom, I have no alarm lest I should excite any sentiment of jealousy here. I know that the inhabitants of Great Britain wish well to the prosperity of Ireland; that if the kingdoms are really and solidly united, they feel that to increase the commercial wealth of one country, is not to diminish that of the other, but to increase the strength and power of both.” He then cited the example of the union with Scotland—“a union as much opposed, and by much the same arguments prejudices and misconceptions, as are urged at this moment; creating too the same alarms, and provoking the same outrages as have lately taken place in Dublin.” Yet the population of Edinburgh is said to have nearly doubled since the Union, a new city being added to the old; whilst the population of Glasgow since the Union, has increased in the proportion of between five and six to one. The division in favour of the measure was 140 to 15.

On the 2nd of April 1800 Mr. Pitt presented a message from the king, expressing his Majesty’s satisfaction at being enabled to communicate to the house, the joint address of the lords and commons of Ireland, containing the terms proposed by them for an entire union between the two kingdoms; and he earnestly recommends the house to take all such further steps as may best tend to the speedy and complete execution of a work so happily begun, and so interesting to the security and happiness of his subjects, and to the general strength and prosperity of the British empire. The session terminated on the 29th of July, when the king in his speech from the throne congratulated both houses on the success of the steps taken for effecting the union of Great Britain and Ireland, emphatically adding—“This great measure on which my wishes have been long earnestly bent, I shall ever consider as the happiest event of my reign, being persuaded that nothing could so effectually contribute to extend to my Irish subjects, the full participation of the blessings derived from the British constitution, and to establish on the most solid foundation the strength prosperity and power of the whole empire.”[^[28]]

It would seem impossible, having regard to the circumstances of the times, to doubt the necessity for such a union as was thus established, and perhaps equally impossible to doubt or over-estimate the benefits it was calculated to confer. But as in the case of Scotland a century previous, the Union was now denounced as an act of injustice and degradation to Ireland, although it is difficult to see how the combining of the two countries under one united government and common designation, thus adding to the security and general importance of both, could be an injustice or degradation to either. The author is able to remember the circumstances of that period, the alarms, the forebodings of evil, the fervid declamations of popular patriots, who regardless of the benefits that would ensue to their country, could only be induced to acquiesce in the measure by some immediate benefit accruing to themselves. The Union has indeed continued down even to the present day, to be declaimed against as a grievance by certain parties in Ireland, whenever for factious or sectarian objects it suited their purpose to do so; and the blending and amalgamation of the two peoples which was hoped for, and which was foretold and relied upon as a certain consequence of the Union by its great promoter, has therefore been less entire than it otherwise would have been. Notwithstanding this drawback however, the material resources of Ireland have vastly increased, and its general condition been in all respects greatly improved, since it has by the Union become an integral portion of the British empire.

1801.
First parliament of “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.”

The first parliament of “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” assembled on the 22nd of January 1801, when the king, in his opening speech, declared his confidence “that their deliberations will be uniformly directed to the great object of improving the benefits of that happy union, which by the blessing of Providence, has now been effected, and of promoting to the utmost the prosperity of every part of his dominions.”

There were certain Acts passed subsequent to the Union which it will be requisite to notice, as they exhibit the views of the now united parliament in regard to Ireland and the relief of the Irish poor, and form also a necessary introduction to the more important measure which followed in 1838.

1801.
41 Geo. III. cap. 73.

The first of these Acts is The 41st George 3rd, cap. 73, which directs the application of certain sums of money granted by parliament to the Dublin Society and the farming societies in Ireland—namely any sum not exceeding 4,500l. Irish currency to the Dublin Society, to be applied towards completing their repository in Hawkins Street, and the botanic garden at Glassnevin; and any sum not exceeding 2,000l. Irish currency, to be applied in promoting the purposes of the farming societies in Ireland for the current year. The Irish Society is an institution founded for the purpose of promoting improvements generally, and the farming societies are exceedingly valuable as promoting agricultural improvements in particular. The imperial parliament could hardly therefore have better shown its desire for the improvement of Ireland, than by thus so immediately after it assembled giving its aid and high sanction to these two societies.

1805.
45 Geo. III. cap. 111. Dispensaries.

After referring to the Irish Acts which provide for the establishment of infirmaries and hospitals, The 45th Geo. 3rd, cap. 111, recites—“and whereas the distance of many parts of each county from the infirmary therein established, does not allow the poor of those parts the advantages of immediate medical aid and advice which such infirmary was proposed to afford”—it is then enacted, that in all cases where the governors of the county infirmary shall certify to the grand jury of the county, that they have actually received from private subscription or donation any sum since the preceding assize, for the purpose of establishing in any place a dispensary for furnishing medicine, and giving medical aid and relief to the poor therein—the grand jury are empowered to raise from the county at large a sum equal in amount to the sum or sums so received, to be applied by the said governors, together with the moneys so received, in providing medicines and medical or surgical aid and advice for the poor of such place and its neighbourhood, in such manner as the said governors shall deem most advisable. Every person subscribing not less than one guinea towards the establishment or maintenance of any local dispensary, or towards the county hospital or infirmary, is entitled to be a member of the body corporate thereof, “so far as relates to the management of and direction of such local dispensary.” The dispensaries are perhaps the most extensively useful of all the medical institutions in Ireland, and this Act providing for their establishment, cannot therefore fail of being considered as of great importance, more especially as regards the rural population residing at a distance from towns, and who are consequently deprived of access to hospitals or infirmaries.

1806.
46 Geo. III. cap. 95. Hospitals and infirmaries.

The 46th Geo. 3rd, cap. 95, is entitled—‘An Act for the more effectually regulating and providing for the Relief of the Poor and the Management of Infirmaries and Hospitals.’ It refers to the 11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30, of the Irish parliament,[^[29]] and directs—that in case it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the judge at the summer assize in any county, that the corporation instituted under that Act is properly conducted, and that on comparison of the expense incurred in the former year, it is expedient that a greater sum should be presented and levied, or that it is expedient to provide for the expense of building the house of industry—the grand jury in the county of a city or town may present and levy a sum not less in the whole than 400l., nor more than 500l., and in any county at large a sum not less than 500l., nor more than 700l., to be applied to the purposes directed by the said Act. The limits of such presentments are thus we see greatly enlarged from what was prescribed by the Act of 1772; but the entire amount permitted to be raised by assessment is still small, showing that voluntary contribution was still chiefly relied upon. All infirmaries and hospitals are moreover now required to make out returns annually, showing in detail the amount of their funds and their expenditure, and the lord lieutenant may order an examination of their state and condition. By an Act in the following year another sum of 100l. was allowed to be presented for a fever hospital, “whenever one had been established.”

1809.
49 Geo. III. cap. 101.
Irish bogs.

‘An Act to appoint Commissioners for two years, to examine into the nature and extent of the several Bogs in Ireland &c.,’ was passed in 1809, commencing with this recital—“whereas there are large tracts of undrained bog in Ireland, the draining whereof is necessary for their being brought into a state of tillage; and whereas the adding their contents to the lands already under cultivation, would not only increase the agriculture of Ireland, but is highly expedient towards promoting a secure supply of flax and hemp within the United Kingdom for the use of the navy, and support of the linen manufacture”—it is therefore enacted that the lord lieutenant may appoint not exceeding nine persons, to be commissioners for ascertaining the extent of such bogs as exceed 500 acres, and for inquiring into the practicability and best modes of draining the same, and the expense of so doing,—also as to the depth of bog soil, the nature of the strata underneath, the nature and distance of the manure best fitted for their improvement &c.—“together with the opinion of the said commissioners as to such measures as they shall deem necessary or expedient for carrying into speedy effect the drainage cultivation and improvement of all such bogs, and the future increase of timber in Ireland, by providing for the plantation and preservation of trees in such parts thereof as shall be best fitted for the purpose;” and it is further enacted that the commissioners shall act without a salary.

This inquiry could hardly fail to prove useful, by directing attention to a subject of very great importance, both in a general and a local point of view: but in this, as in most other instances, the result fell short of what was anticipated. The appointing of such a commission however, evidenced a strong desire on the part of the imperial legislature for the amelioration of Ireland. The term of the commission was afterwards extended for another two years by the 51st George 3rd, cap. 122; and four elaborate Reports, the 1st in June 1810, and the last in April 1814, accompanied by a large mass of evidence on all matters connected with the subject, are proofs of the commissioners’ zeal and industry in discharging the duties assigned them. The subject was moreover again reported upon by a special committee in 1819, and valuable evidence was taken in reference to it, in connexion with the employment of the poor.

1814-18.
54 Geo. III. cap. 112, and 58 Geo. III. cap. 47.
Fever hospitals.

The 54th George 3rd, cap. 112—provides—“that whenever any fever hospital has been or shall be established in any county, or county of a city or town, it shall be lawful for the grand jury at the spring or summer assize to present such sum or sums of money, not exceeding 250l., as shall appear to be necessary for the support of such fever hospital, to be raised off the county at large, or the county of a city or town as the case may be;” and four years afterwards another Act on the same subject was passed (The 58th George 3rd, cap. 47) entitled—‘An Act to establish Fever Hospitals, and make other regulations for relief of the suffering Poor, and for preventing the increase of Fevers in Ireland,’ commencing with this preamble—“Whereas fevers of an infectious nature have for some time past greatly prevailed among the poor in several parts of Ireland, whereby the health of the whole country has been endangered, and it is expedient that hospitals should be established for the relief of the sufferers in such cases, and that regulations should be made to prevent, as effectually as possible, the increase of infection; and such good purposes are most likely to be promoted by creating corporations in every county at large, and every county of a city or town”—it is therefore enacted that such corporations shall be created accordingly, to consist in counties of the bishop or archbishop of the diocess, the representatives in parliament, and the justices of peace for the county; and in the county of a city or town, to consist of the chief magistrate, sheriffs, recorder, representatives in parliament, and justices of peace, all for the time being, and also donors of not less than 20l., or contributors of one guinea annually—which corporation is to be called “The President and Assistants of the Fever Hospital of ——,” and is to have perpetual succession &c., and to hold meetings and make by-laws &c., and purchase and hold lands not exceeding 500l. yearly value, as they shall think fit.

The corporations are required to build or hire houses for hospitals for relief of the poor who are ill of fever, in the several counties or counties of cities or towns, “as soon as they shall be possessed of funds sufficient for this purpose, as plain, as durable, and at as moderate expense as may be.” The hospitals are to be divided into two parts, one for poor helpless men, the other for poor helpless women, and the corporations are to appoint masters, physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, nurses, and other fit persons and servants to govern and take care of such hospitals and the patients therein. Grand juries are empowered to present sums, not exceeding double the amount of private donations and subscriptions to fever hospitals, whether the same be attached to any dispensary or not, and they may also present in like proportion for local dispensaries; and whenever such presentments are certified by the clerk of the crown, the lord lieutenant may order an advance of money from the consolidated fund; and on the appearance of fever in any town or district, he may also appoint a board of health, with powers “to direct that all streets, lanes and courts, and all houses and all rooms therein, and all yards gardens or places belonging to such houses, shall be cleansed and purified, and that all nuisances prejudicial to health shall be removed therefrom.”

1819.
59 Geo. III. cap. 41.
Officers of health to be appointed.

The powers of this Act were extended in the following year by The 59th George 3rd, cap. 41, which declares that—“it has become highly expedient to provide for and secure constant attention to the health and comforts of the inhabitants of Ireland,” and authorizes the appointment of officers of health to carry the sanitary measures specified above into effect. The increase of fever indicated by the passing of these Acts, would seem to have been very marked about this time, and may possibly have been in part owing to the rapid increase of the population, and the consequent overcrowding in the dwellings of the poorer classes. The practice of subdividing their land among all the members of a family, may also have had some share in causing fevers, by reducing the means and lowering the general standard of living, as well in their dwellings as in their food clothing and ordinary mode of subsistence.

1817.
57 Geo. III. cap. 106.
Lunatic asylums.

The 57th George 3rd, cap. 106, commences by declaring it to be “expedient, that the distressed state of the lunatic poor in Ireland should be provided for;” and it empowers the lord lieutenant to direct, that any number of asylums for the lunatic poor shall be established in such districts as he shall deem expedient; “and that every such district shall consist of the whole of two or more counties, or of one or more county or counties, and one or more county or counties of cities or towns, but shall not include part only of any county, or county of a city or town;” and that all lunatic poor within any such district respectively, shall be maintained and taken care of in the asylum belonging thereto; and that every such asylum shall be sufficient to contain such number of lunatic poor, not being less than 100, nor more than 150 in any one asylum, as shall seem expedient to the lord lieutenant. The grand juries respectively are to present such sum or sums of money as shall be requisite for defraying the expenses of erecting and establishing such asylums, and for maintaining the same, to such amount and in such proportion as shall be directed by the lord lieutenant; who is further empowered to appoint such persons as he shall think fit, to be governors and directors of every such asylum, and also to nominate any persons not exceeding eight to be commissioners for superintending directing and regulating such asylums—“provided that all such governors directors and commissioners shall act without salary fee reward or emolument whatsoever.”

The necessity for attending to the state of the poor generally, including the lunatic and insane poor, seems now to have been strongly felt, and this feeling naturally led to the passing of the present Act. Lunacy is said to be more prevalent in Ireland, than it is either in England or Scotland, whilst the poverty of the people caused it to be there, if possible, a greater affliction than elsewhere, and rendered greater care necessary for the protection of its hapless victims.

1822.
3 George IV. caps. 3 and 84.
Distress and extension of relief.

The year 1822 was a period of much distress in Ireland, and on the 24th of May The 3rd George 4th, cap. 3, entitled ‘An Act for the employment of the Poor’ was passed, empowering the lord lieutenant in certain cases to order advances to be made from the public treasury, in anticipation of but not exceeding the amount of grand-jury presentments actually made. This does not however appear to have been sufficient to meet the emergency, and on the 26th of July The 3rd George 4th, cap. 84, was passed, the preamble declaring that—“Whereas by reason of the distress that exists in many parts of Ireland, it is in many counties thereof impossible without great severity and great mischief to the country to levy and raise the sums heretofore presented by the grand juries of such counties, and which ought by law to be levied and raised on or within the said counties respectively; and whereas the roads and works and other objects and purposes for which many of the said sums have been presented, cannot be delayed without great injury to the persons interested therein, and the commencement of such works, by employing the poor, must tend to alleviate the existing distress”—it is therefore enacted that certain advances which had been provisionally made by the lord lieutenant should be confirmed, and that he may further order advances for public works to be applied according to such directions as he shall give in connexion therewith; and the respective grand juries on being certified of the sums so advanced, are to present the same, to be raised by not less than four nor more than twelve half-yearly instalments, according to the state of the country. Such advances are therefore loans at longer or shorter periods, for road-making or other public works, as a means of relieving the distress of the people, there being then no other source whence relief could be derived.

1825.
6 George IV. cap. 102.
Deserted children.

In 1825 an Act was passed ‘to amend the Laws respecting Deserted Children in Ireland.’ After referring to previous Acts, which provide that the sum of 5l. sterling shall be leviable on any parish for the support of each deserted child found therein, it proceeds—“and whereas the sum of 5l. is now required to be paid previous to the reception of any such deserted child into the General Foundling Hospital of Dublin, transmitted from any such parish; and whereas no fund at present exists either to pay the expense of maintaining such deserted children in the parishes wherein found, or of transmitting them to the city of Dublin”—It is therefore enacted that it shall henceforward be lawful “for the several parishes in Ireland to raise and levy such additional sum as may be necessary for maintaining such deserted children as shall be found therein, until such children shall be admitted into the foundling hospital aforesaid, and for transmitting such children thither.” But it is further provided that no greater sum than fifty shillings shall be raised in any one year for the support of any such deserted child, or for its transmission to the foundling hospital in Dublin. The city and liberties of Cork are exempted from the provisions of the Act, which is limited to two years. It will not fail to be observed that this Act gives a legislative sanction to the rating of a parish for the relief of a destitute class “found therein,” and so far may be said to amount to a species of poor-law.

The foregoing are the only Acts requiring to be noticed, between the period of the Union and the passing of the Irish Poor Relief Act in 1838. They show the feeling of the legislature with regard to the state of Ireland, and seem to point to further measures as being necessary for amending its social defects. But in the interval there were moreover several commissions appointed by the crown, and several committees of parliament, whose reports contain much valuable information as to the state of the country and the condition of the people at the respective periods; and some of the more prominent of these we will now proceed to notice.

Report of committee of house of commons respecting the poor in Ireland.

In 1804 a Report was made to the house of commons by a committee which had been specially appointed to make inquiry “respecting the Poor in Ireland.” The committee, after considering the several statutes, and examining such evidence as was laid before them, came to the resolution—“that the adoption of a general system of provision for the poor of Ireland, by way of parish rate, as in England, or in any similar manner, would be highly injurious to the country, and would not produce any real or permanent advantage, even to the lower class of people who must be the objects of such support.” The committee further resolved, “that the Acts directing the establishment of a house of industry in every county and county of a city or town, have not been complied with, nor any presentment made by grand juries to assist in the support of such establishments for relief of the aged and infirm poor, and the punishment of vagrants and sturdy beggars, except in the counties of Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and Clare, and in the cities of Cork, Waterford, and Limerick.” But the committee remark, that the house of industry in Dublin is open to the admission of the poor from all parts of Ireland, which may have induced the other counties and cities to consider it sufficient, “and precluded the necessity of their making further provision for the poor.” The futility of this excuse must be sufficiently apparent, and coupled with the resolution against any systematic provision for the relief of the poor “by way of parish rate,” shows the kind of feeling which prevailed at the time in parliament on the subject. It appeared to the committee however, that the Acts directing the establishment of infirmaries or county hospitals, and granting a certain allowance from the Treasury for the salary to the surgeon or physician attending thereon, “have been carried into effect in almost all the counties;” whilst the provisions of the 57th George 3rd[^[30]] “empowering grand juries to present the sums necessary for support of a ward for idiots and insane persons have not been complied with; and the committee consider that there is a great want of accommodation for idiotic and lunatic persons, and recommend the establishment of an asylum in each of the four provinces, to be erected and maintained either by grand-jury presentment or otherwise as may thereafter be determined.” The very important objects which had been referred to the committee require however, they say, more deliberation than the advanced period of the session permitted, and they therefore recommend that the investigation should be resumed in the ensuing session; but it does not appear that this was done, although the Acts passed in the two following years with regard to dispensaries infirmaries and hospitals, may very possibly have had their origin in the inquiries instituted by this committee.

Dublin house of industry.

The notice taken of the Dublin house of industry in the above Report, as well as the real importance of the institution, renders some account of it here necessary. The house of industry was established in 1772, by the 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 11,[^[31]] under the provisions of which Act it was separated from the foundling hospital, of which it had before formed a part; and was thenceforward applied to the maintenance of such helpless men and helpless women as from age and infirmity were deemed fitting objects for admission, for the confinement of men who were committed as vagabonds or sturdy beggars, and for the punishment of such idle strolling and disorderly women as the magistrates might commit thither. Considerable additions were made to the building, and after a time some changes and modifications took place in the management, which ultimately led to the house of industry being used for the reception of poor aged and infirm men and women, idiots and incurable lunatics removed from the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, the sick poor and persons labouring under acute chronic and surgical complaints, for whom appropriate hospitals had been provided, and lastly strolling beggars thither committed by the magistrates of police. From the year 1773 to 1776 inclusive, the house of industry was supported by subscriptions, donations, and charity sermons, and afterwards by annual parliamentary grants, voluntary contributions, the profits (so called) arising from the labour of the poor, and a small sum of interest accruing on certain legacies. The voluntary contributions became less after aid was obtained from parliament, and as might be expected, soon ceased altogether. In 1776 the parliamentary grant to the institution was 3,000l.—In 1786 it was 8,600l.—In 1796 it was 14,500l.—In 1806 it was 22,177l.—In 1814 it was 49,113l.—In 1820 it was 26,474l., and in 1827 it was 23,000l.[^[32]] At first the house of industry was managed and governed by the corporation for the relief of the poor in the county of the city of Dublin, under the provisions of the Act of 1772—afterwards by seven persons balloted for and appointed “acting governors of the house of industry,” in conformity with the 39th George 3rd, cap. 38. In 1800 the number of governors was reduced to five, and in 1820 the management was vested in a single governor, with a salary of 500l. a year. The number of admissions in 1803 was 4,468, and the average number in the house was 1,313. In 1807 the admissions were 5,900, and the average number in the house was 1862. In this latter year 271 of the admissions were by committal.

Dublin Foundling Hospital.

The foundling hospital originally formed part of the house of industry, the joint establishments being founded in 1704 under the 2nd Anne, cap. 19.[^[33]] They remained so united until 1772, when the objects of the two institutions being deemed incompatible, they were as before stated placed under separate and distinct government by the 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 11.[^[33]] The object of the institution is thenceforward said to be “the preservation of the lives of deserted or exposed infants, by their indiscriminate admission from all parts of Ireland;[^[34]] putting them out to nurse in the country until they are of a proper age to be drafted into the hospital, and educating them there in such manner as to qualify them for being apprenticed to trades, or as servants, and thus rendering them useful members of society.”[^[35]] Down to 1823 the institution was supported partly by a house-tax levied on the citizens of Dublin and its liberties and suburbs, amounting to between 7,000l. and 8,000l. annually, and partly by parliamentary grants, and the rent of a small property of 115l. per annum: but the citizens of Dublin were then relieved from the house-tax, and the sum of 5l. was required to be paid with every child on its admission to the hospital, by the overseers or the minister and churchwardens of the parish whence the infant was sent, no child being admissible whose age exceeded twelve months. The aggregate of these latter payments amounted to about 2,000l. annually, and the annual grants by parliament varied from 21,554l. in 1800, to 34,000l. in 1828. The number of admissions was 2,041 in 1800, 2,168 in 1806, and 2,359 in 1811, at which time the number of children remaining on the books of the institution was 6,498.

Report on the state of disease, and the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland.

In 1819 a select committee of the commons of which Sir John Newport was the chairman, was appointed to inquire into the state of disease, and also into the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland; and a Report on each of these subjects was presented to the house in course of the session, of which Reports the following is an abstract.

On the prevalence of fever.

With regard to the first point, although it is said not to be “the most essential or most difficult object of their investigation,” the committee consider the prevalence of contagious fever in Ireland a calamitous indication of general distress; and in order “to prevent the migration through the country of numerous bodies of mendicant poor, who pressed by want and seeking for relief, have fatally contributed to the general diffusion of disease,” they recommend that magistrates, churchwardens, or other appointed officers “be empowered to remove out of their respective parishes any persons found begging or wandering as vagabonds therein, or to confine such persons to hard labour for twenty-four hours in any bridewell or other public place of confinement, or to adopt both measures as the case may require; and also to cause the persons and clothes of such vagabond beggars to be washed and cleansed during the period of such confinement.” The committee consider that the Act of last session (58th George 3rd, cap. 47)[^[36]] “enacted under circumstances of severe and calamitous visitation,” has on the whole been productive of good, and they think it of infinite moment that there should be a systematic local control established in all cities and great towns for the removal of nuisances which generate and increase disease; for which purpose they recommend that officers of health should be annually elected by the householders in places containing above 1,000 inhabitants, with power to direct the cleansing of streets &c., the removal of nuisances, the ventilation of houses, and the doing of all things necessary for the health and preservation of the inhabitants; and also that such country parishes as think proper may do the same, and that the expenses incurred in performance of these duties should be levied as a parish rate, and the expenditure accounted for as in the case of other parochial assessments.

The committee then express their intention of proceeding, “in further execution of their duty,” to inquire into the practicability of ameliorating the condition of the labouring poor, “by facilitating the application of the funds of private individuals and associations for their employment in useful and productive labour,” by which alone the entire and permanent removal of the malady can be expected, although it is, they say, much mitigated in its severity, and more circumscribed in its extent than heretofore. The disease still however, it is observed, continues to press heavily on the community, and by “the united testimonies of every competent inquirer is attributed to the want of employment of the labouring classes, as a primary and powerfully efficient cause.”

1819.
On the condition of the labouring poor.

On the second head of inquiry, the condition, or in other words, the employment of the labouring poor, the committee “find themselves in a great measure controlled by the unquestionable principle that legislative interference in the operations of human industry is as much as possible to be avoided.” There are however, they say, certain exceptions to such a rule, either when injurious impediments are to be removed, or where any branch of industry cannot at its commencement be carried on by individual exertion, on which occasions, it is considered, parliament may with advantage interpose its aid. The existence of general distress and the deficiency of employment were so notorious, that the committee deemed it unnecessary to encumber their Report with evidence on the subject. Their inquiries were particularly directed to agriculture and the fisheries, as being the two most important departments of labour, and as “those likewise to which the greatest extension may be given without hazarding reaction.” They refer to the Report of the Commissioners on the Bogs of Ireland, which they consider “prove the immense amount of land easily reclaimable, and convertible to the production of grain almost without limit for exportation”—whilst, “the small extent to which the commissioners’ recommendations have been acted upon, demonstrates lamentably that want of capital which in Ireland unnerves all effort for improvement.” The institution of commissioners of sewers, as in England, is then recommended, as is also the draining of the great bogs and marshes, and the making a legal provision for repayment of the necessary outlay. The formation of roads in the mountainous districts is likewise recommended, those districts not having, it is said, “their due share of the benefits of the grand-jury system.”

The want of capital the committee consider is attributable to a variety of causes. Capital, they justly remark, “can accumulate only out of the savings of individuals; and in Ireland there are few persons who conduct their operations on such a scale, as to admit of much surplus for accumulation.” The manufacture which flourishes most is the linen-trade, and this is said to be “spread abroad amongst a population which at the same time cultivates the soil for their sustenance,” a state of things incompatible with large savings. Whilst in agriculture, the tendency to the subdivision of farms, and the practice of throwing the expense of buildings and repairs on the tenants, prevent the accumulation of profit in the hands of the farmers, and its application to agricultural improvements. There are, it is said, two millions of acres of bog in Ireland, capable when reclaimed of growing corn; and the mountain districts comprise a million and half of acres at present nearly unproductive, but about one-half of which is suitable for agriculture, and the remainder for pasturage and planting. The reclamation and improvement of these bogs and mountain districts would, the committee observe, afford profitable employment to the people, and greatly increase the productive powers of the country; but for this capital is necessary, and in Ireland the capital is not to be found.

With regard to the fisheries, it is declared that “in whatever view they can be considered, whether as a source of national wealth, as a means of employing an overflowing population, or as a nursery of the best seamen,” they are of the utmost importance; and the revision and simplification of the fishery laws, and the direct application of encouragement to the fishermen of the coast, whose actual condition is said to be miserable, the committee consider essential to any successful fishery in Ireland. The northern, western, and southern coasts, are said to afford every advantage for a bay or coast fishery, and to be admirably suited for a deep-sea cod-fishery of great importance; and after noticing what had been done in Scotland, where an improved system of fishery laws, and parliamentary encouragement wisely applied, had been eminently successful, the committee earnestly recommend “on every ground of policy as well as justice,” that the precedent of Scotland should be applied to Ireland. The circumstances of the two countries are declared to be remarkably similar, “both being mountainous and uncultivated, and abounding with an unemployed population.”

On this last point, the committee remark—“It is almost impossible in theory to estimate the mischiefs attendant on a redundant, a growing and unemployed population, converting that which ought to be the strength into the peril of the state.” It is obvious, they say, that the tendency of such a population to general misery, and the boundless multiplication of human beings satisfied with the lowest condition of existence, must be rapid in proportion to the facility of procuring human sustenance; and it is declared—“that such a population, excessive in proportion to the market for labour, exists and is growing in Ireland, a fact that demands the most serious attention of the legislature, and makes it not merely a matter of humanity, but of state policy, to give every reasonable encouragement to industry in that quarter of the empire.” The non-residence of a great portion of the proprietors, and their spending their incomes in England, is then adverted to, as being a circumstance which “enhances the claim of Ireland on the generous consideration of parliament.”

No one better knew the state of Ireland than the chairman of this committee, the substance of whose Report is here given. We may therefore rely upon the correctness of the statement, that there was then, twenty years after the Union, a redundant, an increasing, and unemployed population in Ireland, subsisting on food obtained with peculiar facility, (the potato) and consequently “leading to the boundless multiplication of human beings satisfied with the lowest condition of existence.” Yet the land was fertile, the sea-coasts abounded in fish, and the bogs and mountain districts solicited improvement. It will probably be said that there must be something wrong in the character, habits, or social position of a people, where such circumstances existed. The Report points to want of capital, and the non-residence of proprietors, as being the cause or causes of what was wrong; and no doubt both circumstances may have been influential in the matter. But capital we are told is the accumulation of savings, which are the fruits of industry, which again is nourished and supported by its own progeny; so that a want of industry may have lain at the root of the evil as regards the mass of the population, whilst the proprietors through absence, or want of sympathy with the other classes, probably failed in their duty of originating and urging forward improvement. With the proprietor class indeed, as with the others, the capital arising from savings and applicable to objects of improvement, was of slender amount; and the committee appear to rely more upon “the generous consideration of parliament,” than upon native energy or resource, for supplying the deficiencies and remedying the evils of which they complain.

1823.
Report on the condition of the labouring poor.

In 1823 another select committee[^[37]] was appointed “to inquire into the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland, with a view to facilitate the application of the funds of private individuals and associations for their employment in useful and productive labour.” The committee made their Report on the 16th of July, and after adverting to the course pursued in the former inquiry of 1819, they state that during the last year “a pressure of distress wholly unexampled was felt in Ireland, which directed the attention of government, of parliament, and of the British public, to the condition of the Irish peasantry, and led to the appropriation of large sums voted by the legislature, and subscriptions by individuals for the purpose of mitigating if not of averting, that famine and disease which had extended to so alarming a degree in many districts in Ireland.”[^[38]]

It appears that early in May of the preceding year, a public meeting was held in the city of London to raise subscriptions for the relief of the distress in Ireland, and a committee of gentlemen was appointed to superintend the distribution of the money subscribed. Considerable grants of public money were also made by parliament for the same purpose. The committee state that the distressed districts comprised one-half of the surface of Ireland, and there were grounds for believing that considerably more than one-half of the entire population of these districts depended upon charitable assistance for support. The sums distributed through the city of London committee amounted to nearly 300,000l., which with the amount advanced by government furnished means for continuing the relief until the month of August, when the necessity for its further continuance seems to have ceased; and it is satisfactory, the committee observe, to find that the most lively feelings of gratitude have been excited by this benevolent interposition, “which it is to be hoped will tend to unite the two parts of the empire in the strong ties of sympathy and obligation.”

In the districts where the distress chiefly prevailed, the potato constituted the principal food of the peasantry, and the potato crop had failed; but there was no deficiency in the other crops, and the prices of corn and oatmeal were moderate. Indeed the exports of grain from ports within the distressed districts, was considerable during the entire period of the distress: so that those districts, the committee observe, “presented the remarkable example of possessing a surplus of food, whilst the inhabitants were suffering from actual want.” The calamity of 1822 may therefore be said to have proceeded less from want of food in the country, than from the people’s want of the means to purchase it, “or in other words, from their want of profitable employment.” In some districts where the potato failed, but where the population were engaged in the linen-trade, no individual so employed is said to have had occasion for relief; and the committee come to the conclusion that the late distress had chiefly arisen from the circumstance that the peasantry depended for subsistence upon the food raised by themselves. When the potato fails, they have not the means to purchase other food, and the potato is not only uncertain as a crop but it soon decays, so that the surplus of one year cannot be preserved to supply the deficiency in another.

The agents of government, and of the London contributors, as well as the local associations which had been formed, made a point on all occasions as far as possible, of affording the necessary assistance in return for labour; and the committee express their entire approbation of this principle. “Relief purely gratuitous (they observe) can seldom in any case be given without considerable risk and inconvenience; but in Ireland, where it is more peculiarly important to discourage habits of pauperism and indolence, and where it is the obvious policy to excite an independent spirit of industry, and to induce the peasantry to rely upon themselves and their own exertions for support, gratuitous relief can never be given without leading to most mischievous consequences.” Any system of relief, it is remarked, which leads the peasantry to depend upon the interposition of others, rather than upon their own labour, however benevolently it may be intended, cannot fail to repress the spirit of independent exertion which is essentially necessary to the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes.

The condition of the people in the districts to which the evidence obtained by the committee chiefly applied, appears “to be wretched and calamitous to the greatest degree.” A large portion of the peasantry in those districts, are described as living in a state of the utmost misery. Their cabins scarcely contain an article that can be called furniture. In some families there are no such things as bedclothes, the place of which is supplied by a little fern, and a quantity of straw thrown over it, upon which they sleep in their working clothes. The witnesses agreed in this description with regard to a large portion of the peasantry, and they agreed also in attributing the existence of this state of things to the want of employment. Yet the people are represented as being willing to labour, and we are told that they quit their homes at particular seasons in search of employment elsewhere, whilst the inhabitants of the coasts bordering on the Atlantic, carry on their backs the sand and seaweed many miles inland for the purpose of manure.

The committee are of opinion that the rapid increase of the population[^[39]] is one immediate cause of the want of employment. The demand for labour, they say, has not kept pace with the continually increasing number of persons seeking employment. Another cause of the want of employment, they consider, arises from the effect produced on the gentry of the country by the fall of prices. The fixed payments to which many of the landlords are subjected, whether in the shape of head-rents or interest on incumbrances, bear a greater proportion to the whole income than they did during the war, and consequently the balance remaining in the hands of the resident gentry is diminished, a reduced employment follows, labourers are discharged, and the distress of the higher class is thus visited upon the lower.

The want of capital was however in most instances assigned as the principal cause of the want of employment. This want was manifested in the wretched description of implements commonly in use. The ploughs, carts, harrows, were of the very rudest kind, and there appeared to be a deficiency even of these. The same want of capital has, it is said, led to the payment of wages, not in money, but by allowances in account, or as a set-off against the landlord’s claims for rent, or presentments, or some other object, which is not only a hardship to the labourer, but tends to an increase of local burdens; and as it was “generally admitted that if the wages of labour were paid in money, the labour would be more cheaply purchased and more cheerfully and efficiently given,” the committee express a hope “that a system of ready money payment may be introduced, so far at least as the public works of the country are concerned.”

The encouragement of the fisheries, the erection of piers, the formation of harbours, and the opening of mountain roads, are all recommended, as is also the instruction of the peasantry in agriculture, by combining instruction in this branch, with the other instruction imparted in the various educational establishments throughout the country. In conclusion, the committee admit that danger attends all interferences with industrial pursuits, which prosper best when left to their own natural development; but they consider that the state of Ireland constitutes it an exception to the general rule, and that the aid of government in support of local effort is there absolutely necessary.

1830.
Report of select committee on the state of the poorer classes in Ireland.

At the end of seven years, another select committee of the commons was appointed “to take into consideration the state of the poorer classes in Ireland, and the best means of improving their condition,”[^[40]] and their very elaborate and comprehensive Report, (which was ordered to be printed on the 16th of July,) will require to be especially considered.

The committee commence their Report by declaring that they entertain a deep sense of the difficulty and importance of the question referred to them, and that they have felt it their duty to make most minute inquiries into the actual state and condition of the Irish poor, considered in all points of view, moral, political, physical and economical, in order to enable the house to form a correct opinion on the entire subject. The Report is arranged under three principal heads—1st, the state and condition of the poorer classes—2ndly, the laws which affect the poor, and the charitable institutions—3rdly, the remedial measures suggested; and each of these is again subdivided into several minor headings. It is not intended to adhere to these divisions in the following summary, but to select such portions only as immediately bear upon our subject, and as are calculated to show what was then the general state of the country and the condition of the people.

State of the country, and condition of the people.

Regret is expressed by the committee at their being compelled to state “that a very considerable portion of the population is considered to be out of employment.” The number is, they say, estimated differently—by some at one-fifth, by others at one-fourth; and this want of demand for labour necessarily causes distress among the labouring classes, which combined with the consequences of an altered system of managing land, is said to produce “misery and suffering which no language can possibly describe, and which it is necessary to witness in order fully to estimate.” Yet the price of labour is not considered to have materially fallen. By returns from the county treasurers, the rate of wages appears to average 10d. per day on presentment works throughout Ireland, and an extensive contractor thinks that there is a tendency in wages to increase rather than otherwise, notwithstanding that the labourers can now, he says, purchase for 6s., what would formerly have cost them 12s. These are seemingly contradictions, and there is much more of the same kind of conflicting testimony given in the Report, which can only be accounted for by the fact, that the several parts of Ireland differ widely from each other, and that what is true in one case is not true in another. This indeed appears to be the view taken by the committee, for they say however consolatory the favourable testimony may be, it would lead to a false inference were it to induce a disbelief in the existence of very great distress and misery in Ireland. “The population and the wealth of a country may (they observe) both increase, and increase rapidly; but if the former proceeds in a greater ratio than the latter, an increase of distress among the poor may be concurrent with an augmentation of national wealth.” The state of the labouring classes must, it is considered, mainly depend on the proportion existing between the number of the people and the capital which can be profitably employed in labour. Of the truth of these propositions, there can be no reasonable doubt; neither can it well be doubted, that much of the distress and misery which were seen in Ireland, was owing to a disturbance of this proportion, the population having become greatly in excess of the capital necessary for and applicable to profitable employment.

The committee consider that it would be impossible to form a correct estimate of the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, without first ascertaining the nature of the relations which existed between landlord and tenant,—“the connexion between the inheritor and the occupier of the soil being one which must influence if not control the whole system of society.” Great attention is accordingly bestowed on this part of the subject, and much evidence was taken in reference to it.

Under the excitement of war prices, it is observed, agriculture advanced with extreme rapidity. The demand for labour increased, and the population augmented in proportion. Land rose in value from year to year, and lessees realised large profit rents by subletting, one or more persons being frequently interposed between the owner and the occupier who was ultimately liable for the rent, both to the head landlord and the intermediate tenants. It became the practice in most cases, we are told, for the occupying tenant either to sublet, or to divide the land among the members of his family—in the former case a class of middlemen was created, which operated as a bar to improvement, and led to the paying or to the promise of paying higher rents—in the latter case the practice of subdividing led to consequences perhaps still more mischievous. When the farmer of 40 acres subdivided the land among his children, those children were led to do the same among theirs, until the farm of 40 acres was cut up into holdings of one two or three acres, each holding occupied by its particular owner, and yielding no more than was barely sufficient for his subsistence. “Now if the tenant of 40 acres had been prevented from subdividing his land, he would,” as is observed by one of the witnesses,[^[41]] “have provided for his children by sending them one into the army, another into the navy, and then left his holding to a third, and thus the farm would have been continued in its first state.” The cultivation of the land so subdivided and cut up is moreover always of the very worst description. The crops are uncertain, the liabilities to scarcity greater, the cabins are most miserable, and the visitations of fever are more frequent. The soil itself becomes deteriorated by bad tillage, and not a bush nor a tree is left standing; whilst the ease with which a cabin is reared, and the meal of potatoes provided, induces early marriages, and the land teems with an excessive population.

The above is not an overdrawn description of the consequences of subdividing land, but a change in management is said to have taken place soon after the peace, when the decline in the price of agricultural produce disabled many of the middlemen as well as the occupying tenants from paying their rents, and created much anxiety and alarm in the minds of the landlords. An apprehension was moreover[moreover], we are told, generally felt that a pauper population would go on increasing, and the value of the land at the same time go on diminishing, until the entire produce would become insufficient to maintain the people. The proprietors sought to devise a remedy for this state of things, so as to prevent the occurrence of such an evil; and Dr. Doyle stated in his evidence, that they did apply remedies, the principle of which he fully approved; but he added “that he thought, and still thinks, that those remedies ought to have been accompanied by some provision for the poor.”

The remedy or change in management here adverted to was the consolidating of farms, which it is said would lead to better husbandry, to a greater certainty[certainty] of crop, to the providing farm-buildings and more comfortable habitations, and to an increase in the quantity and improvement in the quality of the produce. These are all important considerations, and if the landlords and the tenants who continued in possession were alone to be regarded, the change would appear an unmixed good. But there is another class, the ejected tenants, whose condition, it is said, necessarily becomes most deplorable. “It would be impossible for language to convey an idea of the state of distress to which the ejected tenantry have been reduced, or of the disease, misery, and even vice, which they have propagated in the towns wherein they have settled; so that not only they who have been ejected have been rendered miserable, but they have carried with them and propagated that misery.”

Such is the testimony of Dr. Doyle on this point, and although the committee express a hope that it may be regarded as descriptive of an extreme case, they yet have no doubt “that in making the change, in itself important and salutary, a most fearful extent of suffering must have been produced.” The change was however, they say, unavoidable, and delay would have increased and aggravated the evil which followed in its train. Various suggestions were made with a view to carry the country through the period of change, and the severe trials by which it must be attended—“Emigration, the improvement of bogs and waste lands; the embankment and drainage of marsh lands; the prosecution of public works on a large scale; the education of the people not only in elementary knowledge, but in habits of industry; the encouragement of manufactures; the extension of the fisheries; and lastly, the introduction of a system of poor-laws, either on the English or Scotch principles, or so modified as to be adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland,” were all recommended, and on each of these questions, the committee say, valuable evidence had been taken and would be submitted to the house.

Vagrancy.

On the subject of vagrancy, after referring to the old laws against it which had fallen into desuetude, and which are recommended to be repealed, the committee quote the 6th Anne, cap. 11,[^[42]] under which (as amended by the 9th George 2nd, cap. 6) idle vagrants, or pretended Irish gentlemen, who will not work &c., may on the presentment of a grand jury be apprehended and transported for seven years. They likewise quote The 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 30,[^[43]] for establishing houses of industry, and these statutes are said to be in full force. A table is also given, showing that on an average of eight years the number of commitments under the first-named statutes was 160 annually; and the committee observe, that “although it is necessary to continue penalties against vagrancy,” they “cannot but think that a more constitutional and efficient system may be adopted, than one which allows the penalty of transportation to be inflicted upon the mere presentment of a grand jury, and this, not for an offence defined with precision, but under contingencies extremely vague and uncertain.” In the opinion thus expressed by the committee, every one must concur.

With regard to the county infirmaries, of which |County infirmaries.|there were thirty-one,[^[44]] the committee, after referring to the several Acts under which they were established,[^[45]] state that during the last year relief had been given to 7,729 intern patients, besides other medical assistance; and that the entire incomes amounted to 54,693l., the whole derived from local subscriptions and grand-jury presentments, excepting 3,000l. (Irish currency) furnished by government. The committee recommend that the several statutes should be consolidated, and that the grand juries should be enabled to provide more than one infirmary in the larger counties, and that their presenting powers should be extended in order to guard against insufficiency in any case. An efficient audit of the accounts, and a duly authenticated Report half-yearly of all particulars connected with the hospitals, together with a regular inspection by the grand juries, are likewise recommended; and with these alterations, the committee are of opinion that “the county infirmaries of Ireland may be considered as adequate to the purposes for which they were intended.” There does not however, it is added, appear to be any reason for continuing the government grant of 3,000l. Aid from the public purse should, it is said, be reserved exclusively for loans and advances, “and for cases in which local funds are inadequate to the immediate discharge of a necessary duty.”

Fever hospitals and dispensaries.

The subject of fever and fever hospitals is next adverted to by the committee. “From the occasional failure of the potato crop, and the misery which then invariably ensues, the poor of Ireland are (it is said) peculiarly liable to fever, which has at various times spread with such violence, and to such an extent, as to require extraordinary aid, not only from private charity and local assessment, but from the public purse.” Dublin had suffered most severely from this calamity, upwards of 60,000 persons having in one year passed through the fever hospitals of that city. In 1817 fever extensively prevailed in Ireland, and a board of health was constituted whose Report to government showed “that on a moderate calculation a million and a half of persons suffered from fever, of which number at least 65,000 had died.” By the 58th George 3rd, cap. 47,[^[46]] additional facilities were given for establishing fever hospitals, and provision was made for the appointment of local boards of health. By the 59th George 3rd, cap. 41, effect was given to the recommendations of the select committee of 1819,[^[47]] and under these statutes fever hospitals have been established in most parts of Ireland. No county is said to be without one in Munster, and the county of Cork has four, and Tipperary eight; but many counties in the provinces of Ulster and Connaught have omitted to provide fever hospitals, and the committee consider that if the grand juries persist in such omission, the providing of them should be made compulsory. With respect to dispensaries for the medical relief of the sick poor, these were sanctioned by the 45th George 3rd, cap. 111,[^[48]] under which Act nearly 400 are said to have been established, “affording relief annually to upwards of half a million of persons.” But some doubts appear to have arisen as to whether the presentments for their support were optional or otherwise, and the committee recommend that such doubts should be removed by making the presentment imperative, as was apparently the intention of the framers of the statute; and for security against abuse, it is also recommended that a Report of all matters connected with the dispensary, should in each case be annually submitted to the grand jury making the presentment.

Lunatic asylums.

The provision for the lunatic poor is said to have been for a long time very defective in Ireland. A hospital attached to the house of industry in Dublin, a large asylum at Cork, and cells connected with some of the county infirmaries, were all that existed for the safe custody and proper treatment of the insane poor. In 1810 a grant was made for the establishment of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, with accommodation for 200 patients. In 1817 the subject was inquired into by a select committee,[^[49]] in accordance with whose recommendation the 57th George 3rd, cap. 106,[^[50]] was passed, empowering the lord lieutenant to fix certain districts within which lunatic asylums should be erected, the cost in the first instance to be advanced by government, but to be ultimately repaid by local presentments, from which also the maintenance of the asylums is to be derived. “When these institutions are completed, which is easily practicable within three years, every county in Ireland will be provided with receptacles for their lunatic poor; and if these shall not be found sufficient for incurable as well as curable cases, a ward or two may be attached to each at a moderate expense, and the exigency may be thus completely provided for.” This quotation is given from the inspector’s Report to the Irish government on the subject in 1830, and the committee express their satisfaction, that as regards “one of the most painful afflictions to which humanity is exposed, there has been provided within a few years, a system of relief for the Irish poor as extensive as can be wished, and as perfect and effectual as is to be found in any other country.” Still however the cases of idiots and incurable lunatics are not separately provided for; and the committee consider it important that curable and incurable cases should be kept distinct, and that space should not be appropriated to the safe custody of incurables, which would be more usefully employed in the treatment of cases where there was a probability of recovery. Every lunatic establishment in Ireland, whether public or private, is subject to the visitation of the inspectors of prisons, who report regularly upon the condition and management of these institutions.

After referring to the 11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30, the 46th Geo. 3rd, cap. 95, and the 58th Geo. 3rd, cap. 47,[^[51]] |Houses of industry.| the Acts under which houses of industry are established and regulated, the committee state that the number of these institutions in Ireland does not exceed twelve “including the great establishment bearing that name in Dublin, which is supported exclusively by votes of parliament.” There are eight in Munster, and three in Leinster, but none either in Ulster or Connaught. A proposition is said to have been made for extending houses of industry generally throughout the country, and for rendering their erection and support compulsory. But the committee are of opinion that “establishments of this description combining the two distinct purposes of punishment and relief, are not likely to be useful either as prisons or hospitals.” They think that coercion is more likely to be effective when applied in houses of correction, than when applied in asylums intended for old age infirmity and destitution. They also think that the criminal ought to be separated from the distressed poor, and that these asylums should be reserved for particular descriptions of the latter class only—or in the words of Dr. Chalmers, for “cases of hopeless and irrecoverable disease, and all cases of misery the relief of which has no tendency to increase the number of cases requiring relief.” To the poor who suffer from loss of sight or limbs, and the deaf and dumb, the house of industry judiciously managed, would they say “afford a suitable place of refuge.” Such are the views of the committee with regard to houses of industry, and they do not materially differ from what prevailed in England a century previous with regard to the almshouses or old parish poorhouses then so common.

Voluntary charities.

The number of voluntary charities in Ireland maintained by private benevolence, independently of any contribution from general or local taxation, said to be very great, and they are stated to be most liberally supported. “Among them will be found schools, hospitals, Magdalen asylums, houses of refuge, orphan establishments, lying-in hospitals, societies for relief of the sick and indigent, mendicity associations, and charitable loans.” Yet notwithstanding the existence of these multifarious institutions, and the active exercise of private benevolence, and the frequent collections by the clergy of all persuasions,[^[52]] “the committee have not the satisfaction to hope that more is accomplished than the mitigation of distress.” Societies for the suppression of mendicity have it is said been formed in many parts of Ireland, on a plan similar to those established in London, Bath, and other places in England. In Dublin the income of the Mendicity Society amounts to 7,000l., and the committee are informed “that although the voluntary contributions are scarcely sufficient to maintain the establishment, still on the whole, supporting the poor as they do, they have enough.” When the funds are very low, a threat is held out either of applying to parliament for a power of compulsory assessment, or else that the poor people supported by the society will be discharged into the streets, “and by these means additional subscriptions are called in.” Institutions of this kind, supported by private contributions, are said to be complained of as casting an unfair and unequal burden upon the benevolent, and it has been suggested that they should be supported or at least aided by local assessment: but this suggestion, the committee observe, involves the entire principle of a poor-law, a question on which at that advanced period of the session they are not prepared to enter. They however recommend it as a subject for future consideration and inquiry.

Emigration.

With regard to emigration, although in some districts “there exists a population exceeding that for whose labour there is a profitable demand,” the committee nevertheless consider emigration to the full as much an imperial as a provincial question. The cause of the great influx of Irish labourers into Great Britain is, they say, the higher rate of wages which prevails there, and emigration from Ireland would “diminish that inducement, and lessen the number of Irish labourers in the British market.” It might seem therefore that the expense of such emigration should be defrayed out of the general funds of the empire. But the committee say they are not prepared to recommend any compulsory system of taxation for the purpose, “nor yet to discuss the probability of the repayment of advances made to colonial settlers.” They have however no doubt that colonization might be carried on to a great extent, “if facilities were afforded by government to those Irish peasants who were disposed voluntarily to seek a settlement in the colonies, and who could by themselves or their landlords provide all the expense required for their passage and location.” In districts where the population is in excess, it must be alike the interest of all, of the landlords, the tenants, and the labourers, that such excess should be removed; and the committee consider the most legitimate mode of effecting this to be—“that upon the actual deposit of a sum sufficient to cover the entire expense, the government should undertake the appropriation of that sum in the way most effectual for the purpose”—that is, for the conveyance of the emigrants to, and helping them to obtain a suitable location in, some British colony.

Amongst the various remedial measures suggested, the committee urge at great length the importance of an extension of public works, roadmaking, drainage, embankments &c., founded chiefly on the example of Scotland, and the benefits which there ensued from opening out the Highlands by the formation of roads and the construction of the Caledonian canal. The evidence given by Mr. Telford the eminent engineer in 1817, is cited and much relied upon in this particular, and certainly no higher authority on the subject could have been adduced. An emendation of the grand-jury and vestry laws is also recommended, together with several other matters of minor import.

In the present very comprehensive Report, as in all preceding Reports on the state of Ireland, |Education.| whether by committees of parliament or Royal commissions, the necessity for education is adverted to as a matter of paramount importance. It is now moreover said, that “the entire body of the Roman catholic hierarchy have by petitions to both houses of parliament, entreated that the recommendations of the select committee of 1827,[^[53]] should be adopted”—on which account, as well as on account of its intrinsic importance with regard to the question of education generally, that Report now requires to be noticed.

1828.
Report of the Select Committee on Education in Ireland.

The Report of the select committee appointed in 1827 here referred to, was printed by order of the House of Commons on the 19th May 1828.[^[53]] The committee declare that they “have proceeded to consider the Reports on the state of education in Ireland, with a full sense of the importance of the subject, and of the peculiar difficulties with which it is encompassed.” During several centuries, they observe, the necessity for providing the means of education in Ireland has been recognised. As early as the reign of Henry the Eighth the prevalence of crime was attributed to the ignorance of the people, “and education was relied upon as producing moral improvement, and supporting the institutions of civil policy.” Various statutes were passed and charters granted, and endowments made, with a view to this object; and inquiries had likewise been at different times instituted with the same intent. Of the commissions appointed, the two latest are the most important, namely that issued in 1806, and which terminated in 1812, after making “fourteen Reports upon the schools of royal and private foundation, the charter schools, foundling hospital, and the parochial and diocesan schools;” and that issued in 1824, which terminated in 1827, after making “nine Reports on the various establishments for education.” But the interference of the State was not solely confined to regulation and inquiry. “Parliamentary grants have been at various times most liberally made for the purposes of education,” and of these a list is given, amounting in the whole to 2,914,140l. The number of scholars receiving instruction in the existing schools in 1826, is stated to be 560,549, “leaving in all probability upwards of 150,000 without the means of education.” Of the number of scholars returned, it is said that 394,732 are brought up in the common pay schools, 46,119 in schools supported exclusively by the Roman catholic priesthood and laity, 84,295 in various establishments of private charity, and 55,246 in schools maintained in whole or in part at the public expense.

In pursuing their investigations, the committee say “their sole object has been to consider the principle upon which it will be expedient hereafter to grant public money in aid of Irish education;” and they prefer recording the conclusions at which they have arrived in the form of abstract propositions, instead of reasoning upon and discussing the merits of different modes of procedure in this respect. After the most anxious deliberation, they have, they say, adopted a series of resolutions on the subject, which are given at length, and in fact constitute the substance of their Report; and it is now proposed to select such portions of these resolutions as will enable the reader to see clearly what the views of the committee were. To give the whole is unnecessary, and would be inconvenient. The various Reports of committees and commissioners on Irish education are so voluminous, as to make it impossible to quote them at length, and the abstracts of the more important portions herein given will be sufficient for our purpose.

A passage from the Report of the commissioners in 1812[^[54]] is cited, to the effect—“that no plan of education, however wisely and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effectual operation in Ireland, unless it be explicitly avowed, and clearly understood as its leading principle, that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomination of Christians.” A passage from the Report of the commissioners in 1824 is likewise cited, to the effect—“that in a country where mutual divisions exist between different classes of the people, schools should be established for the purpose of giving to children of all religious persuasions, such useful instruction as they may severally be capable and desirous of receiving, without having any ground to apprehend any interference with their respective religious principles.” Another passage of the same Report is also cited—“in favour of the expediency of devising a system of mutual education, from which suspicion should if possible be banished, and the causes of distrust and jealousy be effectually removed; and under which the children may imbibe similar ideas, and form congenial habits, tending to diminish, not to increase, that distinctness of feeling now but too prevalent.”

The committee of 1828 adopt these several propositions, and resolve—“that it is of the utmost importance to bring together children of different religious persuasions in Ireland, for the purpose of instructing them in the general subjects of moral and literary knowledge, and providing facilities for their religious instruction separately, when differences of creed render it impracticable for them to receive religious instruction together.” And in accordance likewise with the recommendations of the commissioners of 1812 and 1824, the committee further resolve—“that considering the very large sums of public money annually voted for the encouragement of education in Ireland, as well as the extreme discretion required in adopting a new system of united education, without permitting any interference in the peculiar religious tenets of the scholars—it is indispensably necessary to establish a fixed authority acting under the control of the government and of the legislature, bound by strict and impartial rules, and subject to full responsibility for the foundation control and management of such public schools of general instruction, as are supported on the whole or in part at the public expense.”

The committee likewise record their opinion, that the selection of teachers in the schools should be made without regard to religious distinction, and that their qualifications should be proved by instruction or examination in a model school, the teacher first producing a certificate of character from a clergyman of his own communion. And they further resolve—“that for the purpose of carrying into effect the combined literary, and the separate religious education of the scholars, the course of study for four days of the week should be exclusively moral and literary; and that of the two remaining days, the one should be appropriated solely to the separate religious instruction of the protestant children, the other for the separate religious instruction of the Roman catholic children—the religious instruction in each case being placed under the exclusive superintendence of the clergy of the respective communions.” The committee moreover recommend that a board of education should be appointed, “all persons being eligible without reference to religious distinctions;” and they also recommend, that as a rule the children be required to pay such small sums as may be directed, “but that free scholars, being either orphans or the children of parents unable to afford payment, be received on the recommendation of the parochial clergy, and dissenting ministers, and persons subscribing to the schools, or having granted land for the site.”

The conditions under which the committee consider that the parliamentary grants in aid of the establishment and support of schools in Ireland, should in future be made, are as follows—

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

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

“The managers to undertake to conduct the school according to the prescribed rules.

“Gratuities to teachers according to regulations prescribed by the commissioners.

“Books for the literary instruction of the children to be furnished at half price, and for the separate religious instruction at prime cost.

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

“A system of inspection to be established.

“Public aid to depend on private contributions, and adherence to the commissioners’ rules.”

In conclusion the committee observe, that it has been their object to discover a mode in which the combined education of protestant and Roman catholic children may be carried on, resting upon religious instruction, but free from the suspicion of proselytism.—They have endeavoured, they say, “to avoid any violation of the liberty of conscience, or any demands or sacrifices inconsistent with the religious faith of any denomination of Christians.” They propose to leave to the clergy of each persuasion, the duty and the privilege of giving religious instruction to those who are committed to their care. And finally, they express an earnest hope that if adopted, their recommendations will satisfy moderate and rational men of all opinions.

There can be no doubt that the committee were entitled to avow the expectation here expressed. The perfect fairness and impartiality of what they proposed with regard to religious teaching, and the simplicity and moderation of their recommendations, fortified moreover as these substantially are by the Reports of the commissions of 1812 and 1824, seem to leave no room for cavil or objection on any side. Yet we do not find that any steps were specifically taken for carrying the committee’s recommendations into effect until October 1831, when Mr. Stanley,[^[55]] the then Secretary for Ireland, addressed a letter to the Duke of Leinster, stating that it had been determined to constitute a board for the superintendence of a system of national education in Ireland, and that it was proposed, with the duke’s consent, to place him at its head. The motives for constituting the new board, and the powers intended to be conferred upon it, “and the objects which it is expected that it will bear in view and carry into effect,” are all then very fully explained.

1831.
Mr. Stanley’s letter to the Duke of Leinster on the formation of the Board of National Education.

A preceding government, it is observed, imagined that they had found a superintending body acting upon the impartial and non-proselytising system recommended by the committee of 1812, and had intrusted the distribution of the national grants to the care of the Kildare-street Society.[^[56]] But, the letter proceeds—

“His Majesty’s present government are of opinion that no private society deriving a part, however small, of their annual income from private sources, and only made the channel of the munificence of the legislature, without being subject to any direct responsibility, could adequately and satisfactorily accomplish the end proposed; and while they do full justice to the liberal views with which that society was originally instituted, they cannot but be sensible that one of its leading principles was calculated to defeat its avowed objects, as experience has subsequently proved that it has. The determination to enforce in all their schools the reading of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment, was undoubtedly taken with the purest motives; with the wish at once to connect religious with moral and literary education, and at the same time not to run the risk of wounding the peculiar feelings of any sect, by catechetical instruction, or comments which might tend to subjects of polemical controversy. But it seems to have been overlooked, that the principles of the Roman catholic church (to which, in any system intended for general diffusion throughout Ireland, the bulk of the pupils must necessarily belong) were totally at variance with this principle; and that the indiscriminate reading of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment, by children, must be peculiarly obnoxious to a church which denies, even to adults, the right of unaided private interpretation of the sacred volume, with respect to articles of religious belief.”

“Shortly after its institution, although the society prospered and extended its operations under the fostering care of the legislature, this vital defect began to be noticed; and the Roman catholic clergy began to exert themselves with energy and success against a system to which they were on principle opposed, and which they feared might lead in its results to proselytism, even although no such object were contemplated by its promoters. When this opposition arose, founded on such grounds, it soon became manifest that the system could not become one of national education.”

“The commissioners of education in 1824-5, sensible of the defects of the system, and of the ground, as well as the strength of the objection taken, recommended the appointment of two teachers in every school, one protestant and the other Roman catholic, to superintend separately the religious education of the children; and they hoped to have been able to agree upon a selection from the Scriptures that might have been generally acquiesced in by both persuasions. But it was soon found that these schemes were impracticable; and, in 1828, a committee of the house of commons,[^[57]] to which were referred the various Reports of the commissioners of education, recommended a system to be adopted, which should afford, if possible, a combined literary, and a separate religious education, and should be capable of being so far adapted to the views of the religious persuasions which prevail in Ireland, as to render it, in truth, a system of National education for the poorer classes of the community.”

The letter next points out, that on the composition of the board will in a great degree depend the obtaining of public confidence, and the success of the measure; and it is then declared to be the intention of government—

“That the board should exercise a complete control over the various schools which may be erected under its auspices; or which having been already established, may hereafter place themselves under its management, and submit to its regulations. Subject to these, applications for aid will be admissible from Christians of all denominations; but as one of the main objects must be to unite in one system, children of different creeds, and as much must depend upon the co-operation of the resident clergy, the board will probably look with peculiar favour upon applications proceeding either from—

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

“2nd.—One of the clergymen, and a certain number of the parishioners professing the opposite creed; or

“3rd.—Parishioners of both denominations.

“Where the application proceeds exclusively from protestants, or exclusively from Roman catholics, it will be proper for the board to make inquiry as to the circumstances which lead to the absence of any names of the persuasion which does not appear.

“The board will note all applications for aid, whether granted or refused, with the ground of the decision; and annually submit to parliament a Report of their proceedings.

“They will invariably require, as a condition not to be departed from, that local funds shall be raised, upon which any aid from the public will be dependent.”

The letter then goes into a statement of various kinds of local aid to be required; the school-hours to be observed; and the time for religious instruction. After which, it proceeds—

“The board will exercise the most entire control over all books to be used in the schools, whether in the combined moral and literary, or separate religious instruction; none to be employed in the first except under the sanction of the board, nor in the latter, but with the approbation of those members of the board who are of the same religious persuasion with those for whose use they are intended. Although it is not designed to exclude from the list of books for the combined instruction such portions of sacred history, or of religious or moral teaching as may be approved of by the board, it is to be understood that this is by no means intended to convey a perfect and sufficient religious education, or to supersede the necessity of separate religious instruction on the day set apart for the purpose.”

The part here printed in italics is not in the copy of the letter published with the 1st Report of the Commissioners of National Education, but it is in a copy annexed to the 8th Report, and is believed to be the true one. The remainder of the letter relates to school arrangements and other proceedings of the board.

1832.
Discussion in parliament on the government plan of education.

On the 6th of March 1832, a lengthened discussion on the government plan of education took place in the house of commons, in the course of which Mr. Stanley stated his views on the subject in answer to the objections raised by several members; and ended by saying, that “He was far from thinking the system now about to be carried into effect was perfect, but he believed that it was the most likely to unite the people of all religious persuasions in the education of their children, and produce those results which, the Scriptures said, were the fruits of the Christian religion—peace, meekness, gentleness and love.” On the 23rd of July following, 37,500l. was voted “in aid of the funds to be appropriated to the new system of education,” which thenceforward may be regarded as permanently established; and in 1844 the board was duly incorporated by royal charter.

We now approach a period when public attention was very generally and very earnestly directed to the condition of the poor, and to the operation of the laws providing for their relief. In 1832 commissioners were appointed to inquire into these subjects in England, and the reader is referred to the 2nd volume of the ‘History of the English Poor Laws’ for information as to their Report on the occasion, and also for an account of the important measure which was founded thereon.

1833.
Commission to inquire into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland.

On the 25th September 1833, commissioners were appointed “to inquire into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, and into the various institutions at present established by law for their relief; and also whether any and what further remedial measures appear to be requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor or any portion of them.”[^[58]] An extensive field of inquiry was thus laid open to the commissioners, who forthwith entered upon the duties confided to them; and it must be admitted that there could hardly have been any more important, or more highly responsible.

1835.
The commissioners’ first report.

In July 1835 the commissioners made their first Report—“as to the modes in which the destitute classes in Ireland are supported, to the extent and efficiency of those modes, and their effects upon those who give, and upon those who receive relief.” A large body of evidence is appended to the Report, which evidence the commissioners say is now complete, containing parochial examinations made in one parish in each of seventeen counties, relative to the present modes of relieving—

“Deserted and orphan children.

“Illegitimate children and their mothers.

“Widows having families of young children.

“The impotent through age or other permanent infirmity.

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

“The able-bodied out of work.

“Vagrancy as a mode of relief.”

An examination of every dispensary in nine counties is also given, and of every infirmary, and some dispensaries and hospitals in eleven counties. Likewise the examinations concerning institutions not medical, for the relief of different classes of the poor, which are said to be “principally mendicity institutions, houses of industry, almshouses, and societies for visiting the destitute and distributing food, money, or clothes,” in all the large towns.

After thus enumerating the several heads or divisions under which their investigations were conducted, the commissioners proceed to state—

1st.—The difficulties they had to encounter from the extensive and complicated nature of the subject, and the peculiar social condition of the Irish people.

2ndly.—The course they pursued in collecting information, “showing how far it is full and impartial, and therefore how far worthy of confidence.” And

3rdly.—The reasons why they are not yet able to report—“Whether any and what further remedial measures appear to be requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor, or any of them.”

These points are all largely dwelt upon, especially the first. On every side, the commissioners say, they were assailed by the theories of persons who might be supposed to possess means of forming a sound judgment—“one party attributed all the poverty and wretchedness of the country to an asserted extreme use of ardent spirits, and proposed a system for repressing illicit distillation, for preventing smuggling, and for substituting beer and coffee. Another party found the cause in the combination among workmen, and proposed rigorous laws against trades unions. Others again were equally confident, that the reclamation of the bogs and waste lands was the only practicable remedy. A fourth party declared the nature of the existing connexion between landlord and tenant to be the root of all the evil. Pawnbroking, redundant population, absence of capital, peculiar religious tenets and religious differences, political excitement, want of education, the maladministration of justice, the state of prison discipline, want of manufactures and of inland navigation, with a variety of other circumstances, were each supported by their various advocates with earnestness and ability, as being either alone, or jointly with some other, the primary cause of all the evils of society; and loan funds, emigration, the repression of political excitement, the introduction of manufactures, and the extension of inland navigation, were accordingly proposed each as the principal means by which the improvement of Ireland could be promoted.” The commissioners abstain from expressing their opinion upon any of these propositions, but they determine “that the inquiry should embrace every subject to which importance seemed to be attached by any large number of persons.”

Under the second division of their Report, the commissioners advert in considerable detail to the obvious impossibility of collecting the necessary information themselves, and the difficulty of finding Irishmen at once competent and impartial to undertake the duty; and they determine as the only mode of combining local knowledge with impartiality, to unite in the inquiry “a native of Great Britain with a resident native of Ireland.” And in order that the evidence might be full and impartial, and be collected and registered in a satisfactory manner, the assistant-commissioners who had been appointed were desired to adopt in their investigations the following course of procedure:—

First—“To request the attendance of persons of each grade in society, of each of the various religious persuasions, and of each party in politics; to give to the testimony of each class an equal degree of attention, and to make the examinations in presence of all. Not to allow any person to join in conducting the examination, and to state at the opening of the proceedings, that any statement made by an individual, and not impugned by any person present, would be considered to be acknowledged as at least probable by all.”

Second—“To note down at the time of examination, the replies given, or the remarks which occurred to him; to register, as nearly as might be possible in the words of each witness, the statements which might be made; to register the names of all the persons who attended the examination; and before proceeding to examine another district, to send the minutes of the previous examination to the office in Dublin, signed by both the assistant-commissioners.”

With regard to the third head, that is the reasons for not yet being able to report “whether any and what further remedial measures appear to be requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor, or any portion of them”—The commissioners observe that the reasons are sufficiently apparent in the fact that they have not yet completed their inquiry into the causes of destitution. They would, they say, be little worthy of the high trust reposed in them, were they content with deciding upon the extent and nature of distress, or upon the means of only present alleviation. “We consider it our duty (they remark) to endeavour if possible, to investigate the causes of the destitution which we discover, and to ascertain why classes of his Majesty’s subjects are from time to time falling into a state of wretchedness; why the labouring population do not provide against those events which seem inevitable; why the able-bodied labourer does not provide against the sickness of himself, or that of the various members of his family; against the temporary absence of employment; against the certain infirmity of age; against the destitution of his widow and his children in the contingent event of his own premature decease; whether these omissions arise from any peculiar improvidence in his habits, or from the insufficiency of employment, or from the low rate of his wages.” It would not even be sufficient to answer that the limited amount of employment and the rate of his wages will not permit him. “It is our duty (they say) to carry the investigation further, and at least to endeavour to trace whether there be any circumstances which restrict the amount of employment, or the rate of wages; or in any other way offer impediments to the improvement of the people, which are such as can be remedied by legislation.”

The commissioners accordingly in the first place directed their attention to agriculture, that being, they observe, the principal occupation of the Irish people. There was said to be much unreclaimed land which might be brought into cultivation, and throughout Ireland the land already in cultivation might be better worked, and thus the demand for labour be increased. The commissioners wish to ascertain the extent to which such statements are well founded, and whether the evil is attributable to want of capital or to want of skill; and “whether there are any circumstances which have deterred British capitalists from coming to Ireland, or have prevented the investment in agriculture of capital existing in Ireland, and to what extent those circumstances have proved injurious; and in case the evil arises from a deficiency of skill in the tenantry, to ascertain whether there are any means by which a superior knowledge of agriculture can be diffused.” By endeavouring to prevent the occurrence of destitution, they consider that they will more effectually fulfil their mission, than if they merely devised the means for its alleviation after it had arisen. They shall, they say, “feel deep pain should they be compelled to leave to any portion of the peasantry of Ireland, a continuation of distress on the one hand, or a mere offer of charity on the other—far more grateful (it is added) would be the office of recommending measures by which the industrious labourer might have the prospect of a constant field for his exertions, with a remuneration sufficient for his present demands, and admitting of a provision against those contingencies which attach to himself and to his family.” They declare it to be their anxious wish to do more than diminish the wretchedness of portions of the working classes, and that they are most solicitous to place the whole of those classes in the greatest state of comfort consistently with the good of the rest of society.

In answer to certain complaints which appear to have been made “within and out of parliament” of the time and money consumed in the present inquiry, the commissioners explain at some length the impossibility of proceeding more rapidly. They however admit that the time will exceed that occupied by several other inquiries, and particularly by that on the English Poor-law, to which they specially refer—“because the highest estimate has been formed of the manner in which it was conducted, both as regards diligence and accuracy, and because they feel that in measuring their labours, and the time they are likely to occupy by such a standard, they shall have taken the surest mode of showing that they have used the utmost diligence.”

The foregoing summary exhibits the general purport of the commissioners’ first Report, which it will be observed aims rather at explaining what ought to be and what is further intended to be done, than pointing out remedies or deducing practical conclusions from the “large body of evidence” which had been taken. It is impossible not to concur in the views and reasonings expressed by the commissioners with regard to the spirit in which the inquiry should be conducted, and also as to the objects sought to be attained: but nothing definite is proposed, nor any practical suggestion offered; and as the commissioners admit that they had been occupied a year and ten months in the inquiry, we can hardly wonder that some impatience should be manifested “both in and out of parliament” on the occasion. The evidence presented with the Report was no doubt important, and calculated to afford much valuable information on the several points to which it specifically referred;[^[59]] but the mere collecting and grouping of such evidence, unaccompanied by any condensed summary of its import, or practical deduction from its details, could not be expected to be very satisfactory or very useful, either to the legislature or to the public generally.

1836.
The commissioners’ second report.

In the early part of the following year the commissioners made a second Report “on that part of the inquiry which respects the various institutions at present established by law for the relief of the poor.” These are said to be—medical institutions, lunatic asylums, houses of industry, and foundling hospitals; and although much of the information given respecting them has been anticipated by the Report of the select committee of 1830,[^[60]] it will be convenient to insert in this place a short abstract of the Report on these institutions, the most numerous of which are the medical charities.

Infirmaries.

To establish an infirmary, 500l. must be first raised by voluntary contributions, to which a grant not exceeding 1,500l. may be made by government, provided the distance be not less than ten miles from any existing infirmary. The funds for its support are provided by grand-jury presentments not exceeding 600l. in any one year, and a grant of 100l. by government towards the salary of the surgeon. The number of county infirmaries is stated to be 31, in addition to which there are 5 city and town infirmaries. Each is governed by a corporation, consisting of certain official persons, together with the donors of twenty guineas and upwards, and annual subscribers of three guineas. The corporation of governors appoint the medical officers, regulate the admission of patients, enact by-laws, and have the entire control of the institution.

Dispensaries.

Dispensaries were established for affording medical relief to those poor persons who are too distant to receive aid from an infirmary. They are governed by the same corporation, with the addition of subscribers of not less than one guinea annually, and are supported by such subscriptions, together with grand-jury presentments not exceeding a like amount. The number of separate dispensaries is 452, and there are 42 more united with fever hospitals.

Fever hospitals.

The great prevalence of fever in Ireland rendered hospitals for the special treatment of fever cases, absolutely essential to the general security; and for providing such hospitals, of which there are 28, grand juries may present sums equal to double the amount of voluntary subscriptions, and government may also make advances for the purpose, to be subsequently repaid by instalments. By the 58th Geo. 3rd, cap. 47,[^[61]] provision is made for the appointment of a board of health, with extensive powers, whenever fever occurs in a town or district; but it appears that this provision has been rarely acted upon.

The total expense of supporting these infirmaries, dispensaries and fever hospitals, in the year 1833 as stated in tables appended to the Report, was 109,054l.—of which amount grand-jury presentments furnished 55,065l.—subscriptions 37,562l.—parliamentary grants 6,661l., and petty-sessions fees and miscellaneous funds 9,766l. The entire number of cases relieved in the same year, was 30,634 intern, and 1,243,314 extern.

Lunatic asylums.

The lord-lieutenant is empowered to direct as many lunatic asylums to be provided as he may think fit, and grand juries are required to present such sums as may be necessary for defraying the expense of erecting and supporting them. Eleven were completed, or in progress towards completion; and the total amount of expenditure on them in 1833 was 26,247l.

With regard to these institutions the commissioners remark—“The medical relief at present afforded throughout Ireland is very unequally distributed. In the county of Dublin, containing exclusive of the city about 176,000 inhabitants, and about 375 square miles, there are 24 dispensaries, or one to every 7,333 inhabitants. In the county of Meath, containing about 176,800 inhabitants, and about 886 square miles, there are 19 dispensaries, or one for every 9,306 inhabitants. In the county of Mayo, containing 366,328 inhabitants, and about 2,100 square miles, there is only one dispensary supported at the public expense.” Such inequalities, it is observed, are the necessary consequence of a law which renders the establishment of a dispensary contingent upon voluntary contributions. In districts abounding in rich resident proprietors, a medical charity is least wanted, but subscriptions are there most easily obtained; whilst in districts where there are few or possibly no resident proprietors, the aid is most wanted, but there are no subscribers, and consequently there is no medical charity.

Houses of industry.

Houses of industry (or workhouses) are established and regulated under the provisions of the 11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30,[^[62]] the 46th Geo. 3rd, cap. 95,[^[62]] and the 58th Geo. 3rd, cap. 47.[^[62]] There are nine of these institutions in Ireland, and of some of them a brief account is given; but it is said to be difficult to judge of the economy with which they are conducted. The total income of the houses of industry in the year 1833 derived from grand-jury presentments, subscriptions, and miscellaneous sources, and including a parliamentary grant of 20,000l. to the Dublin institution, was 32,967l., and the number of inmates on the books was 2,732.

Foundling hospitals.

There were two large foundling hospitals, one in Dublin, the other in Cork, and a small one in Galway. With the exception of one child under peculiar circumstances, there have been no admissions for some time into the Dublin house, and the establishment is only used for the occasional accommodation of such children as are still on the books; and as these are disposed of, will cease altogether. The Cork hospital is supported principally by a tax on coals: it is still open, and has 1,329 on the books. At Galway the number of children is only eight. These institutions, the commissioners remark, are now acknowledged to be in their nature utterly indefensible. The expense of the Cork and Galway establishments in 1833, derived from miscellaneous sources, was 6,628l. The parliamentary grant to the Dublin foundling hospital in 1828 was 34,000l. Supposing it to have been 30,000l. in 1833, it would make the entire charge of these institutions, in the latter year, amount to 36,628l.

The total charge of the foregoing institutions as stated in the tables appended to the Report, is as follows:—

Infirmaries Dispensaries Fever hospitals	}	£109,054
Lunatic asylums		26,247
Houses of industry		32,967
Foundling hospitals		36,628
		£204,896

Of this sum upwards of 50,000l. appears to have been furnished by parliamentary grants, the remainder being derived from grand-jury presentments, voluntary contributions, and other local sources.

The commissioners think that some provision ought to be made for poor persons discharged from hospitals in a state of convalescence, and also for persons suffering from chronic and incurable disease, neither being proper objects of ordinary hospital treatment. They are likewise of opinion that a public provision should be made for the deaf dumb and blind poor, such persons being, they consider, peculiarly deserving of assistance.

The impatience of the public was not likely to be satisfied by the appearance of this second Report, which contained no recommendations, and added nothing to what was previously known of the condition of the Irish poor. For a series of years inquiry after inquiry had been instituted by commissions and committees into that condition, with a view to devise means for its amelioration; but without leading to any satisfactory result. And now, after two years and a half had been spent in prosecuting like inquiries, and this moreover by men specially selected for the task, and standing deservedly high in public estimation for talent and acquirements, people began to fear that the result would be again the same, and that time labour and money would have been expended in vain. It was known, or at least generally surmised, that differences of opinion existed among the commissioners, as to the nature of the recommendations which should be made by them conjointly; some being in favour of the imposition of a general rate for the relief of the poor, and others advocating a system of voluntary contributions for that purpose. The latter pointed to Scotland as an example to be followed, and the former to England. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the question should occupy a good deal of public attention, and that those who possessed, or were supposed to possess information on the subject, should be induced or invited to express their opinions with regard to it. Pamphlets were written, and speeches made, contrasting the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the compulsory and the voluntary systems of relief, as well generally, as with reference to the case of Ireland; and the entire subject became a matter of very general discussion, of which the proceedings under the amended Poor Law in England naturally formed a part, and thus gave additional interest to the question.

‘Suggestions’ by the author, January 21, 1836.

The author being at that time a member of the English Poor Law Commission, the subject was necessarily much pressed upon his notice; and having reason to believe that a statement of his views in reference to it would be acceptable, he prepared for the consideration of government, a series of suggestions founded upon a general view of social requirements, and upon his experience of the working of the English Poor Law. He did not pretend to any personal knowledge of the state of Ireland, but considered that the information furnished by the evidence appended to the commissioners’ first Report, showed that destitution and wretchedness prevailed to such an extent among the poorer classes in that country, that legislative interference could no longer be delayed without compromising the general security; and contrasting the state of the English poor with what existed in Ireland, he attempted to point out a remedy, or at least a palliative for the evils which prevailed there. This he was induced to do without waiting for the final report of the inquiry commissioners, as the mode of comparison pursued by him was different from the course which they would adopt, and likewise because the commissioners indicated their intention of taking the general circumstances of the country into consideration, whilst he proposed to limit his suggestions to one object, with a view to a single and specific remedy.

These ‘Suggestions’ were framed in considerable detail, and recommended the application of the amended system of English Poor Law to Ireland, with certain modifications, calculated to guard against the evils which had sprung from the old law in England, and at the same time be sufficient for the relief of a large portion of the destitute classes who stood most in need of it. The ‘Suggestions’ were presented to Lord John Russell in January, about the same time as the commissioners’ second Report; and on perusing them now, after so long an interval, and with all the experience since acquired, the author finds little to alter in what he then ventured to suggest.

1836.
The commissioners’ third report.

The long-expected final Report was at length received, embodying all the recommendations for ameliorating the condition of the Irish poor, which after nearly three years of inquiry and deliberation, the commissioners felt themselves warranted in submitting to government. It commenced by stating, that the evidence annexed to the former Reports proves the existence of deep distress in all parts of Ireland. There is not, it is said, the division of labour which exists in Great Britain. The labouring class look to agriculture alone for support, whence the supply of agricultural labour greatly exceeds the demand for it; and small earnings, and widespread misery, are the consequence. Tables are given of the population of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, of the classes and occupations in each, the quantity of cultivated and uncultivated land, the proportions of agricultural produce, and the wages of agricultural labourers—from which, the commissioners say it appears—“that in Great Britain the agricultural families constitute little more than a fourth, while in Ireland they constitute about two-thirds of the whole population; that there were in Great Britain in 1831,—1,055,982 agricultural labourers, in Ireland 1,131,715,—although the cultivated land of Great Britain amounts to about 34,250,000 acres, and that of Ireland only to about 14,600,000.” So that there are in Ireland about five agricultural labourers for every two that there are for the same quantity of land in Great Britain. It further appears that the agricultural produce of Great Britain is more than four times that of Ireland; that agricultural wages vary from 6d. to 1s. a day; that the average of the country is about 8½d.; and that the earnings of the labourers come on an average of the whole class, to from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a week, or thereabouts, for the year round.

Thus circumstanced, the commissioners observe, “it is impossible for the able-bodied, in general, to provide against sickness or the temporary absence of employment, or against old age, or the destitution of their widows and children in the contingent event of their own premature decease.” A great portion of them are, it is said, insufficiently provided with the commonest necessaries of life. “Their habitations are wretched hovels, several of a family sleep together upon straw, or upon the bare ground, sometimes with a blanket, sometimes even without so much to cover them; their food commonly consists of dry potatoes, and with these they are at times so scantily supplied, as to be obliged to stint themselves to one spare meal in the day. There are even instances of persons being driven by hunger to seek sustenance in wild herbs. They sometimes get a herring or a little milk, but they never get meat except at Christmas, Easter, and Shrovetide.[^[63]] Some go in search of employment to Great Britain during the harvest, others wander through Ireland with the same view. The wives and children of many are occasionally obliged to beg, but they do so reluctantly and with shame, and in general go to a distance from home that they may not be known. Mendicity too is the sole resource of the aged and impotent of the poorer classes in general, when children or relatives are unable to support them. To it therefore crowds are driven for the means of existence, and the knowledge that such is the fact leads to an indiscriminate giving of alms, which encourages idleness, imposture and general crime.”

Such is described as being the condition of the great body of the labouring classes in Ireland, and “with these facts before us (the commissioners say) we cannot hesitate to state, that we consider remedial measures requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor—What those measures should be is a question complicated, and involving considerations of the deepest importance to the whole body of the people, both in Ireland and Great Britain. Society is so constructed, its various parts are so connected, the interests of all who compose it are so interwoven, the rich are so dependent on the labour of the poor, and the poor upon the wealth of the rich, that any attempt to legislate partially, or with a view to the good of a portion only, without a due regard to the whole of the community, must prove in the end fallacious, fatal to its object, and injurious in general to a ruinous degree.”

None will deny the truth of these propositions, which doubtless ought to be kept in view in legislating for the relief of the poor, or for any other matter of general interest or importance. Their enunciation does not however materially assist in discovering a remedy for the fearful amount of destitution and suffering shown to prevail in Ireland, the descriptions of which as given in the Report, are here brought together in one point of view, in order that the reader may have the extent of the evil laid open before him.

It has, the commissioners say, “been suggested to us to recommend a Poor Law for Ireland similar to that of England, but we are of opinion that the provision to be made for the poor in Ireland must vary essentially from that made in England.” The English law, it is said, requires that work and support should be found for all able-bodied persons who may be out of employment, and such work and support will now be provided for them only in a workhouse; so that if workhouses were to be established in Ireland as a means of relief, they must be sufficiently capacious for setting vast numbers of unemployed persons to work within them. The commissioners state that they “cannot estimate the number of persons in Ireland out of work and in distress during thirty weeks of the year, at less than 585,000, nor the number of persons dependent upon them at less than 1,800,000, making in the whole 2,385,000—This therefore (it is added) is about the number for which it would be necessary to provide accommodation in workhouses, if all who require relief were there to be relieved;” and they consider it impossible to provide for such a multitude, or even to attempt it with safety. The expense of erecting and fitting up the necessary buildings would, they say, “come to about 4,000,000l., and allowing for the maintenance of each person 2½d. only a day (that being the expense at the mendicity establishment of Dublin) the cost of supporting the whole 2,385,000 for thirty weeks would be something more than 5,000,000l. a year; whereas the gross rental of Ireland (exclusive of towns) is estimated at less than 10,000,000l. a year, the net income of the landlords at less than 6,000,000l., and the public revenue is only about 4,000,000l.”

The commissioners do not however think that such an expense would actually be incurred. On the contrary they are convinced that the able-bodied and their families would endure any misery rather than make a workhouse their domicile; and they add—“now if we thought that employment could be had provided due efforts were made to procure it, the general repugnance to a workhouse would be a reason for recommending that mode of relief, for assistance could be afforded through it to the few that might from time to time fall into distress, and yet no temptation be afforded to idleness and improvidence; but we see that the labouring class are eager for work, that work there is not for them, and that they are therefore, and not from any fault of their own, in permanent want.” This, it is said, is just the state to which, on the authority of a passage quoted from the English Poor Law Commissioners,[^[64]] the workhouse system is held not to be applicable; and if it were established in Ireland, would, the commissioners are persuaded, “be regarded by the bulk of the population as a stratagem for debarring them of that right to employment and support with which the law professed to invest them.” It is unnecessary, the commissioners add, to point out the feelings which must thus be created, or the consequences to which they might lead; and they conclude this section of their Report by saying—“We cannot therefore recommend the present workhouse system of England as at all suited to Ireland.”

Having thus rejected the workhouse, the commissioners next consider how far the objections applicable to a provision for enforcing in-door work, would be applicable to one for enforcing out-door employment; and they come to the conclusion, that having regard to the number of persons for whom work must be found, and the experience of the consequences to which out-door compulsory employment led in England, any attempt to introduce it into Ireland would be attended with most pernicious results. “If (it is said) the farmers were compelled to take more men than they chose or thought they wanted, they would of course reduce the wages of all to a minimum. If, on the other hand, magistrates or other local authorities were empowered to frame a scale of wages or allowances, so as to secure to each labourer a certain sum by the week, we do not think they could, with safety to their persons and property, fix a less sum than would be equal to the highest rate of wages pre-existing in the district for which they were required to act; nor would anything less enable the labourer to support himself and his family upon such food, with such clothing, and in such a dwelling, as any person undertaking to provide permanently for human beings in a civilized country could say they ought to be satisfied with. It would therefore (the commissioners think) be necessary to fix different scales of wages or allowances, which would average for the whole of Ireland about 4s. 6d. a week. This would be to double the present earnings of the body of labourers, and these appear to amount to about 6,800,000l. a year. The additional charge would therefore come to about that sum.”

The tenantry, the commissioners say, cannot be expected to bear this burden. They have not capital for it, and the charge must therefore fall upon the landlords. Rents would diminish, commerce would decay, and the demand for agricultural produce and all commodities save potatoes and coarse clothing would contract, while the number of persons out of employment and in need of support would increase, and general ruin ensue. The well-known case of “Cholesbury” is then cited, and held up as an example of what would follow in Ireland, “at the end of a year from the commencement of any system for charging the land indefinitely with the support of the whole labouring part of the community.”

“With such feelings,” the commissioners observe, “and considering the redundancy of labour which now exists in Ireland, how earnings are kept down by it, what misery is thus produced, and what insecurity of liberty property and life ensues, we are satisfied that enactments calculated to promote the improvement of the country, and so to extend the demand for free and profitable labour, should make essential parts of any law for ameliorating the condition of the poor. And for the same reasons, while we feel that relief should be provided for the impotent, we consider it due to the whole community, and to the labouring class in particular, that such of the able-bodied as may still be unable to find free and profitable employment in Ireland, should be secured support only through emigration, or as preliminary to it—those who desire to emigrate should be furnished with the means of doing so in safety, and with intermediate support when they stand in need of it at emigrant depôts. It is thus, and thus only, that the market of labour in Ireland can be relieved from the weight that is now upon it, or the labourer be raised from his present prostrate state.” Long quotations are then given from the several Reports of the assistant-commissioners, showing that, “the feelings of the suffering labourers in Ireland are also decidedly in favour of emigration.” They do not desire workhouses, it is said, but they do desire a free passage to a colony where they may have the means of living by their own industry.

The commissioners conclude this section of their Report by saying, that they do not look to emigration as an object to be permanently pursued upon an extensive scale, nor as the chief means of relief for the evils of Ireland, but “as an auxiliary essential to a commencing course of amelioration.” They then “proceed to submit a series of provisions for the improvement of Ireland, and the relief of the poor therein, including in the latter means of emigration.”

The recommendations extend from section 5 to 15 inclusive, and are all more or less connected with agriculture, which is said to be the only pursuit for which the body of the people of Ireland are qualified by habit, and that it is chiefly through it that any general improvement in their condition can be effected. It is recommended—

1st. That a board constituted on the principle of the Bedford Level Corporation should be established, for carrying into effect a system of national improvement in Ireland, having a president and vice-president with suitable salaries, and who together with two of the judges to be appointed for the purpose, are to form a court of review and record, with power to hear and determine all matters connected with such improvements.

2nd. The “Board of Improvement” is to be authorized to appoint commissioners, who are to be armed with the usual powers given to commissioners under Enclosure Acts, and are from time to time to make surveys and valuations, and partitions of waste lands, the Board of Works making such main drains and roads as may be required, and taking, in consideration thereof, an allotment of a certain part of each waste in trust for the public, in proportion to the expense incurred in making the survey, partition, drainage, and roads.

3rd. With regard to land under cultivation, it is recommended that both draining and fencing should be enforced by law, and that the “Board of Improvement” should be empowered to appoint local commissioners for the purpose, for any district they may think proper. If the outlay to be incurred should exceed what the landlords or occupiers may be able to pay, 5 per cent. on the amount may be annually assessed and made payable to the Board of Works, which in consideration thereof is to advance the requisite sum—the funds placed at its disposal being proportionally increased.

4th. The “Board of Improvement” to be enabled to cause cabins which may be nuisances to be taken down, and to require the landlords to contribute towards the expense of removing the occupants and providing for them.

5th. The “Board of Improvement” to establish an agricultural model school, with four or five acres of land attached, in so many parishes or districts as may be thought necessary, the master to undergo due examination, and to give instruction in letters and in agriculture.

6th. Tenants for life, with the approval of the “Board of Improvement,” to be empowered to grant leases for thirty-one years, and to charge the property with the amount expended in effecting permanent improvements.

7th. A fiscal board to be established in every county, with the powers to make presentments for public works now vested in grand juries, and to be required to present such sums as may be appointed by the Improvement Board.

8th. The Board of Works to be authorized to undertake any public works “such as roads, bridges, deepening rivers, or removing obstructions in them, and so forth,” that within certain limitations may be approved by the “Board of Improvement.”

A dissertation is then introduced on the effect of Irish immigrants on the labour-market of England, and ending with this quotation from Burke—“England and Ireland may flourish together. The world is large enough for us both. Let it be our care not to make ourselves too little for it.” The commissioners say it was their intention “to inquire relative to trade and manufactures, to the fisheries, and to mining; but that it has been found impossible to go into those matters through want of time.”

The foregoing summary of the commissioners’ recommendations can hardly be said to come within the province of poor-law legislation, but it has been thought right to insert them here, in order that the reader may see what were the commissioners’ views with regard to the state of Ireland, and especially with regard to its wants, which apparently consist in a want of capital, and a want of skill. The first is proposed to be furnished by government through the Board of Works, the last it is proposed to supply by constituting a “Board of Improvement.”

The 16th section of the Report commences with the declaration “We now come to measures of direct relief for the poor.” After adverting to the Poor Laws of England and Scotland, the one carried into universal effect by local assessments, and the other “in general supported by voluntary contributions administered by officers known to the law and responsible to it”—the commissioners say “they have shown by their second Report that the institutions existing in Ireland for the relief of the poor are houses of industry, infirmaries, fever hospitals, lunatic asylums, and dispensaries; that the establishment of these, except as to lunatic asylums, is not compulsory, but dependent upon private subscriptions, or the will of grand juries; that there are but nine houses of industry in the whole country; that while the provision made for the sick poor in some places is extensive, it is in other places utterly inadequate; and that there is no general provision made for the aged, the impotent, or the destitute.” Much, it is added, is certainly given in Ireland in private charity, “but it is not given upon any organised system of relief, and the abundant alms which are bestowed, in particular by the poorer classes, unfortunately tend to encourage mendicancy with its attendant evils.”

The commissioners then declare that upon the best consideration they have been able to give to the whole subject, they think that a legal provision should be made, and rates levied, “for the relief and support of incurable as well as curable lunatics, of idiots, epileptic persons, cripples, deaf and dumb and blind poor, and all who labour under permanent bodily infirmities—such relief and support to be afforded within the walls of public institutions; also for the relief of the sick poor in hospitals, infirmaries, and convalescent establishments, or by extern attendance and a supply of food as well as medicine where the persons to be relieved are not in a state to be removed from home; also for the purpose of emigration, for the support of penitentiaries to which vagrants may be sent, and for the maintenance of deserted children; also towards the relief of aged and infirm persons, of orphans, of helpless widows with young children, of the families of sick persons, and of casual destitution.”

For effecting these several purposes, it is recommended that powers should be vested in Poor Law Commissioners as in England, “for carrying into execution all such provisions as shall be made by law for the relief of the poor in Ireland, and that they shall be authorized to appoint assistant-commissioners to act under their directions.” It is proposed that the commissioners should divide the country into relief districts, and cause the lands of each to be surveyed and valued, with the names of all proprietors of houses or lands and of all lessees and occupiers thereof, and the annual value of such houses and lands respectively, the same to be lodged at such place within the district as the commissioners shall appoint, and public notice thereof to be given.

It is also recommended that a board of guardians should be elected for each district by the ratepayers, consisting of proprietors, lessees, and occupiers, a certain number of the board to go out each year and others to be elected in their stead. The board of guardians to have the direction of all the institutions for the relief of the poor within the district which are supported by local rates, and to cause them to be duly upheld and maintained. If any district refuse or neglect to appoint guardians, or when appointed if the guardians refuse or neglect to act, the Poor Law Commissioners to be empowered to appoint assistant-commissioners for such district with suitable salaries, who are to exercise all the powers of the board of guardians. The salaries to be paid by a rate on the district.

It is likewise proposed that there should be so many asylums in Ireland for the relief and support of lunatics and idiots, and for the support and instruction of the deaf and dumb and blind poor, so many depôts for receiving persons willing to emigrate, and so many penitentiaries for vagrants, as the Poor Law Commissioners shall appoint—that these several establishments should be national, and that for maintaining them &c. the commissioners should be empowered to rate the whole of Ireland, and to require the boards of guardians to raise a proportional share thereof in each district, according to the annual value of its property. It is moreover recommended that there should be in each district an institution for the support and relief of cripples, and persons afflicted with epilepsy or other permanent disease; also an infirmary, hospital and convalescent establishment, and such number of dispensaries as may be necessary, the whole to be provided for by local assessment. A loan fund administered according to regulations approved by the commissioners, is likewise recommended to be established in every district.

With regard to emigration, as the whole United Kingdom will, it is said, “be benefited in a very great degree, and particularly in point of revenue, by the improvement which extensive emigration coming in aid of a general course of amelioration cannot fail to produce in Ireland, one-half of the expense should, the commissioners submit, be borne by the general funds of the empire.” And considering the particular benefit which Ireland will derive from it, and especially those landlords whose estates may thus be relieved from a starving population, it is proposed that in rural districts the other half should be defrayed partly by the national rate, and partly by the owners of the lands from which the emigrants remove, or from which they may have been ejected within the preceding twelve months. It is further proposed that all the necessary arrangements for carrying on emigration, should be made between the Poor Law Commissioners and the Colonial Office; “and that all poor persons whose circumstances require it, shall be furnished with a free passage and with the means of settling themselves in an approved British colony;” and likewise—“that the means of emigration shall be provided for the destitute of every class and description who are fit subjects for emigration; that depôts shall be established, where all who desire to emigrate may be received; that those who are fit for emigration be there selected for the purpose, and that those who are not shall be provided for under the directions of the Poor Law Commissioners;” who will moreover be authorized to borrow moneys from the Exchequer Bill Loan Commissioners for the purposes of emigration, or for defraying the cost of any buildings they may think necessary, and also “to secure the repayment thereof by a charge upon the national rate.”

The commissioners likewise propose that the laws with respect to vagrancy should be altered. “At present,” they say, “persons convicted of vagrancy may be transported for seven years—our recommendation is that penitentiaries shall be established to which vagrants when taken up shall be sent; that they be charged with the vagrancy before the next quarter sessions, and if convicted shall be removed as free labourers to such colony, not penal, as shall be appointed for them by the Colonial Department.” But the wages earned in the colony are to be attached until the expense of their passage be defrayed; and it is added by way of summary, that by such provisions as are now suggested, “all poor persons who cannot find means of support at home, and who are willing to live by their labour abroad, will be furnished with the means of doing so, and with intermediate support, if fit to emigrate; and if not, will be otherwise provided for, while the idle who would rather beg than labour, will be taken up, and the evil of vagrancy suppressed.”

The 58th George 3rd, cap. 47, and an Act of the following year (cap. 41)[^[65]] amending the same, are then referred to, and the commissioners recommend that the powers given by these Acts to vestries should be transferred to the boards of guardians of each district, and that officers of health should be elected by them for every parish within their jurisdiction—such officers of health to grant tickets of admission to the next emigration depôt to any poor inhabitants of their parish who may, on behalf of themselves or their families, demand the same; and also, where necessary, to procure means for passing such persons to the depôt. The officers of health are moreover to pass all persons taken up under the provisions of the above Acts to a penitentiary, and also to cause all foundlings to be sent to nurse, “and when of a suitable age to cause them to be removed to an emigration depôt, from whence they may be sent to an institution in some British colony, which shall be appointed for receiving such children, and training and apprenticing them to useful trades or occupations.” The officers of health are also to provide in like manner for all orphan children,[^[66]] and the funds for the several purposes are to be raised by local assessment in the district. Provision is likewise to be made at each depôt for receiving the persons sent thither by the officers of health, such persons to be there supported and set to work until the period for emigration arrives; and any persons who after entering an emigration depôt shall leave it, “without discharging such expenses as may have been incurred with respect to them, or who shall refuse to emigrate, shall be subjected to the provisions recommended with respect to vagrants.”

With respect to the relief of the aged and infirm, of orphans, helpless widows with young children, and destitute persons in general, it is stated that there is a difference of opinion—some of the commissioners “think the necessary funds should be provided in part by the public through a national rate, and in part by private associations, which, aided by the public, should be authorized to establish mendicity-houses and almshouses, and to administer relief to the indigent at their own dwellings, subject however to the superintendence and control of the Poor Law Commissioners; while others think the whole of the funds should be provided by the public, one portion by a national rate and another by a local rate, and should be administered as in England by the board of guardians of each district.” The majority are however of opinion, “that the plan of voluntary associations, aided by the public, should be tried in the first instance.” Recommendations are then made as to the mode of raising and apportioning the rate. The commissioners have, they say, “anxiously considered the practicability of making the rate payable out of property of every description; but the difficulty of reaching personal property in general by direct taxation, except through very inquisitorial proceedings, has obliged them to determine on recommending that the land should be the fund charged in the first instance with it.”

There being, the commissioners say, reason to believe that the landed property of Ireland is so deeply encumbered, that a rate might absorb the whole income of some of the nominal proprietors, the Masters of the Court of Chancery were consulted on the subject, and from the facts they stated, “it appears that the average rent of land is under 1l. 12s. 6d. the Irish acre, equal to about 14s. 2d. the English; that the gross landed rental of Ireland amounts to less than 10,000,000l.; that the expenses and losses cannot be taken at less than ten per cent., nor the annuities and the interest of charges payable out of the land at less than 3,000,000l. a year; so that the total net income is less than 6,000,000l.” The commissioners think therefore, that the encumbrancers should bear a share of the burden, and recommend “That persons paying any annual charge in respect of any beneficial interest in land, shall be authorised to deduct the same sum in the pound thereout, that he pays to the poor-rate.” They also recommend “that the original rate shall never be raised by more than one-fifth, unless for the purpose of emigration.”

As regards voluntary associations, it is proposed that the Poor Law Commissioners shall frame rules for their government, and that each association shall transmit to the commissioners an estimate of its probable expenditure and its funds for the year ensuing, and that they shall award such grant to it as they think proper. The commissioners to be also authorised “to advance to any voluntary association, out of the national rate, the whole sum which may be necessary for the building and outfit of a mendicity or alms house for any parish;” and if such mendicity or alms house be not afterwards duly maintained, the sum so advanced is to be repaid by the parish to the credit of the national rate.

Certain recommendations are then made with the view of promoting sobriety, and lessening “the inordinate use of ardent spirits”—also with reference to the Board of Charitable Bequests, whose functions may, it is suggested, be advantageously transferred to the Poor Law Commissioners—likewise the details of a plan for purchasing the tithe composition, and vesting it in the Poor Law Commissioners as a fund for the relief of the poor, by doing which, it is said, “there would be a surplus of 313,000l. a year applicable to the purposes of the national rate.” In conclusion, the commissioners express their belief, that upon the whole there is a rising spirit of improvement in Ireland, which however requires to be stimulated by sound legislation, “or it cannot speedily relieve the country from the lingering effects of the evil system of former times.” At present, it is observed, with a population nearly equal to half that of Great Britain, Ireland yields only about a twelfth of the revenue to the state that Great Britain does, nor can it yield more until it has more to yield. Increased means must precede increased contribution, and to supply Ireland with these is, the commissioners say, the great object of their recommendations.

Such was the commissioners’ final Report on the condition of the Irish poor and the means for its amelioration, the substance and general import of which I have endeavoured to give with the fulness and completeness the importance of the subject demanded. The Report was not however signed by all the commissioners. Three of their body withheld their signature, and recorded their “reasons for dissenting from the principle of raising funds for the relief of the poor by the voluntary system, as recommended in the Report.”[^[67]] The ‘Reasons’ are set forth in thirteen propositions, the most material of which are the following.

“Because—in the lamentably distressed state of the Irish poor, any system of relief to be effectual must be comprehensive, uniform, and prompt; whilst the very constitution of voluntary associations proclaims that their operations must be tardy; and circumstanced as Ireland is in the distribution of her population, must be partial and precarious.

“Because—it is notorious that many contributions, in name voluntary, are frequently obligations of the severest character. The pressure of such a tax must be unequal. The class least removed from want, would furnish as it now does, the largest number of contributors, and to the greatest amount; whilst the wealthier classes, resident as well as absentee, would in a great measure be exempted from the liability of contributing in proportion to their wealth, or even from contributing at all.

“Because—viewing the peculiar state of society in Ireland, the extent to which religious zeal prevails, as well as the influence it must exercise, we consider the difficulties attendant on the raising of a voluntary fund in the first instance, and of an impartial distribution of relief in the next, all but insurmountable.

“Because—the mendicity institutions of Dublin, Limerick, Newry, Birr, Sligo, Waterford and Londonderry, as well as the voluntary poor’s fund established in some of the rural districts, afford strong proofs of the inefficiency of the support afforded to these institutions; for although they have not totally failed, yet their subscriptions are falling off, and they are by no means adequate to the relief of the objects they contemplate.

“Because—although we admit that there are districts in Ireland in which voluntary societies might be established, and which would afford means of constructing a local administration for the management of the poor’s fund—still we feel satisfied that in the present state of society, and under the existing distribution of the population, such a system cannot be either comprehensive or uniform. We are therefore of opinion that the fund should be obtained by an assessment, wholly and not partially compulsory; and that it will be most efficiently managed by elective boards of guardians as in England, directed by responsible public officers whose proceedings shall be subjected to the strictest public scrutiny.”

These are no doubt weighty reasons in favour of certain means being provided to meet a certainly recurring contingency. But reasons were also adduced on the opposite side of the question, the other eight commissioners having in a series of sixteen propositions likewise recorded their “reasons for recommending voluntary associations for the relief of the poor;”[^[68]] of which ‘Reasons’ the following are the chief:—

“Because—there are and must necessarily be continually arising, many cases of real destitution which cannot be relieved by a compulsory assessment, without bringing claims upon it to an unlimited extent. The attempt was made in England to meet all cases of distress by a compulsory rate, and the consequence was, that in one year the rate amounted to the enormous sum of more than 7,800,000l. sterling; and besides the oppressive amount of the assessments, it did much evil in pauperising a large portion of the labouring population.

“Because—although such cases of distress might, and probably would be, relieved by spontaneous charity, yet the leaving of such cases of distress to be relieved by the operation of undirected benevolence, inevitably leads to an extensive vagrancy. This is now the state of Ireland. On the most moderate computation the amount of spontaneous alms given, chiefly by the smaller farmers and cottars, is from one to two millions sterling annually; but being given without system or without inquiry to the good and to the bad, the really destitute and the pretenders to destitution receive alike their maintenance out of the earnings of the industrious, to their great impoverishment, and to the great injury of the morals and good order of the kingdom.

“Because—the most direct and effectual, if not the only means of avoiding these two great evils, namely, an extensive and ruinous pauperism created by an attempt to make compulsory provision for all cases of destitution, and an extensive and equally ruinous vagrancy created by the want of public provision, is to endeavour to bring voluntary almsgiving under regulations and system, so as to direct it to the relief of real distress exclusively.

“Because—the best means of systematising and regulating voluntary almsgiving, is to hold out the offer of a measure of public aid for all voluntary associations, based on certain principles, and governed by fixed regulations approved by a central board.

“Because—while a fund thus founded upon voluntary contributions would provide effectual relief for those who are really destitute, the very nature of it would debar the poor from establishing legal claims upon it; since the contribution to a voluntary fund being wholly spontaneous, the contributors could at any time withhold them, if an attempt were made to compel an appropriation of the joint fund contrary to their instructions.

“Because—the example of an organised system of relief for the poor by voluntary contribution is afforded in Scotland, where it has been eminently successful.

“Because—although the system of providing for the poor by means of voluntary associations, aided by the public purse, and constructed upon well-digested principles, may not succeed at once in every part of the country—yet that, so far as it does succeed, it will tend to bring the population into a sound state with respect to the poor, and will we trust gradually work its way over the face of the island, and probably supersede in many places, as the Scottish system does so extensively, the necessity of a compulsory rate. Whereas we are convinced, that although a compulsory rate might be rendered general more rapidly, and be administered by artificial means, it would every day become more difficult to manage, and tend to bring the country into a worse state than our inquiry has found it.”

The arguments for and against establishing a system of relief in Ireland founded upon voluntary contributions, are here deliberately stated by the advocates of such a procedure on one side, and by its opponents on the other. The question is vitally important with regard to the relief of the Irish poor, and deserves the most careful consideration. If the voluntary system be susceptible of the organisation and the certainty its advocates assume, it might doubtless be made to a considerable extent available, although still open to the objection that it would operate unequally upon the absentee and the resident proprietor, upon the liberal man and the niggard. The majority of the commissioners, we see, attach much weight to the example of Scotland, where they believe the voluntary system to have “been eminently successful.” How little ground there was for such belief, is shown in the recent working of that system;[^[69]] and as regards the combining public aid with voluntary contributions which is recommended, it may be remarked, that such a combination has always led to the whole charge being eventually borne by the public.

Mr Bicheno’s remarks on the evidence.

In addition to the two schedules of ‘Reasons’ already noticed, another document was appended to the Report, entitled ‘Remarks on the Evidence &c., by one of the Commissioners.’ This was prepared by Mr. Bicheno, as an exposition of his own peculiar views, and fills upwards of forty closely printed folio pages. It contains a good deal of information upon the state of the country, and the condition and habits of the people, selected from the evidence furnished by the assistant-commissioners; but is too long for insertion. The concluding paragraph however indicates the spirit in which the ‘Remarks’ were written, and may therefore have a place; it is as follows—“After all the assistance that can be extended to Ireland by good laws, and every encouragement afforded to the poor by temporary employment of a public nature, and every assistance that emigration and other modes of relief can yield, her real improvement must spring from herself, her own inhabitants, and her own indigenous institutions, irrespective of legislation, and English interference. It must be of a moral nature; the improvement of the high and the low, the rich and the poor. Without this, her tenantry will be still wretched, and her landlords will command no respect; with it, a new face will be given to the whole people.”

Mr. G. C. Lewis’ remarks on the third report.

Another paper, entitled ‘Remarks on the Third Report of the Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners,’ was submitted to government shortly after the delivery of that Report. It was dated in July 1836, and was drawn up by George Cornewall Lewis Esq.,[^[70]] who had been one of the assistant-commissioners for prosecuting the inquiry in Ireland. The objections to the system, or rather the several systems of relief recommended by the commissioners, are stated by Mr. Lewis with great force and clearness, and he comes to conclusions on the whole question very similar to those contained in the ‘Suggestions’ which had been submitted by the author in the month of January preceding.[^[71]] He proposes to apply the principle of the amended English Poor Law to Ireland, including the workhouse, with regard to the rejection of which by the commissioners, he remarks—“as the danger of introducing a poor-law into Ireland is confessedly great, I can conceive no reason for not taking every possible security against its abuse. Now if anything has been proved more decisively than another by the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Act in England, it is that the workhouse is an all-sufficient test of destitution, and that it is the only test; that it succeeds as a mode of relief, and that all other modes fail. Why therefore, this tried guarantee against poor-law abuses is not to be employed, when abuses are, under the best system, almost inevitable, it seems difficult to understand. If such a safeguard were to be dispensed with anywhere, it would be far less dangerous to dispense with it in England than in Ireland.”

An account of the further steps taken with reference to the commissioners’ Report, and as regards the whole of the very important question to which it applies, will be given in the next chapter.