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

by Sir George Nicholls

CHAPTER III.

Recommendation in the king’s speech—Motions and other proceedings in the House of Commons—Lord John Russell’s instructions to the author—The author’s first Report—Lord John Russell’s speech on introducing a bill founded on its recommendations—Progress of the bill interrupted by the death of the king—Author’s second Report—Bill reintroduced and passed the Commons—Author’s third Report—Bill passes the Lords, and becomes law.

The impatience generally felt for the Report of the Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners, was not a little increased by the uncertainty as to what would be its nature. It was known that there were great differences of opinion among the commissioners with regard to the remedy, although they were all agreed as to the existence of the evil, and the necessity for something being done towards its mitigation; but what that something should be, was a question on which it was understood they by no means coincided. It was feared therefore, that the present inquiry would end, as others had ended, without any practical result. An impression had long prevailed, and was daily becoming stronger, of the necessity for making some provision for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. The perpetually-increasing intercourse between the two countries, brought under English notice the wretched state of a large proportion of the people in the sister island; and the vast numbers of them who crossed the Channel in search of the means of living, and became more or less domiciled in the large towns and throughout the western districts of England, made it a matter of policy, as it assuredly was of humanity, to endeavour to improve their condition; and nothing seemed so equitable or so readily effective for the purpose, as making property liable for the relief of destitution in Ireland, as was the case in England—in other words, establishing some description of poor-law.

The king’s speech on opening parliament, February 4, 1836.

On the assembling of parliament, the subject was thus referred to in the Royal speech—“a further Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland will speedily be laid before you. You will approach this subject with the caution due to its importance and difficulty; and the experience of the salutary effect produced by the Act for the amendment of the laws relating to the poor in England and Wales, may in many respects assist your deliberations.” A few days after (February 9th) Sir Richard Musgrave moved for leave to bring in a bill for the relief of the poor of Ireland in certain cases—“He himself,” he said, “lived in an atmosphere of misery, and being compelled to witness it daily, he was determined to pursue the subject, to see whether any and what relief could be procured from parliament.” On the 15th of February another motion was made by the member for Stroud for leave to introduce a bill for the ‘Relief and Employment of the Poor of Ireland;’ and on the 3rd of March following, a bill was submitted by Mr. Smith O'Brien, framed upon the principle that in a system of poor-laws for Ireland, there ought to be local administration, combined with central control—“local administration by bodies elected by, and representing the contributors to the poor-fund, and general central supervision and control on the part of a body named by the government, and responsible to parliament.”

Lord John Russell’s observations on the commissioners’ Report, April 18, 1836.

These bills were all introduced, it will be observed, irrespective of the final Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, which indeed had not yet been presented. But on the 18th of April, in answer to a question respecting it, Lord John Russell, then Secretary of State for the Home Department, said “that the Report had been under the consideration of government, and they certainly had found in it a great variety of important matters; at the same time he must add, that the suggestions in it were not of that simple and single nature as to allow them to be adopted without the caution which was recommended by the commissioners themselves.” He could not, he said, conclude without adding, “that the Report was not only of extreme importance, but that the subject of it was of a nature to render it absolutely necessary that some measure should be brought forward and adopted. It would be anxiously considered by the government with a view to such measures, and there were none as affecting Ireland, either at present or perhaps within the next hundred years, which could possibly be of greater magnitude.” |Lord Morpeth’s observations in reference to the Poor-Law question.| On the 4th of May Mr. Poulett Scrope moved a series of resolutions expressive of the necessity for some provision for the relief of the Irish poor—in commenting on which, Lord Morpeth[^[72]] admitted “that the hideous nature of the evils which prevailed amongst the poorer classes in Ireland, called earnestly for redress, and he thought no duty more urgent on the government and on parliament than to devise a remedy for them.” Government were now he said engaged in determining on the steps proper to be taken, and at the first moment they were in a condition to propose such a general measure as they could recommend for adoption on their own responsibility, they would do so. On the 9th of June following, on the motion for postponing the consideration of Sir Richard Musgrave’s bill, Lord Morpeth again assured the house “that the subject was under the immediate consideration of government; and that he was not without hope of their being enabled to introduce some preparatory measure in the present session; but at all events they would take the first opportunity in the next session, of introducing what he hoped would be a complete and satisfactory measure;” and here the matter rested for the present.

Parliament prorogued August 20, 1835.

Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, without anything having been done, either with the bills introduced by individual members, or in regard to the Report of the commissioners of inquiry. The recommendations of the commissioners seem indeed to have increased rather than lessened the difficulties attending any measure for the relief of the Irish poor, owing probably to the recommendations “not being of that simple and single nature” to which the home secretary adverted in his address to the house on the 18th of April. Public attention nevertheless continued to be directed to the subject with undiminished earnestness, and government felt the necessity of coming to some early and definite conclusion as to the steps to be taken in regard to it.

The author’s connexion with the subject.

We have now reached a portion of our narrative when the author will be compelled to speak of himself, and the part taken by him, first in devising a poor-law for Ireland, and next in superintending its introduction into that country; and he is very anxious to bespeak an indulgent consideration for the difficulty in which he is placed, by having been thus personally engaged in the transactions which he will have to describe. The great social importance of the Irish Poor Law, imposes upon him the duty of giving a full and complete account of all that took place with regard to it; and he feels that this duty cannot be rendered less imperative, by the fact of his official connexion with the measure. He will therefore proceed to detail the circumstances as they severally occurred; and it will be more simple, and may save circumlocution for him to speak in the first person, on the occasions in which he was himself immediately concerned.

Lord John Russell’s letter of instructions, August 22, 1836.

On the 22nd of August I received directions to proceed to Ireland, taking with me the Reports of the commissioners of inquiry, and there to examine how far it might be judicious or practicable to offer relief to whole classes of the poor, whether of the sick, the infirm, or orphan children—whether such relief might not have the effect of promoting imposture, without destroying mendicity—whether the condition of the great bulk of the poorer classes would be improved by such a measure—whether a rate limited in its amount rather than its application, might be usefully directed to the erection and maintenance of workhouses for all those who sought relief as paupers—whether any kind of workhouse can be established which should not give its inmates a superior degree of comfort to the common lot of the independent labourer—whether the restraint of a workhouse would be an effectual check to applicants for admission; and whether, if the system were once established, the inmates would not resist, by force, the restraints which would be necessary. Supposing the workhouse system not to be advisable, I was directed to consider in what other mode a national or local rate might be beneficially applied; and to examine the policy of establishing depôts where candidates for emigration might resort. My attention was also specially directed to the machinery by which rates for the relief of the poor might be raised and expended; and to the formation and constitution of a central board, of local boards, of district unions, and of parochial vestries. I was also directed to inquire whether the capital applied to the improvement of land, and the reclaiming of bogs and wastes was perceptibly or notoriously increasing or diminishing, and to remark generally upon any plans which might lead to an increased demand for labour; and lastly, to “carefully read the bills which had been brought into the house of commons on this subject during that year, and the draft of a bill prepared by one of the commissioners of inquiry in conformity with their Report.”

It will thus be seen that the proposed inquiry was sufficiently extensive; and I hardly need say that I entered upon the duty assigned me with a deep sense of the responsibility it involved. The working of the English Poor Law, afforded means for obtaining some insight into the character and habits of such of the Irish as had become resident in the metropolis and the larger towns of England, and I immediately instituted inquiries on the subject among the workhouse masters and other officers of several of the London parishes where the Irish labourers principally resided. They all assured me as the result of their experience, that the discipline of a workhouse operated with the Irish precisely as it did with the English poor. There was in fact no difference in this respect, nor any greater difficulty with regard to the one, than there was in the management of the other. This was so far satisfactory; but further examination and inquiry were necessary for giving entire confidence on this point, and these could best be pursued in Ireland whither I accordingly proceeded early in September.

The evidence collected by the late commissioners of inquiry and appended to their Report, established so conclusively the existence of a state of poverty throughout Ireland, amounting in numerous cases to actual destitution,[^[73]] that I felt it to be unnecessary to adduce any additional[additional] proofs on the subject. To this extent moreover, the evidence was fully borne out by previous investigations of committees and commissions on the state of Ireland. The fact of wide-spread destitution was therefore notorious, and its existence was universally admitted; so that in reporting to government at the end of my mission, I considered it enough to state as the result of my own inquiries, “that the misery now prevalent among the labouring classes in Ireland, appears to be of a nature and intensity calculated to produce great demoralization and danger;” and such being the case, it was doubtless the duty of government and the legislature to endeavour to devise a remedy for the one, and thus at the same time to guard against the other.

The author’s first report, Nov. 15, 1836.

My first Report was delivered on the 15th of November. It stated that after examining the several institutions in Dublin, I had visited the west of Ireland from Cork to Limerick Westport and Sligo, and back by Armagh—“everywhere examining and inquiring as to the condition and habits of the people, their character and wants; and endeavouring to ascertain whether, and how far, the system of relief established in England, was applicable to the present state of Ireland.” The above route was deemed the most eligible, because the inhabitants of the manufacturing and commercial districts of the north and east, more nearly resembled the English than those of the southern and western parts of Ireland; and if the English system should be found applicable to them, there could be no doubt of its applicability to the others.

The Report is divided into three parts or principal divisions—

The first, gives the general result of inquiries into the condition habits and feelings of the people, especially with regard to the introduction of a law for the relief of the poor.

In the second part, the question whether the workhouse system can with safety and advantage be established in Ireland is considered, and also whether the means for creating an efficient union machinery exists there.

Assuming these questions to be answered affirmatively, the chief points requiring attention in framing a poor-law for Ireland, are in the last part considered.

It is now proposed to insert, under the above divisions, so much of the Report as will be sufficient for showing its general import, and the nature of its recommendations; but omitting such portions as are not necessary for this purpose—

First Report.—Nov. 15, 1836.

Part the First.—“The investigations and inquiries in which I have been engaged, have led to a conviction that Ireland has, on the whole, during the last thirty or forty years, been progressively improving. It is impossible to pass through the country without being struck with the evidence of increasing wealth almost everywhere apparent, although it is of course more visible in towns than in the open country. Great as the improvement in England has been within the same period, that in Ireland, I believe, has been equal. There are towns and districts there, as there are towns and districts in England, in which little improvement is seen, or which may even have retrograded; but the general advance is certain, and the improvement in the condition and increase in the capital of the country, are still, I think, steadily progressive. If it be asked how this accords with the misery and destitution apparent among a large portion of the people, the answer is obvious—The capital of the country has increased, but the increase of the population has been still greater; and it therefore does not follow that there is an increase of capital or comfort in the possession of each individual, or even of the majority. The reverse is unhappily the fact—Towns, exhibiting every sign of increased wealth, are encircled by suburbs composed of miserable hovels, sheltering a wretched population of mendicants. In the country, evidence of the extreme subdivision of land everywhere appears, and as a consequence, the soil, fertile as it naturally is, becomes exhausted by continual cropping; for the cottier tenant, too often reduced to a level little above that of the mendicant, is unable to provide manure for his land, and has no other mode of restoring its vigour but by subjecting it to a long and profitless fallow. Farmers of three hundred acres, or even of two or one hundred, except in the grazing districts, have become almost extinct in Ireland. A variety of circumstances seem to have contributed to bring about this change. In some instances the proprietor has himself subdivided his land into small holdings of five, ten, or fifteen acres, with a view of increasing his rent-roll, or adding to his political influence. In other cases the land has been let on lease to a single tenant on lives, or for a term of years, or both conjointly; and he has sublet to others, who have again gone on dividing and subletting, until the original proprietor is almost lost sight of, and the original holding is parcelled out among a host of small occupiers.

“The occupation of a plot of land has now gotten to be considered, by a great portion of the Irish people, as conferring an almost interminable right of possession. This seems to have arisen in great measure out of the circumstances in which they have been placed; for there being no legal provision for the destitute, and the subdivision of the land into small holdings having destroyed the regular demand for labour, the only protection against actual want, the only means by which a man could procure food for his family, was by getting and retaining possession of a portion of land; for this he has struggled—for this the peasantry have combined and burst through the restraints of law and humanity. So long as this portion of land was kept together, it was possibly sufficient to supply his family with a tolerable degree of comfort; but after a time he would have sons to provide for, and daughters to portion off, and this must all be effected out of the land—until the holding of ten or fifteen acres became divided into holdings of two, three, or five acres. After a time, too, the same process of subdivision is again resorted to, until the minimum of subsistence is reached; and this is now the condition of a large portion of the Irish peasantry. Land is to them the great necessary of life. There is no hiring of servants. A man cannot obtain his living as a day-labourer. He must get possession of a plot of land to raise potatoes, or starve. It need scarcely be said that a man will not starve, so long as the means of sustaining life can be obtained by force or fraud; and hence the scenes of violence and murder which have so frequently occurred in Ireland.

“One of the circumstances that first arrests attention on visiting Ireland, is the prevalence of mendicancy. It is not perhaps the actual amount of misery existing amongst the mendicant class, great as that may be, which is most to be deprecated; but the falsehood and fraud which form a part of their profession, and spread by their example. Mendicancy appeals to our sympathies on behalf of vice, as well as want; and encouragement is often afforded to the one, by the relief intended for the other. To assume the semblance of misery is the business of the mendicant, and his success depends upon the skill with which he exercises deception. A mass of filth, nakedness, and squalor, is thus kept moving about the country, entering every house, addressing itself to every eye, and soliciting from every hand; and much of the filth and indolence observable in the cabins, clothing, and general conduct of the peasantry, may I think be traced to this source, and I doubt even if those above the class of labourers altogether escape the taint. Mendicancy and filth have become too common to be disgraceful.

“The Irish peasantry have generally an appearance of apathy and depression. This is seen in their mode of living, in their habitations, in their dress, in the dress of their children, and in their general economy and conduct. They seem to have no pride, no emulation; to be heedless of the present, and careless of the future. They do not strive to improve their appearance, or add to their comforts. Their cabins are slovenly, smoky, dirty, almost without furniture, or any article of convenience or common decency. On entering a cottage, the woman and children are seen seated on the floor surrounded by pigs and poultry, the man is lounging at the door, which can only be approached through mud and filth. Yet he is too indolent to make a dry approach to his dwelling, although there are materials close at hand, and his wife is too slatternly to cleanse the place in which they live, or sweep the dirt and offal from the floor. If you point out these defects, and endeavour to show how easily they might improve their condition and increase their comforts, you are invariably met by excuses as to their poverty. Are a woman, and her children, and her cabin filthy, whilst a stream of water runs past the door—the answer invariably is, ‘Sure, how can we help it? we are so poor!’ With the man it is the same; you find him idly basking in the sun, or seated by the fire, whilst his cabin is scarcely approachable through the accumulation of mud—and he too will exclaim, ‘Sure, how can we help it? we are so poor!’ whilst at the very time he is smoking tobacco, and has probably not denied himself the enjoyment of whisky. Now poverty is not the cause, or at least not the sole cause, of this condition of the Irish peasantry. If they desired to live better, or to appear better, they might do so; but they seem to have no such ambition, and hence the depressed tone of which I have spoken. This may be partly owing to the remains of old habits; for bad as the circumstances of the peasantry now are, they were yet, I am persuaded, worse fifty or thirty years ago. A part also may be attributed to the want of education, and of a feeling of self-respect; and a part likewise to their poverty—to which last cause alone, everything that is wrong in Ireland is invariably attributed.

“The desultory habits of the peasantry are likewise remarkable. However urgent the demands for exertion—if, as in the present season, their crops are rotting in the fields from excessive wet, and every moment of sunshine should be taken advantage of—still, if there be a market to attend, a fair, or a funeral, a horse-race, a fight, or a wedding, all else is neglected or forgotten; they hurry off in search of the excitements which abound on such occasions, and with a recklessness hardly to be credited, at the moment that they are complaining of poverty, they take the most certain steps to increase it. Their fondness for ardent spirits is probably one cause of this, and another will be found in their position as occupiers of land. The work required upon their small holdings is easily performed, and may, as they say, ‘be done any day.’ Working for wages is rare and uncertain; and hence arises a disregard of the value of time, a desultory sauntering habit, without industry or steadiness of application. Such is too generally the character, and such the habits, of the Irish peasantry; and it may not be uninstructive to mark the resemblance which these bear to the character and habits of the English peasantry in the pauperised districts, under the abuses of the old Poor Law. Mendicancy and indiscriminate almsgiving have produced in Ireland, results similar to what indiscriminate relief produced in England—the like reckless disregard of the future, the like idle and disorderly conduct, and the same proneness to outrage having then characterised the English pauper labourer, which are now too generally the characteristics of the Irish peasant. An abuse of a good law caused the evil in the one case, and a removal of that abuse is now rapidly effecting a remedy. In the other case, the evil appears to have arisen rather from the want, than the abuse of a law; but the corrective for both will, I believe, be found to be essentially the same.

“The objections usually urged against the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland, are founded on an anticipated demoralization of the peasantry—and on the probable amount of the charge. The first objection derives its force from the example of England under the old Poor Law; but the weight of this objection is destroyed by the improved administration under the new law, which is rapidly eradicating the effects of previous abuse; and will, there is good reason to believe, effectually prevent their recurrence. This belief is founded on the experience of the effects of the system in every instance in which it has been brought into operation, and particularly in two important parishes in Nottinghamshire, where the workhouse principle was first established in its simplicity and efficiency fifteen or sixteen years ago, and where it has continued to be equally effective up to the present time. Similar results have invariably attended its application in the unions formed under the new law, which are conducted essentially upon the same principle, but with a superior combination of machinery, and administrative arrangement.

“With respect to the second objection, founded on the probable amount of expenditure, it may be remarked that the Irish population, like every other, must be supported in some way out of the resources of the country; and it does not follow that the establishment of such a system of relief will greatly increase the charge, if it increase it at all. During the progress of my inquiries, I was often told that the recognition of any legal claim for relief would lead to universal pauperism, and would amount to a total confiscation of property. Many Irish landowners appeared to participate in this apprehension—under the influence of which it seems to have been overlooked, that the only legal claim for relief in England is founded on the actual destitution of the claimant, and that as the existence of destitution is the ground of the claim, so is its removal the measure of relief to be afforded. This, if the destitution be rightly tested, will be a sufficient protection to property. At present there is no test of destitution in Ireland. The mendicant, whether his distress be real or fictitious, claims and receives his share of the produce of the soil in the shape of charity, before the landlord can receive his portion in the shape of rent, and before the tenant has ascertained whether he is a gainer or a loser by his labours and his risks. The mendicant’s claim has now precedence over every other. If the whole property of Ireland was rated to the relief of the poor, it would be no more; but in such case the charge would be equally borne, whereas at present it is unequal, and tends to evil in its application.

“The voluntary contributions of Scotland have been recommended as an example to be followed, rather than the compulsory assessments of England; and the Dublin Mendicity Association has been referred to, and its working described as at once effective for the suppression of mendicancy, and for the relief of the indigent within the sphere of its operations, without injury to the sensibilities of individual benevolence. But the feelings of charity and gratitude, which it is delightful to contemplate as the motive and the fruit of benevolent actions, can only exist between individuals. It matters not whether the fund to be distributed has been raised by voluntary contribution, or by legal assessment, or whether it has been devised for purposes of general charity. The application of the fund becomes, in each case, a trust; it is distributed as a trust, and it is received as a right, not as a gift. It may moreover be remarked, that the Dublin Mendicity Association has with difficulty been kept in existence by great exertions on the part of the committee, and by threats of parading the mendicants through the streets. If difficulty is thus found in supporting such an institution in Dublin, how impracticable must it be to provide permanent support for similar institutions in other parts of the country. Some persons contend that relief for the indigent classes in Ireland should be provided in ‘houses of industry,’ similar to those now existing in Dublin and a few other places. These institutions are in general not badly managed, and some classification is enforced in them, and the sexes are invariably separated. But they are certainly not entitled to the designation of ‘houses of industry.’ They are in fact places for the maintenance of a number of poor persons, mostly aged or infirm, and idiots, and lunatics; but as a general means of supplying necessary relief, and of testing the necessity, they are totally inefficient.

“Notwithstanding these objections, I found everywhere, after quitting Dublin, a strong feeling in favour of property being assessed for the relief of the indigent. At present, the burthen falls almost exclusively upon the lower classes, whilst the higher classes generally escape. A system of poor-laws, similar in principle to the English system, would go far to remedy this inequality—the people are aware of this—and, as the general result of my inquiries, I have been led to the conclusion, that poor-laws may be now established in Ireland, guarded by the correctives derived from experience in England, with safety and success. I think also, that such a measure would serve to connect the interest of landlords and tenants, and so become a means of benefiting both, and promoting the general peace and prosperity of the country. The desire now so generally expressed for a full participation in English laws and English institutions, will dispose the Irish people to receive with alacrity any measure tending to put them on the same footing as their fellow-subjects of England—a circumstance particularly favourable to the establishment of a poor-law at this moment. At another season, or under other circumstances, it might be difficult to surround a legal provision for the relief of the Irish poor, with sufficient guards against abuse; but at present, I think the legislature may venture to entertain the subject, having the experience of England before them, with a reasonable confidence of being able to bring the measure to a successful issue; and if the landed proprietors and gentry of Ireland will there perform the same part, which the proprietors and gentry of England are now performing in the administration of the new Poor Law, the result will be neither distant nor doubtful.

“If a poor-law were established in Ireland, it must not however be expected to work miracles. It would not give employment or capital, but it would, I think, help the country through what may be called its transition period; and in time, and with the aid of other circumstances, would effect a material improvement in the condition of the people. The English Poor Laws, in their earlier operation, contributed to the accomplishment of this object in England; and there seems nothing to prevent a similar result in Ireland. Facilities now exist in Ireland for helping forward the transition, and for shortening its duration as well as securing its benefits, which England did not possess in the time of Elizabeth, or for a century and a half afterwards. By ‘transition period,’ I mean that season of change from the system of small holdings, con-acre, and the subdivisions of land, which now prevails in Ireland, to the better practice of day-labour for wages, and to that dependence on daily labour for support, which is the present condition of the English peasantry. This transition is, I believe, generally beset with difficulty and suffering. It was so in England; it is, and for a time will probably continue to be so in Ireland; and every aid should be afforded to shorten its duration, and lessen its pressure. It has been considered that the existence of the con-acre system is favourable to such a transition. I am disposed to concur in this view, and think that the annual hiring of the con-acre, may help to wean the Irish peasantry from their present desire of occupying land, and lead them to become labourers for wages. The eager clinging to land, and its subdivision into small holdings, is at once a cause and a consequence of the rapid increase of the people, and of the extreme poverty and want which prevail among them. It is not because the potato constitutes their food, that a kind of famine occurs annually in Ireland between the going out of the old, and the in-coming of the new crop; but it is because the peasantry are the sole providers for their own necessities, each out of his own small holding; and being all alike hard pressed, and apt to under-calculate the extent of their wants, they thus often find themselves without food before the new crop is ripe. In this emergency there is no store provided to which they can have recourse, and misery and disease ensue. A poor-law would lighten the pressure under such a visitation, and the poor-law machinery might be useful in cases of extreme need, as well as for preventing a recurrence of the calamity.

“It is impossible to mix with the Irish people without noticing the great influence of the clergy, and it seemed important therefore to ascertain their views in regard to a poor-law. I discussed the subject with many of them, as well Roman catholic as protestant, in all parts of the country; and I found them, with few exceptions, decidedly favourably to such a law. In the cases where they were not so, it appeared to be owing to an apprehension that their influence might be lessened, by taking from them the distribution of the alms which now pass through their hands; but this feeling was of rare occurrence, and I am warranted in saying, that the clergy of every denomination are almost unanimously favourable to a system of Poor Laws for Ireland. This was perhaps to be expected, the duties of the clergy leading them to mix more with the people, and to see more of their actual wants, than any other class of persons. The shopkeepers too, and manufacturers and dealers generally, I found favourable to a poor-law. They declared that they should be gainers at the end of the year, whatever might be the amount legally assessed upon them; for that they could neither close their doors, nor turn their backs upon the wretched objects who were constantly applying to them; whilst the gentry, if resident, were in a great measure protected from such applications, and if non-resident, escaped them altogether.

“A legal provision for the destitute, is moreover an indispensable preliminary to the suppression of mendicancy. If the state offers an alternative, it may prohibit begging—it would be in vain to do so otherwise, for the law would be opposed to our natural sympathies, and would remain inoperative. This was the course adopted in England, where it was long endeavoured to repress vagrancy by severe enactments, but apparently with little advantage. At last the offer of relief was coupled with the prohibition of mendicancy, and until our Poor Law administration became corrupt, with perfect success. To establish a poor-law, then, is I believe a necessary preliminary to the suppression of mendicancy. That it will be, on the whole, economical to do this in Ireland, it is I think scarcely possible to doubt; but whether it be so or not, the advantage both morally and socially of removing such an evil, is beyond question important.

“It may be regarded as a circumstance favourable to the introduction of a poor-law, that so much land is lying waste and uncultivated in Ireland. Much of this land is susceptible of cultivation, and the order and security which a poor-law would tend to establish, will encourage the application of capital to such objects. If capital were to be so applied, considerable tracts would be brought under culture, and thus afford occupation to the now unemployed labourers. Most of the reclaimed bog which I saw in the western counties, was effected by the small occupiers, who partially drained and enclosed an acre or two at a time; but such operations were without system or combination, and for the most part indifferently performed. In this way, however, the reclamation of these wastes will of necessity proceed—constantly adding to the number of small cottier tenants, and swelling the amount of poverty and wretchedness in the country—unless proprietors and capitalists shall be induced to take the matter in hand, and by enclosing and effectually draining whole tracts, secure the means of applying economical management on a large scale. The enclosing and draining, and the whole process of reclamation, would afford employment to labourers who are now, for a great portion of the year, idling about without occupation; and when the land so reclaimed becomes subjected to a regular process of cultivation, it will continue to afford them regular employment at daily wages, instead of the often miserably insufficient produce of their own small holdings, to which they now are compelled to cling as their sole means of support.

“It appears then, I think, that a poor-law is necessary for relieving the destitution to which a large portion of the population in Ireland is now exposed. It appears too, that circumstances are at present favourable for the introduction of such a measure. A poor-law seems also to be necessary, as a first step towards bringing about improvement in the habits and social condition of the people. Without such improvement, peace, good order, and security cannot exist in Ireland; and without these, it is in vain to look for that accumulation of wealth, and influx of capital, which are necessary for developing its resources, agricultural and commercial, and for providing profitable employment for the population. Ireland is now suffering under a circle of evils, producing and reproducing one another. Want of capital produces want of employment—want of employment, turbulence and misery—turbulence and misery, insecurity—insecurity prevents the introduction or accumulation of capital—and so on. Until this circle is broken, the evils must continue, and probably increase. The first thing to be done is to give security—that will produce or invite capital—and capital will give employment. But security of person and property cannot co-exist with extensive destitution. So that, in truth, the reclamation of bogs and wastes—the establishment of fisheries and manufactures—improvements in agriculture, and in the general condition of the country—and lastly, the elevation of the great mass of the Irish people in the social scale, appear to be all more or less contingent upon establishing a law providing for the relief of the destitute.—How such a law may be best formed, so as to secure the largest amount of good, with the least risk of evil, it is proposed next to consider.

Part the Second.—“There are two points for consideration under this division of the subject which are of primary import, the question of a Poor Law for Ireland mainly depending upon them. First—Whether the workhouse system can be safely and effectively established in Ireland; and secondly—Whether a machinery can be there established for their government, such as exists in the English unions.

“In my inquiries with regard to these points, I endeavoured to exercise a care and vigilance proportioned to their importance. The inquiry was entered upon under an apprehension that the workhouse would be less efficient in Ireland, than experience had shown it to be in England; and that it would probably be applicable to the able-bodied in a limited degree only, if applicable to them at all. I was doubtful also, whether it would be practicable to control any considerable number of the able-bodied in a workhouse—whether the proneness of the Irish peasantry to outrage and insubordination would not, as had often been represented, lead them to break through all restraint, and perhaps demolish the building, and commit other acts of violence. The probability of such outrage is strongly insisted upon by the Commissioners of Inquiry, and the same argument was urged upon me by some persons with whom I communicated in Dublin. In the progress of my inquiries however, I soon found reason for concluding that there was no ground for apprehension, either as to the applicability of the workhouse for the purposes of relief, or as to any danger of resistance to such a system of classification and discipline within it, as would make it a test of destitution. In the several ‘houses of industry’ established in Ireland, a strict separation of the sexes is enforced, and a discipline more or less approximating to our workhouse discipline is established. No spirits are admitted, and on the whole, there is enough in these institutions to render them distasteful as places of partial restraint. Yet from no governor of a house of industry could I learn that resistance had ever been made to their regulations, and surprise was even expressed at my thinking it necessary to make the inquiry. I received the same opinion from the governors of gaols. In short, every man whom I conversed with, who had any experience of the habits of the people, declared that the peasantry are perfectly tractable, and never think of opposing authority, unless stimulated by drink, or urged on by that species of combination for securing the occupancy of land, which has become so common in certain districts. Neither of these influences will interfere with the establishment of a workhouse, or the regulation of its inmates, all of whom will have sought refuge in it voluntarily, and may quit it at any moment. As regards the security of the workhouse, therefore, and the establishment of a system of discipline as strict as that maintained in the English workhouses, I believe that there will be neither danger nor difficulty.

“How far the workhouse, if established, may be relied upon as a test of destitution and a measure of the relief to be afforded; how far it will be effectual for the prevention of pauperism, and for stimulating the people to exertion for their own support;—how far, in short, the workhouse system, which has been safely and effectually applied to dispauperise England, may be applied with safety and efficiency to prevent pauperism in Ireland, now remains for inquiry. The governing principle of the workhouse system is this:—that the support which is afforded at the public charge in the workhouse, shall on the whole be less desirable than the support obtained by independent exertion. To carry out this principle, it might seem to be necessary that the inmates of a workhouse should be in all respects worse situated—worse clothed, worse lodged, and worse fed, than the independent labourers of the district. In fact, however, the inmates of our English workhouses are as well clothed, and generally better lodged and better fed than the agricultural labourer and his family: yet the irksomeness of the discipline and confinement, and the privation of certain enjoyments, produce such disinclination to enter the workhouse, that experience warrants the fullest assurance that nothing short of destitution, and that necessity which the law contemplates as the ground for affording relief, will induce the able-bodied labourer to seek refuge therein; and that if driven thither by necessity, he will quit it again as speedily as possible, and strive (generally with increased energy and consequent success) to obtain subsistence by his own efforts.

“It would perhaps be in vain, even if it were desirable, to seek to make the lodging, the clothing, and the diet, of the inmates of an Irish workhouse, inferior to those of the Irish peasantry. The standard of their mode of living is so low, that the establishment of one still lower is difficult, and would under any circumstances be inexpedient. In Ireland therefore, there would not perhaps be found the same security in this respect for the efficiency of the workhouse test, which may in some degree be operative in England. There are countervailing circumstances in Ireland however, which more than balance this drawback, even if it were greater than it really is. The Irish are naturally, or by habit, a migratory people, fond of change, hopeful, sanguine, eager for experiment. They have never been practically limited to one spot by a law of settlement, as has been the case with the English peasantry. They have never been enervated by a misapplied system of parish relief. Rather than bear the restrictions of a workhouse, the Irishman, if in possession of health and strength, would wander the world over to obtain a living. All the opinions I have collected from persons most conversant with the Irish character, agree in this. Confinement of any kind is even more irksome to an Irishman than to an Englishman. Hence, although he might be lodged, fed, and clothed, in a workhouse, better than he could lodge, feed, and clothe himself—he will yet, like the Englishman, never enter the workhouse, unless driven thither by actual necessity; and he will not then remain there longer than that necessity exists. The test of the workhouse is then, I think, likely to be as efficient in Ireland, as it is proved to be in England; and if relief be there restricted to the workhouse, it will be at once a test of destitution, and a measure of relief, and will serve to protect the administration of a legal provision for the destitute poor, from those evils and abuses which followed the establishment, and led to the perversion, of the old Poor Laws in England. I speak of the workhouse as a test of destitution generally, without limiting its operation to age, infirmity, or other circumstances; for independent of the difficulty of discriminating between those who may fairly be considered as aged and infirm, and those who are not—as well as certain other difficulties, practical and theoretical, in the way of making any such distinction—I have found in the state of Ireland, no sufficient reason for departing from the principle of the English Poor Law which recognises destitution alone as the ground of relief, nor for establishing a distinction in the one country, which does not exist in the other.

“The expense of providing workhouses, will not, I apprehend, be so considerable as has by some been anticipated. If the surface of Ireland be divided into squares of twenty miles each, so that a workhouse placed in the centre would be distant about ten miles from the extremities in all directions, this would give about eighty workhouses for the whole of Ireland. A diameter of twenty miles was the limit prescribed for the size of unions by Gilbert’s Act, but it was often exceeded in practice—it may however, be assumed as a convenient size on the present occasion. In some cases, owing to the position of towns, or other local causes, the unions will probably be smaller; in others, especially in the thinly-peopled districts of the west, they may be larger: but still, there is, I think, every probability that the number of workhouses required will not greatly exceed eighty. In aid of this number, the houses of industry, and mendicity and other establishments, which will be unnecessary as soon as a legal provision is made for the relief of the destitute, will become available at probably a small expense. In some instances, moreover, barracks, factories, or other buildings suitable for conversion into workhouses, may perhaps be obtained on easy terms:—but excluding all such considerations, and assuming that instead of eighty workhouses, a hundred will be required, and that the cost of erecting each will be about the same as for the largest class of English workhouses, namely, about 7,000l.—this would give a gross outlay of 700,000l. for the whole of Ireland—a sum not disproportionally large, when the nature of the object is taken into account. If government were to advance the sum necessary for providing the workhouses by way of loan, as has been done to the unions in England, requiring an instalment of five per cent. of the principal to be paid off annually out of the rates, it would make the whole charge so easy, that it would scarcely be felt. The payment of 35,000l. per annum for twenty years, with the interest on the constantly-decreasing principal, could not be considered a hardship on Ireland; and this is in fact the whole of the new or additional outlay proposed: for as regards the relief of the destitute, that would not be a new charge, the destitute classes being now supported, although in a manner calculated to injure and depress the general character of the people.

“As respects the means for local management in Ireland, if it were attempted to establish a parochial machinery similar to that which exists in England, I believe the attempt would fail. The description of persons requisite for constituting such a machinery, will not be found in the majority of Irish parishes. In some parts however, and especially in the north and the east, competent individuals would be found in many, if not in most of the parishes. If an Irish Poor Law were established, the uniting of parishes for the purpose of securing the benefits of combined management, is therefore more necessary even than it was in England; and by making the unions sufficiently large, there can be no doubt that in almost every instance, such a board of elected guardians may be obtained as would secure the orderly working of the union, under a due system of supervision and control.

“In the first instance, and until a rate for the relief of the destitute is established, the contributors to the county-cess might be empowered to elect the guardians. But in some cases an efficient board may not be obtainable by election, and this is most likely to occur at the commencement, when individuals will be ill instructed as to their duties, and when the public will perhaps have formed erroneous notions of what is intended to be done. To meet such a contingency, it seems essential that large general powers should be vested in some central authority, to control and direct the proceedings of the boards of guardians, and even to supersede their functions altogether, whenever such supersession shall be necessary. Power should also be given to declare unions, and to appoint paid officers to conduct the business, under the direction of the central authority, without the intervention of a board of guardians; and in order to guard against mistakes to be expected on the first introduction of an entirely new order of things, and to prevent the mischief that might ensue from failure or misconduct at the outset, the central authority should also, I think, be empowered to dispense with the election of the first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as may appear most fit and competent to act as guardians of the union, until the Lady-day next ensuing, or the Lady-day twelvemonths. The number and selection of such specially-appointed guardians to be at the discretion of the central authority. These powers are greater than were given to the English commissioners by the Poor Law Amendment Act: but they are, in my opinion, necessary in the present state of Ireland. With such powers confided to the central authority, no difficulty can arise for which it will not be prepared; and it will, I think, be enabled to establish the unions, and to constitute an adequate machinery for their government throughout the whole of Ireland, with certainty and efficiency.

“In England, the county magistrates residing and acting within a union, are ex-officio members of the board of guardians. The number and position of the magistracy in Ireland seem to require some modification in this respect. The principle of administration established in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act, is based essentially upon popular representation. The guardians are elected by the occupiers and owners of the property rated, and in the hands of the guardians the administrative power is vested. The county magistrates, it is true, in virtue of their office, sit and act as members of the board; but this does not destroy its elective character, as the number of elected so far exceeds that of the ex-officio guardians, that the popular character of the board is maintained; whilst the presence of the magistrates, who in virtue of their office are permanent members, and therefore connecting links between the successive boards of elected guardians, secures a stability and continuity of action, which, if based entirely upon election, the board might not possess. This is the constitution of the boards of guardians in England, and nothing can work better: but in Ireland, the number of magistrates who would be entitled under a similar provision to act as ex-officio guardians, would in general greatly exceed the number so qualified in England, and in some cases might outnumber the elected guardians. If this should occur, the elective character of the board would of course be destroyed; but even if this should not be the case, yet any undue preponderance of the permanent ex-officio guardians would detract from the popular character of the governing body, and lower it in the confidence of the people. With a view therefore of keeping as nearly as possible to the practical constitution of the English boards of guardians, I propose in the Irish unions,—1st. That the number of ex-officio guardians shall never exceed one-third the number of elected guardians: 2dly. That immediately on the declaration of a union, the county magistrates residing and acting within its limits, shall nominate from among themselves a number nearest to, but not exceeding, one-third of the elected guardians,—which magistrates so nominated by their compeers, shall be entitled to act as ex-officio guardians of the union, until the Michaelmas twelvemonth after such nomination: and 3dly. That at each succeeding Michaelmas, the magistrates entitled as aforesaid, shall proceed to a new election. These regulations will, I think, not only preserve a due proportion in the constitution of the boards of guardians, but also ensure the co-operation of the most efficient portion of the magistracy in the government of the unions; as the magistrates will doubtless nominate those members of their body who are most active and able.

“A different practice from that established in England, seems also to be necessary with respect to the Clergy. Under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, ministers of religion of every denomination are eligible for the office of guardian, elected or ex-officio. In the present condition of Ireland, I fear this would be attended with inconvenience, and might destroy the efficiency of the boards of guardians. I therefore propose that no clergyman, or minister of any religious denomination, shall be eligible to act either as elected or ex-officio guardian. This exclusion is not proposed from any notion of the general unfitness of the clergy to fill the office of guardian; but with reference solely to the present state of religious opinion in Ireland, and to the importance of keeping the functions of the boards of guardians free from the suspicion of sectarian bias. If the ministers of one persuasion were to be admitted, the ministers of every persuasion must be so; and then the deliberations would too probably he disturbed by religious differences. On no point have I taken more pains to arrive at a sound conclusion than on this, being fully sensible of the objections, on principle, to the exclusion of any class of men from office: but the great majority of the clergy themselves with whom I have conversed, Roman catholic and protestant, have agreed in thinking that it will be, on the whole, inexpedient to admit any of the ministers of religion to act as guardians; and after the fullest consideration and inquiry, I therefore recommend that they should all be declared ineligible.

“In England, under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, every parish or township rated for the maintenance of its poor, and included in a union, is entitled to return a guardian. In Ireland it will, I think, be essential that the central authority should be empowered to fix the limits of a union, without being restricted to parish boundaries. It should be enabled to divide parishes, either for the purpose of electing guardians, or for joining a portion of a parish to one union, and another portion to another union. It should also be empowered to consolidate parishes for the purpose of electing one or more guardians, and likewise to form election districts for this purpose, without reference to parochial boundaries. And lastly, the central authority should be empowered to add to, take from, and remodel unions, whenever such change might be found necessary. These powers would have enabled the English Poor Law Commissioners to make their unions more compact and convenient than they at present are, local prejudices and local interests having frequently compelled them to abandon the arrangement which would have been best for the general interest. In Ireland, full powers in these respects are, I think, indispensable for enabling the central authority to deal with the various circumstances under which the unions will there have to be formed. But with adequate powers, and with such modifications as are before described, the principle of union which has been established in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act, may I think be advantageously extended to Ireland; and as it has been shown that no insurmountable difficulty exists to prevent the introduction of the workhouse as a test of destitution—so neither will there be any insurmountable difficulty in establishing an adequate machinery for the government of the unions when formed.

Part the Third.—“Assuming that a system of Poor Laws ought to be established in Ireland; that the workhouse system may there be relied upon, as a test of destitution; and that the means of forming and governing unions exist there, as well as in England—It now remains to describe the several points which require attention in framing a measure comprising these objects; and also to offer such further observations, as did not seem to come within the scope of the preceding divisions.

“The governing principle to be observed in dealing with this portion of the subject is, that the Poor Law of Ireland should assimilate in all respects as nearly as possible to that established in England,—varying only in those instances, in which the different circumstances of the two countries require it. In conformity with this principle, the first point for consideration would naturally be the constitution of the central or chief authority, and the powers to be confided to it; but I postpone this part of the subject—assuming only that a central authority is to be established, with powers similar in kind to those conferred upon the English Poor Law Commissioners. The other points for consideration are the following—

1st. Of Relief.—“The only legal claim for relief in England, is founded upon the destitution of the party claiming it. I propose to extend the same principle to Ireland; and as a test of the actual existence of such destitution, and to guard against the evils which have invariably attended the distribution of out-door relief, (that is, of relief administered either in money or in kind to parties out of the workhouse) I further propose that, in Ireland, no relief should be given except in the workhouse. I do not propose to impart a right to relief, even to the destitute poor. The claim to relief in England, is founded on prescription, rather than enactment; for although the 43rd of Elizabeth provides for the levying a rate for the purpose of relieving the destitute poor, it invests them with no right to claim relief, the administration of which is left to the local authorities, who are of course responsible for its due exercise. The promulgation of rules for the administration of relief will therefore rest with the central authority, limited by the proviso that relief is only to be administered in the workhouse. The central authority will declare when the workhouse shall be so applied in each union, and will also take care that no time be lost in providing suitable workhouse accommodation, as well as to establish such regulations as may be necessary for the guidance of the local authorities in the interim; but it will be most safe to prohibit all relief whatever, until the test of the workhouse can be applied.

“The strict limitation of relief to the workhouse may possibly be objected to, on the ground that extreme want is found occasionally to assail large portions of the population, who ought then to be relieved at the public charge, without being subjected to the restraint of the workhouse. But this is an exceptional case, and it would not, I think, be wise to adapt the regulations of poor-law administration in Ireland to the possible occurrence of such a contingency. In a period of famine, the whole population may be said to become destitute; but it surely would not be expedient to hold out an expectation, that if this should unhappily occur, support for all would be unconditionally provided at the public charge?—During such a visitation, the workhouse might not be sufficient for the numbers who were anxious to crowd into it; but to the extent of its means of accommodation it would help to relieve the general distress, and the union machinery would probably be found useful in other respects. The occurrence of a famine, however, if general, seems to be a contingency beyond the powers of a poor-law to provide for. There is then an actual deficiency of supply; and as there is less to consume, less must be consumed. It is however, I think, impossible to contemplate the continuance of such a state of things in Ireland, as that in which any considerable portion of its population would be subjected to the occurrence of famine. As the habits and intelligence of the people improve, these visitations will be guarded against or averted; and I do not propose to make any exception permissive of out-door relief in such cases, but recommend that relief should be limited strictly to the workhouse. It is moreover necessary that no individual of a family should be admitted, unless all its members enter the house. Relief to the father or husband is equivalent to relief to the child or the wife, and vice versâ; and, while they continue one family, a part cannot be considered as destitute, and the rest not so; a family must be taken as a whole, and so admitted or excluded. The provisions of the 43rd of Elizabeth, requiring parents to support children, and children to support parents, should also be extended to Ireland; and I think relief by way of loan, as provided for by the 58th section of the Poor Law Amendment Act, might in certain cases be useful, and if exercised with discretion, can scarcely be productive of mischief.

2ndly. Of the Local Machinery.—“I propose that the local machinery for the administration of relief to the destitute in Ireland, under the direction of a central authority, should be the same as is provided in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act; namely, the union of a district for common management, under a board of guardians elected by the ratepayers, with paid officers appointed or approved by the central authority.

“In forming the unions, it will be necessary to observe the civil, rather than the ecclesiastical boundaries of parishes; but cases will arise, in which it may be requisite to disregard all such boundaries—it being obviously more important that the district to be united should be compact, convenient, and accessible, and be naturally connected with its centre, than that the old and often inconvenient boundaries should be observed. This applies no less to county or baronial boundaries than to those of parishes or other divisions. The principle which has governed the formation of the English unions, whenever the commissioners have not been driven from it by local circumstances, has been to fix upon some market-town conveniently situated as a centre, and to attach to it the whole surrounding district, of which it may be considered the capital, and in which the general business of the district, both public and private, for the most part centres. The roads of a district always converge upon the market-town. The communications with it are constant, and the people settled within the range of its influence constitute almost a distinct community. To form such a district into a union, seems an obvious course, and I recommend its being adopted in Ireland. There may be parts of the country in which such a convenient centre does not exist, but this will be of rare occurrence, and the general powers of the central authority will be competent to deal with it.

“Much of what appeared to be necessary with reference to the members of the boards of guardians, both elected and ex-officio, is given in the second part of this Report: but the important question—in whose hands the right of appointing guardians shall be confided, and in what way that right shall be exercised, still remains to be considered. In this, as in other cases, the principle established in England, should, I think, be applied to Ireland, and the election of guardians be vested in the ratepayers and owners of property within the union; but the circumstances of Ireland require some modification of the English practice, in this respect. The owners of property in England, are entitled to vote according to the scale which was established by the Select Vestry Act, and which ascends by gradations of 25l. each, from a rated value of 50l. per annum up to 150l. per annum, giving one vote for the former, and six votes for the latter. This scale seems open to some objection, on the grounds of complexity and over-minuteness. It moreover differs from the scale of voting fixed for the ratepayers by the Poor Law Amendment Act, which provides that ratepayers, if rated under 200l. shall have one vote; if rated at 200l. and under 400l., two votes; and if at 400l. and upwards, three votes. Such a scale seems on the whole well adapted to the condition of ratepayers in England, but the amounts specified are too high for Ireland; and the scale is not sufficiently minute in its graduation, for the subdivision of property which prevails there. Instead of adopting these English scales, therefore, I propose to establish one scale in Ireland, by which simplicity of detail, and a right result, will I think be more effectually secured; and I recommend the following for regulating the votes of owners of property, as well as occupiers,

above 5l. and under 5l.			one vote.
50l.	and under	100l.	two votes.
100l.	”	150l.	three votes.
150l.	”	200l.	four votes.
200l.	and upwards		five votes.

3rdly. Of Rating.—“The power to assess the property and levy a rate within a union for the purpose of relieving the destitute, must, I think, be confided to the board of guardians, by whom such relief is to be administered. The mode of assessing and collecting the rate, as well as its application, will be prescribed by the central authority. The Parochial Assessments Act passed last session, establishes the principle that the rates are to be paid upon the net annual value of property. This was always the law, although it had not always been acted upon. As regards the principle by which the assessment of property should be regulated, it will therefore be only necessary to extend the provisions of that Act to Ireland, substituting the union for the parish authorities. The valuation of property for rating need not, I apprehend, be made in every instance by surveyors or professional valuators. The fairly-estimated value of the property is all that is necessary. In many instances a valuation has already been made for the purpose of tithe commutation, and wherever that, or any other fair valuation has been made, it will be available for rating to the relief of the poor. Hitherto there has been no such rate in Ireland. The destitute classes have gone on increasing in numbers, but still there has been no recognised or legal provision for their relief. Property has been acquired, capital invested, and contracts made, under this state of things, and it will be impossible now to impose a rate upon property, without affecting existing arrangements: but I believe the effect will be slight, and that in a few years it will cease altogether. If it were far greater than I anticipate however, all objections to the imposition of a rate on this ground must be overborne by considerations of the public welfare.

“The question as to who shall pay the rate, and in what proportions, is next to be considered. The parties immediately interested are the owner or person possessing the beneficial interest of the property assessed, and the tenant or occupier. Between these therefore, it seems both equitable and expedient to apportion the rate. Where the two are combined, the same person would be answerable for the entire rate. The Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners appeared to be of opinion that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and the occupier one-third; and it seemed to me, at first, that this would be a suitable division: but after further consideration and inquiry, I thought that each should be called upon to pay half the rate.[^[74]] I was mainly influenced to adopt this view, by the consideration that at present nearly the whole support of the destitute falls upon the tenantry. It is to the occupiers that the mendicant resorts, and from them he receives his daily rations. There is thus in reality, a rate now levied, although not sanctioned by legal enactment; and no occupier, however limited may be his means, turns away the mendicant empty-handed from his door. The pressure of these continual calls upon the occupiers, help to bear them down, and keep them at their present low level; but if the destitute classes were relieved by means of a general rate upon property, of which the occupiers were called upon to pay half, they would be relieved from nearly one-half their present burthen. A poor-law, if rightly administered, although it ensures relief for the destitute, will not increase their number, or eventually swell the fund appropriated to their support. On the contrary, I believe it will help to lessen both. But admitting that the number and the amount remain the same, still the occupiers will then have to pay only one-half, the landlord the other; whereas now the occupier contributes nearly the whole.

4thly. Of Settlement.—“Parochial settlement, as established in England, is almost universally admitted to have been productive of great mischief. It has led to much litigation and expense; and by fixing the peasantry to the narrow limits of their parish, beyond which the world was to them almost a blank, it has done more to injure their character, to destroy its elasticity, and to banish self-reliance and resource, than any other portion of the old Poor Law system. It will not, therefore, I presume, be considered right to establish parochial settlement in Ireland. The habits of the Irish are migratory, their movements depending upon their own volition. To establish a law of settlement, would be to fix them to one locality. No such law has yet been established there; and it is therefore open to the legislature to prescribe the limits, if a settlement shall be deemed advisable; or else to dispense with settlement altogether.

“Without a law of settlement, it is true, vagrants from other districts may congregate in particular unions, and may claim relief, or be sent to the workhouse; but if the workhouses are all regulated upon the same scale of diet and discipline, there would be no inducement for the vagrant classes to prefer one union to another, and they would probably remain scattered throughout the country, in much the same proportion as at present. If such a preference was in any instance shown by them, it might be taken as a proof of inefficient management or lax discipline on the part of the favoured union, and would be a signal for the central authority to interfere. Thus, if there should be no law of settlement, the number of inmates in the several workhouses would serve as a kind of index to the management of each; and the local authorities would be compelled in self-defence to keep their unions in good order, to prevent their being overrun with paupers. Such a competition, if well regulated, might go far to ensure the general efficiency of the unions.

5thly. On Mendicancy—“Whenever relief is provided for the destitute, mendicancy may be suppressed. A law which says, ‘You shall not beg or steal, but you shall starve,’ would be contrary to natural justice, and would be disobeyed; but if the law first makes provision for the destitute, and then says, ‘You shall not beg, but you shall be relieved at the public charge,’ the alternative thus offered will entitle the community to suppress a practice which is held to be injurious. On these grounds, I think the law which establishes a system of public relief for destitution, should at the same time prohibit mendicancy. The present state of Ireland however, and the habits and feelings of the Irish people, throw considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate suppression of mendicancy. The number of mendicants is very great, and they are therefore of some importance as a class, and support and keep each other in countenance whilst following, what they consider, no disreputable vocation. They enter the cottages of the peasantry as supplicants, it is true, but still with a certain sense of right; and the cottager would be held to be a bold, if not a bad man, who resisted their appeal. In fact, the appeal never is resisted,—if there is only a handful of potatoes, they are divided with the beggar; and there is thus perhaps levied from the produce of the soil in Ireland for the support of mendicancy, as large a contribution as it is now proposed to raise by an assessment of property for the relief of destitution. The ‘sturdy beggars,’ noticed in the 14th of Elizabeth, must have been very similar to those now common in Ireland. Indeed the state of society at the two periods seems to have been nearly the same in both countries, the prevalence of begging in each being accompanied by the same general disposition to give, and this disposition of course increasing the number of beggars.

“The evils of mendicancy in Ireland are certainly very great, and its suppression should be provided for at the earliest practicable period. The best mode of effecting this would probably be, to enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the responsibility of bringing it into operation in the several unions, as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. The central authority might, I think, so regulate their proceedings, as that the now itinerant mendicants who may be really unable to provide for themselves, should be placed in the several workhouses with the least degree of coercion and inconvenience; and that the ablebodied vagrants and disorderly persons should be compelled to provide for their own subsistence, by the application of strict workhouse discipline. Time and forbearance will doubtless be necessary in carrying such a measure into operation in Ireland, and these the powers of the central authority will enable it to afford. The present generation will probably pass away before the disposition to encourage begging by indiscriminate almsgiving, which now prevails so generally among all classes in Ireland, will be corrected by the adoption of a more enlightened benevolence. It will then we may hope be seen, that the real friends of the people are those who lead them to independent exertion, to a reliance upon themselves and their own efforts for support—not those who, by the constant doling of miscalled charity, entice the people into a state of dependence. It may minister to human pride, to be surrounded by a crowd of such dependents; but it surely is inconsistent with genuine benevolence to encourage, or even to permit this, if it can possibly be prevented.

6thly. Of Bastardy.—“As far as I had opportunity of observing and inquiring, the Irish females are generally correct in their conduct. I am aware that opinions somewhat different have been expressed; but my own impression of the moral conduct of the Irish females is highly favourable. Their duties appear to be more laborious than those of the same class in England. Their dress, too, is inferior, and so likewise seems their social position; yet they universally appear modest, industrious, and sober—I state this as the result of my own observation; and if the Irish females have preserved their moral character untainted hitherto, as I believe in the main to be the case, it affords an argument for ‘letting well alone.’ If it had been otherwise however, and if the extent of bastardy, and its demoralising influence on public manners had been greater, I should still have recommended that the Irish females should be left, as now, the guardians of their own honour, and responsible in their own persons for all deviations from virtue. The abuses under the old English bastardy law, and our brief experience of the improved practice established by the Amendment Act, warrant the recommendation that no such law should be applied to Ireland; but that bastards, and the mothers of bastards, in all matters connected with relief, should be dealt with in the same manner as other destitute persons solely on the ground of their destitution.

7thly. Of Apprenticeship.—“The experience which England affords with regard to apprenticeship, is of a somewhat conflicting character, although the preponderance of testimony is opposed to it. It is open to much abuse, and has operated mischievously in several parts of the country, by increasing that dependence upon the parish which under the old Poor Law had become so characteristic of the English peasantry. It must however I think be admitted, that the apprenticing of orphan and destitute children, as provided for by the 43rd of Elizabeth, has in many cases been productive of good; and if judiciously limited, so as not to be regarded as the ordinary mode of providing for the children of the labouring classes, but merely as a resource for the destitute and the orphan, it might still I think be continued with advantage. I am aware that this opinion differs somewhat from that of the members of the late English Poor Law Inquiry Commission; but the evidence of abuse submitted to the commissioners was taken in the time of the old Poor Law, which converted everything it touched into an abuse; and it does not follow, because apprenticeship added to the accumulation of evils under such circumstances, that it is incapable of producing good under others. It is on the different application of apprenticeship, and on the different circumstances in which it would be applied, that I now rely. None of the abuses exist in Ireland which prevailed under the old parochial management in England; and by the aid of the union machinery apprenticeship may, I think, be safely applied to the placing out of destitute and orphan children, the number of whom in Ireland is very considerable. The Poor Law Amendment Act empowers the commissioners to frame regulations for apprenticing the children of poor persons; and I propose to extend this provision to Ireland, by which it may be hoped that all the beneficial effects of the law may be secured, whilst the evils which certainly have resulted from it in England will in great measure be avoided.

8thly. Of Pauper Idiots and Lunatics.—“For individuals of this description, if not dangerous, the union workhouses will be available. Dangerous lunatics, and insane persons, must of course be sent to asylums, as at present; and it is important, I think, that these institutions should be kept distinct from poor-law administration. The deprivation of reason is a misfortune so extreme, that special efforts are called for on behalf of individuals subjected to such a visitation. The careful supervision of such unhappy persons is necessary for the protection of the community. But with respect to pauper idiots and lunatics not dangerous, these might, I think, be advantageously provided for in the several workhouses, where a lunatic ward should be prepared for such of them as might be unfitted to mingle with the other paupers. Idiots, labouring under a deficiency, rather than a deprivation of reason, appear in general to feel contentment in proportion as they are employed on something of a nature suitable for them. In a workhouse, such employment might always be found, and they would probably there partake as largely of comfort as their unhappy state is susceptible of. I propose, therefore, that the provision of the Poor Law Amendment Act, permissive of the retention in a workhouse of idiot and lunatic paupers, not dangerous, be extended to Ireland, and that their mode of treatment and employment be in all cases subject to the direction of the central authority.

9thly. Of Emigration.—“A country may be so circumstanced, as to require that a portion of its population should migrate from one part of it to another, either permanently or occasionally; and may still, on the whole, have no actual excess of population. A country may also, with reference to its means of employment, labour under an excess of population; or both these circumstances may exist at the same time, which appears, in fact, to be the state of Ireland at present. The Irish population is excessive, compared with the means of employment; and the effect of this excess would be more felt, were it not for the opening which England presents for migration. Where the population is in excess, it must be exceedingly difficult to effect any material improvement in the condition of a people; for as long as the labourers exceed the number required, so long will their competition for employment serve to depress their condition, and counteract whatever efforts may be made to improve it. The only alternative in such case is, either to increase the amount of employment, or to decrease the number of labourers depending upon it. To bring about by direct interposition any material increase of permanent employment, is in every view difficult, and under common circumstances, perhaps impossible; but something may be done indirectly in this respect, by the removal of impediments and the establishing of increased facilities for the application of capital, and something also perhaps by the intervention of government: but all such aids must of necessity be limited in their application, as well as remote in their effects—it is from spontaneous or natural employment alone, that the labouring classes can look for permanent occupation, and the means of support.

“To aim directly at effecting an increase of employment in Ireland, is beyond the powers if it be not foreign to the province of a poor-law, the immediate object of which is to provide for the relief of the destitute. Now destitution may be caused by an excess of labourers, or by a deficiency of employment, which are in truth convertible terms. If an able-bodied labourer becomes destitute through want of employment, he must be relieved at the common charge, like any individual reduced to a state of destitution by age or infirmity. If the want of employment and destitution be owing to an excess of population, to relieve that excess by emigration must be a good. Yet it may be doubted whether the parent stock is not enfeebled by the remedy, for in general the most active and enterprising emigrate, leaving the more feeble and less robust at home; and thus a continual drain of its best elements will lower the tone and reduce the general vigour of a people, at the same time that it imparts an additional stimulus to their increase.

“Emigration however, not only may, but I believe must be had recourse to as a present means of relief, whenever the population becomes excessive. The excess will be indicated by the pressure of able-bodied labourers on the workhouse. If any considerable number of these enter the workhouse, and remain there subject to its discipline, it may be taken as a proof of their inability to provide for themselves, and of the consequent excess of labourers beyond the means of employment. Under such circumstances, emigration must be looked to as the only present remedy; and provision should be made for defraying the expense which this would occasion, as well as for the regulations under which it should be carried into effect. With regard to the expense, I propose that the charge should in every case be equally borne by the government, and the union from which the emigrants proceed. This division of the charge appears equitable, for although the union only is immediately benefited, yet eventually the whole empire is relieved, excess in one portion of it tending to occasion an excess in the whole. But the emigration should, I think, be limited to a British colony, and should be conducted under the control of the central authority, and be subjected to such regulations as the government may deem it right to establish.

10thly. Of Houses of Industry, and Charitable Institutions.—“There is now a kind of poor-law established in Ireland, under which the ‘houses of industry’ are managed, but it is partial and ineffective; and the several statutes providing for these houses of industry, and the other institutions intended for the relief of the poor, should be repealed, and the management of such establishments placed under the central authority. Institutions strictly charitable, and supported by voluntary contribution or otherwise, would of course remain as at present; but it would, I think, be extremely desirable to invest the central authority with such a power of revising their rules and superintending their practice, as would ensure their acting in unison with, or at least prevent their acting in contravention of, the principles which the Act establishes for poor-law administration in Ireland. The ‘houses of industry’ would generally become available as union workhouses, for which they are for the most part well adapted; and the other establishments, where they are public property, or supported by government, or by local grants from the county-rates, may be appropriated in like manner, under direction of the central authority.

“The foregoing appear to be the only points requiring especial attention, in framing a poor-law for Ireland, although there are several other matters of minor interest not to be overlooked. The ‘Poor Law Amendment Act’ should, I think, be taken as a guide in framing the measure, and the language, order, and general provisions of that Act should be adhered to, except where the contrary is herein indicated, or where a variation is obviously necessary. There will be much practical convenience in thus assimilating the two statutes, which provide for poor-law administration in the two countries. A measure framed on the principles developed in this Report, is I think necessary for Ireland. Unless the people are protected from the effects of destitution, no great or lasting improvement in their social condition can be expected. The establishment of a poor-law is, I conceive, the first step necessary to this end; and followed as it will be by other ameliorations, to the introduction of which it is a necessary preliminary, we may hope that it will ultimately prove the means of securing for Ireland the full amount of those benefits which ought to arise from her various local advantages, and the natural fertility of her soil.

“The proposed measure may, I believe, be carried into effect, either by means of a separate commission in Ireland, or by the existing English Poor Law Commission. One of these modes, I presume, must be adopted; and before deciding which, it will be necessary to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each. In doing this, it is important to bear in mind, that it is the English Poor Law system which is now proposed to be established; and that the knowledge and experience acquired in working that system, can be best made available for Ireland, by employing individuals conversant with the English practice. If there should be a separate commission for Ireland, it would be necessary that the commissioners should be acquainted with the English Poor Law, as now administered; and this, I apprehend, would exclude most of those Irishmen who might otherwise be deemed qualified for the office. Such exclusion, however necessary, would have an ungracious appearance, and might excite angry comment. But independent of this consideration, if there were a separate commission, the law would be similar in both countries, but the practice might become widely different, as was the case in different parts of England under the old Poor Law administration. With two commissions, there might possibly be no unity of principle,—there would certainly be no unity of action,—and probably no identity of result. Unless the existing English Poor Law Commission should be unequal to the additional duty of introducing the proposed law into Ireland, or unless it should appear that the commissioners ought not to be intrusted with the performance of this duty, the above reasons would seem to be conclusive against a separate commission.

“It must be admitted that the official duties of the English Poor Law Commissioners have been, and in fact still are, very heavy. As a member of the commission, and one too not unaccustomed to work, I may be permitted to say, that the labour has been throughout unceasing and excessive, to an extent that nothing but the hope of accomplishing a great public good would have rendered bearable. The success of the measure, however, in lessening the pressure on the ratepayers, and in improving the condition of the labouring classes, coupled with the support which has been afforded by government, and by nearly all the intelligent portions of the community, have given the commissioners encouragement and confidence; and when the process of forming unions shall be completed, their labours will become lighter. Under these circumstances, there would seem to be no insuperable difficulty in the way of the present Poor Law Commissioners being made the instruments of establishing the new law in Ireland; and whatever may be the difficulty at first, it will lessen as the amount of English business decreases, and the organisation of the Irish machinery is perfected. If, then, no other grounds of objection exist, and if it shall be deemed desirable, I see no reason to doubt that the English Poor Law Commissioners are competent to the additional duty of introducing the proposed measure into Ireland.”

Such was the substance of my first Report, which it has been here endeavoured to condense as far as was consistent with a full exposition of its import; and this it is necessary to give, in order to prepare the reader for correctly appreciating the important measure which was founded upon it. After undergoing much consideration, the Report was finally adopted by government on the 13th of December 1836, and on the following day I was directed to have a bill prepared embodying all its recommendations. This was accordingly done, and after being scrutinised clause by clause in a committee of the Cabinet specially appointed for the purpose, and receiving various emendations, the bill was introduced on the 13th February 1837.[^[75]] The public and parliament bad been prepared for the measure by the Royal speech at the commencement of the session, in which his Majesty recommended for early consideration “the difficult and pressing question of establishing some legal provision for the poor in Ireland, guarded by prudent regulations, and by such precautions against abuse as their experience and knowledge of the subject enable them to suggest.”

Lord John Russell’s speech, February 13, 1837.

Lord John Russell[^[76]] introduced the bill in a comprehensive and very able speech—It appears, he said, from the testimony both of theory and experience, that when a country is overrun by marauders and mendicants having no proper means of subsistence, but preying on the industry and relying on the charity of others, the introduction of a poor-law serves several very important objects. In the first place it acts as a measure of peace, enabling the country to prohibit vagrancy which is so often connected with outrage, by offering a substitute to those who rely on vagrancy and outrage as a means of subsistence. When an individual or a family are unable to obtain subsistence, and are without the means of living from day to day, it would be unjust to say they shall not go about and endeavour to obtain from the charity of the affluent, that which circumstances have denied to themselves. But when you can say to such persons—here are the means of subsistence offered to you—when you can say this on the one hand, you may on the other hand say, “you are not entitled to beg, you shall no longer infest the country in a manner injurious to its peace, and liable to imposition and outrage.” Another way, he observed, in which a poor-law is beneficial is, that it is a great promoter of social concord, by showing a disposition in the state and in the community to attend to the welfare of all classes. It is of use also by interesting the landowners and persons of property in the welfare of their tenants and neighbours. A landowner who looks only to receiving the rents of his estate, may be regardless of the numbers in his neighbourhood who are in a state of destitution, or who follow mendicancy and are ready to commit crime; but if he is compelled to furnish means for the subsistence of persons so destitute, it then becomes his interest to see that those around him have the means of living, and are not in actual want. He considered that these objects, and several others collateral to them, were obtained in England by the Act of Elizabeth. Almost the greatest benefit that could be conferred on a country was, he observed, a high standard of subsistence for the labouring classes, and such a benefit was secured for England chiefly by the great Act of Elizabeth. His lordship then alluded to the abuses which subsequently arose, and to the correction of those abuses then in progress under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act; and said that “we ought to endeavour to obtain for Ireland all the good effects of the English system, and to guard against the evils which had arisen under it.”

The Report of the Poor Inquiry Commissioners for Ireland was next adverted to. They had, he said, recommended many measures of improvement for Ireland, and suggested certain measures with regard to the indigent. It was to the latter he wished to call the attention of the house, as being the principal object of the present bill. The other suggestions for the general improvement of Ireland he proposed to leave for future consideration. With regard to the question of immediate relief for the destitute, the commissioners, he said, propose in the first place, that a large class of persons should be provided for at the public expense by means of a national and local rate. They advise also that there should be money afforded for emigration, and that depôts should be provided for persons preparing to emigrate. In considering that Report, great doubts occurred to his Majesty’s ministers whether it was a good principle to provide only for certain classes, and whether those depôts for emigration could be safely and advantageously adopted. It appears, he observed, from every reflection on the subject, that the real principle is to afford relief to the destitute, and to the destitute only; and it would be quite as wrong to refuse relief to the able-bodied person in that situation, as to afford relief to the cripple, the widow, or a deaf and dumb person who had other means of support. It is not then the peculiar circumstances which excite public or individual compassion that we are to regard; but if we have a poor-law at all, it ought to be grounded on destitution, as affording a plain guide to relief. Then with regard to the emigration depôts, that part of the commissioners’ recommendations could not be adopted without a great deal more of consideration than the plan proposed by them appears to have received. And, he added, “deeply impressed as we have been with the responsibility that attaches to a government which proposes a law upon this subject, it occurred to us that the best method was to see whether the law which, as amended, has been applied to England, could be introduced with advantage in Ireland.” For this purpose Mr. Nicholls, one of the Poor Law Commissioners, was requested to go to Ireland, and ascertain on the spot whether anything resembling the machinery of the English Poor Law could be there applied; and the result of Mr. Nicholls’s inquiry is, that supposing it to be expedient to extend a poor-law to Ireland, there was no insurmountable obstacle or objection to the establishment of a law in many respects resembling the amended Poor Law in England. The reasons for that opinion are stated in the Report which has been laid on the table, and on which the bill is founded. His lordship then adverted to the chief portions of the Report, and stated generally his own views on the subject.

There is no doubt, he said, that there have occurred in Ireland many outrages consequent upon vagrancy and destitution, and the people’s being left without remedy or relief; and also that a large portion of the people, especially those not having land, do practise mendicancy for a great portion of the year. He had made some inquiry with respect to the amount of the relief thus afforded to mendicants, and the result is that in most cases a shilling an acre is paid in course of the year by farmers for the support of mendicants. In some cases it has been 6d. an acre, in others 9d., and in others 1s.; but in one case it amounted to 2s. an acre. This is a heavy tax, which cannot upon the whole amount to less than between 700,000l. and 800,000l., perhaps a million a year. But this practice of mendicancy, which raises so vast a sum, is not like a well-constituted poor-law, which affords relief to the really indigent—that which seems to afford relief to the distressed, also promotes and keeps up imposture, and in Ireland where mendicancy is so general, and relief so freely given, the number of impostors must be enormous.

His lordship then proceeded to consider whether the workhouse system was applicable to Ireland; and after noticing the objection made by the commissioners of inquiry, and urged by others, that the workhouse would not be safe—that there would be too much violence—that there would be such a dislike of restraint that it could not be enforced—he came to the conclusion “that there was no reason to apprehend anything of the sort.” In some of the houses of industry, he remarked, they have carried the system of restraint further than in the old English workhouses, and have established the separation of sexes such as exists in the new English workhouses; and no regulation was proposed which did not now exist, so “there need be no fear that violence would be used, or that we could not protect the workhouses in Ireland, as well and as securely as the workhouses in England.”

It had been much urged, he said, as a means of preventing undue pressure on the workhouse, that a residence in the district of three years or some other definite period should be a condition to any person’s being relieved therein; but he declared that he was opposed to establishing a law of settlement in Ireland, being quite convinced that it is one of the greatest evils of the poor-laws in England. It circumscribes the market for industry. It has led to immense litigation, and any person, he observed, “who has attended the quarter sessions, and there witnessed the disputes that arise between parishes as to whether a person had been hired for a year and a day, whether he had been ordered to go home on the day before the expiration of the term so as to destroy the settlement, or whether he had served a full year and a day, and various other similar questions—any person who has attended to this litigation and those disputes, will not have any wish that I should introduce the question of settlement into this bill.”

When the whole of the workhouses are in operation, and we are enabled to relieve all that are entitled to it, we may then, he observed, prohibit vagrancy; but until we can do the one, it will not be just altogether to prohibit the other. It is not therefore proposed to prevent persons asking alms, if they can show they have applied for and failed in obtaining relief. This is a necessary step in the transition from one state to another. If it succeeds, we shall hereafter be able to prohibit vagrancy.

His lordship then went over the ground more fully discussed in the Report, with regard to the local machinery, the question of rating, the extent of the unions, cost of the workhouses, emigration, and some other minor points; and then stated that the safest way of introducing such a law as had been described, would be to use the simple machinery which had been found so advantageous in England. It was therefore proposed, instead of forming a separate commission for Ireland, that the Poor Law Commissioners for England should have the power of intrusting to one or two of their body, the power of acting in Ireland for carrying the law into operation. This would he thought be better than establishing a separate commission. A lengthened discussion then took place in reference to the proposed measure, in which Mr. Shaw, Mr. O'Connell, Lord Howick, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and other members took part. |The bill read a first time.| Doubts were of course expressed, and objections stated; but on the whole the measure was not received unfavourably, and the bill was ordered to be read a first time.

The bill read a second time and committed.

On the 25th of April Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the bill, and the debate thereon was continued by adjournment to the 1st of May, when the second reading was carried without a division, although not without long and somewhat hostile discussion. On the 9th of May the house went into committee on the bill, and the first fourteen clauses were passed with only a few verbal alterations. On the 11th the committee got to the end of the 20th clause, after two unimportant divisions. It had been announced that on the 12th of May the question of settlement should be considered. Many members were still of opinion that a settlement law was necessary; but after a long and temperate discussion of the subject in all its bearings, the committee decided against the introduction of settlement by 120 to 68. On the 26th of May the bill was again in committee, when the clauses up to the 35th were agreed to. |Vagrancy clauses postponed.| On the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th of June, the committee proceeded in considering the clauses of the bill up to the 60th, but the vagrancy clauses (53 to 58 inclusive) were postponed. These clauses provided for the repression of mendicancy in the unions, as the workhouses were successively completed and in operation; but there appeared to be a strong feeling in the house that nothing should be done to prevent begging, until the poor-law was everywhere fully established. The clauses were therefore postponed for further consideration.

Death of William IV. June 20, 1837.

At this time the king’s illness had so much increased that his recovery became highly improbable, and the business of parliament was consequently suspended. William the Fourth died on the 20th of June, and was succeeded by his niece the Princess Victoria, our present gracious sovereign. On the 17th of July parliament was prorogued by the youthful queen, in a speech from the throne, which the manner of its delivery and the occasion combined to render more than ordinarily interesting. The Irish Poor Relief bill, and the other measures then in progress, were therefore put an end to, and would have to be commenced anew on the re-assembling of parliament.

The interval thus interposed, afforded opportunity for further consideration and inquiry, and it was determined that this should be taken advantage of, and that the author should again proceed to Ireland for the purpose of visiting “those districts which a want of time prevented his inspecting last year.” I was also directed to bear in mind the discussions which had taken place during the progress of the bill in the late session, and generally to report whether the circumstances of the districts about to be visited, or any new matter that I might discover, “shall have caused me in any way to alter or modify the recommendations set forth in my last Report.”

Accordingly at the end of August I proceeded to Ireland, and continued in the active prosecution of my inquiries until early in October. I moreover took advantage of the opportunity afforded me in going and returning, to inquire very carefully at Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, into the habits of the large number of Irish congregated in each of these towns, and into the mode of dealing with such of them as become destitute, or stand in need of relief, on which points I obtained much valuable information, for the most part confirmatory of my previous views. On the 3rd of November I reported the result of my further inquiries;[^[77]] and I will now, as was done in the case of the ‘First Report,’ give an abstract of this ‘Second Report,’ although much less fully, it not being now necessary to go so much at length into what may be considered matters of detail, as was requisite in the first instance—

Second Report.—Nov. 3, 1837.

“The investigations which I have just concluded, have not afforded ground for any material change of opinion. I may perhaps estimate the difficulty of establishing a poor-law in Ireland somewhat higher than I did before, but of the necessity for such a measure, I am if possible more fully convinced; and now, after a more extended inquiry, both in England and in Ireland, I am enabled substantially to confirm the statements in my Report of last year, to which I can add but little in the way of recommendation, although it may be necessary to notice certain objections which have been made to portions of the Report, and to some of the provisions of the bill of last session. No material change in the bill however appears to be called for, and I presume government will again proceed with it as then proposed. The measure is essentially based upon the English workhouse system; and as, notwithstanding the facts and reasonings which were adduced in proof of its applicability to Ireland, doubts were still expressed both in and out of parliament upon this vital point, it seemed important to ascertain whether any grounds for such doubts really existed.

“With this view I visited Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, through which places nearly the whole of the Irish migrants pass and repass, and in all of which there is a large resident Irish population, and where therefore their habits are well known. All the persons whom I consulted in these places, were unanimous in declaring their belief, that nothing but absolute inability to provide for himself would induce an Irishman to enter the workhouse. But it may be objected, that although disinclination to the workhouse is characteristic of the Irish when in England, such would not be the case if the system were established in Ireland. This objection does not admit of an answer founded on direct experience; but judging from analogy, and making due allowance for the circumstances of the two countries, there seems no reason to doubt that the result would be the same in one as in the other. The Irishman is by habit and temperament more roving and migratory than the Englishman; but this is surely not calculated to reconcile him sooner to the restraints of a workhouse. I made it my business to inquire, and obtain information from all classes of persons, and was everywhere assured that the Irish would not go into the workhouse, if they could in any way obtain support out of it. The result of my investigations in the several houses of industry and mendicity establishments has been to the same purport, all tending to show that if the workhouse is properly regulated, it will be resorted to only by the actually destitute. It is not less important to state however, that I found the same persons decidedly opposed to anything in the shape of out-door relief. I have not met with an individual conversant with the subject, either in England or in Ireland, who did not declare against out door relief. ‘Confine relief to the workhouse,’ was the general reply, ‘and you will be safe; but if you once grant out-door relief, your control is gone, and the whole Irish population will become a mass of paupers.’

“It has been argued that the workhouses will eventually fail in Ireland, as they have failed in France, at Munich, and at Hamburgh; but there is no analogy between the two cases. The workhouse principle was never recognised in these establishments, which were all either poorhouses for the maintenance of the aged and infirm, or manufactories for setting to work vagrants, mendicants, and other idle persons. All these institutions were established under the notion that profitable labour could be always found, and that pauper labour could be made profitable to the community, and their management had reference to these objects. There were certain variations in practice to suit local circumstances, but this was the view under which the institutions were founded, by Count Rumford, at Munich, by the imperial government in France, and by Baron de Voght, at Hamburgh. I need scarcely say that this view is essentially different from the workhouse system established in England, and as it is proposed to establish it in Ireland. Experience has proved that pauper labour can never be profitable. The workhouse is here used merely as a medium of relief; and in order that the destitute only may partake of it, the relief is administered in such a way, and on such conditions, that none but the destitute will accept it. This is the workhouse principle, as first established in the two parishes of Bingham and Southwell eighteen or twenty years ago, and as it has recently been established in the unions formed under the Poor Law Amendment Act; and we have the experience of these parishes, and the more varied, though less prolonged experience of the English unions, in proof of the efficiency of the system, which has worked hitherto without a single instance of failure. It is not therefore upon mere hypothesis, that it is proposed to proceed with regard to the Irish Poor Law, but upon the surer ground of experience.

“It has been further argued, that there is always a tendency to deterioration in such institutions, and that after a time they fall away from the principle on which they were originally established—to which it may be answered, that no such deterioration occurred in the two parishes above named—on the contrary, the workhouse principle continued to operate in these parishes in all its simplicity and efficiency, up to the day when they were each constituted the centre of a union. May it not therefore be inferred, that if established as a test of destitution, the workhouse will continue to be effective, and the principle free from deterioration, as in the two cases named above? But the proposed measure does not depend on this inference alone—a safeguard is provided by the Poor Law Amendment Act in the appointment of commissioners, who under the control of the executive, and the supervision of parliament, are to superintend the working of the measure, and to apply from time to time such correctives, whether local or general, as may be necessary for securing its efficiency. Whatever doubts may have arisen on either side of the Channel, as to the sufficiency of the workhouse for relieving the destitute, as well as for protecting the ratepayers, I therefore feel warranted in expressing my conviction, not only that the workhouse system is applicable to Ireland, but that it is the only mode in which relief can be safely administered to the destitute classes in that country.

“The question of the workhouse being thus disposed of, I shall now proceed to notice such objections as have been made to the bill generally, or to any of its provisions; and in doing this, I will endeavour to introduce such illustrations as seem to be called for, and such further information as I have been able to collect during my recent visitation, which extended from Waterford to Belfast and Londonderry, and the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, Cavan, and Meath.

“The chief objections which have been made to the measure, as it was introduced in the last session, are comprised under the heads hereafter specified, to each of which a full explanation is appended in the Report. From these several explanations, so much is here given, as will, it is hoped, serve to lessen, if not altogether to remove, the weight of the objections which were raised during the discussion on the bill, or which may have appeared in pamphlets or in any other shape.

The measure is said not to be applicable to the North of Ireland.—“It has frequently been asserted, both in and out of parliament, that the condition of the people in the north of Ireland differs so essentially from those in the south, that a poor-law which might be applicable in one case, would be inapplicable in the other; and it was urged as a ground of objection to the measure of last session, that it had been framed exclusively with reference to the southern and western districts. This objection seems to have been made mainly on the ground, that no specific information had been obtained as to the north of Ireland; whereas, in fact, a large mass of information had been collected by the commissioners of Irish Poor Inquiry, with respect to the north, as well as the other parts of the country; and this information, coupled with what I had obtained from other sources, and supported by my own observation in those of the northern counties which I had visited, appeared to be sufficient, without further examination of the northern districts. An opportunity for such examination having however been afforded by the postponement of the bill, I have now visited most of the northern counties, and carefully examined the condition and habits of the people, with special reference to the contemplated measure; and I can with entire confidence state, in my opinion, it is as well adapted to the circumstances existing in the north, as to those which prevail in the south. The habits of the people are there in some degree fitted for its reception. The necessity of relieving the destitute is there admitted, and in most of the northern towns of any note, there is now a kind of voluntary poor-law established. In Monaghan, in Armagh, at Newry, Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry, I found provision made for relieving destitution, and the principle virtually recognised, that it is the duty of a civilised community to protect its members from perishing by want. Indeed, if any doubt existed as to establishing a poor-law in Ireland, an inspection of the northern counties would, I think, remove the doubt, and show the expediency of such a measure. The extent of poverty is there less than in the south and west; but the amount of destitution is probably as great. There is this important difference however—in the south and west the destitute depend for support upon the class immediately above them, the small cottiers and cultivators; but in the north, the sympathy existing between the different ranks of society—between the opulent and the needy—has led to the making of some provision for the relief of the latter class. If the charge of this provision was fairly spread over the whole community—if the relief afforded was sufficient, and permanent, and equally distributed, it would be equivalent to a poor-law; but the charge is unequal, the provision uncertain, and the relief partial and inefficient. To apply the proposed measure to the north of Ireland, will therefore be little more than carrying out, in an equal and effective manner, that which has been long but unequally and ineffectually attempted by the communities themselves.

“In speaking of the north of Ireland, I ought to except the county of Donegal, the inhabitants of which differ materially from those of the other northern counties, and approximate to those of the west and south. Small holdings, and minute subdivisions of land, prevail in Donegal to a greater extent than I have found in any other part of Ireland; and the consequent growth of population there presses so hard upon the productive powers of the soil, as to depress the condition of the people to nearly the lowest point in the social scale—exposing them, under the not unfrequent occurrence of an unfavourable season, or a failure of the potato-crop, to the greatest privations. This has unhappily been the case during the last four years, in each of which, and especially in the last, there has been a failure of the crops in Donegal. In May, June, and July last, nearly the whole of the population along the northern and western coasts of the county, were reduced to a state bordering on starvation; and had not government sent a supply of meal and medical aid, numbers of the people would have fallen victims to famine and disease. The surface of Donegal is generally covered with bog, susceptible of profitable cultivation wherever lime or sea-sand or sea-weed is obtainable, and the people have in consequence congregated wherever these elements of fertility abound—along the coasts, and on the shores of the numerous bays and inlets opening upon the Atlantic, along the banks of the rivers, and up the narrow valleys and ravines with which the country is intersected—everywhere, in short, where the soil is most easily reclaimed by individual exertion. But wherever combined effort, or an outlay of capital is necessary for draining, fencing, and reclaiming—there nothing has been done, and the surface is permitted to lie waste and unproductive. The process of reclamation in such circumstances is above the limited means of the people, each one of whom just manages to cultivate land enough to raise potatoes for his family—a patch of oats to supply them, mostly I fear, with whisky—and then, as to rent (for they all pay rent), they rely for raising that upon a few cattle or sheep running wild upon the mountains.

“Nothing can exceed the miserable appearance of the cottages in Donegal, or the desolate aspect of a cluster of these hovels, always teeming with a crowded population. Yet if you enter their cabins, and converse with them frankly and kindly, you will find the people intelligent and communicative, quick to comprehend, and ready to impart what they know. They admitted that they were too numerous, ‘too thick upon the land,’ and that, as one of them declared, ‘they were eating each other’s heads off,’—but what could they do? There was no employment for the young, nor relief for the aged, nor means nor opportunity for removing their surplus numbers to some more eligible spot. They could only therefore live on, ‘hoping,’ as they said, ‘that times might mend, and that their landlords would sooner or later do something for them.’ To improve the condition of such a people would increase the productive powers of the country, a point well deserving the attention of the great landowners, with whom it mainly rests. But no material or lasting improvement can be effected, so long as the present subdivision of land continues. This practice, wherever it prevails, forces the population down to the lowest level of subsistence—to that point where subdivision is arrested by the dread, or by the actual occurrence of want; and it is alike the duty and the interest of the landowner, so to exercise the right of property as to guard his tenantry from such depression. In the case of Donegal, a two-fold remedy seems to be necessary, that is, emigration, and an extension of cultivation. There is abundant room for the latter, and if undertaken with spirit and intelligence, it will not only ensure an ample return on the capital expended, but also afford employment, and provide suitable locations for a part of the surplus population. If a portion of this surplus were removed by emigration, and another portion placed on new grounds, effectually reclaimed, a consolidation of the present small holdings might be effected. This would be a great point gained, where the average rental of such holdings does not exceed 2l., and numbers are under 1l. per annum. A poor-law would facilitate this change, so necessary for the landowners, as well as for the great mass of the people of Donegal. The principle of a poor-law is to make the property of a district answerable for the relief of destitution within it; and the application of this principle would serve to connect the several orders of society, and teach them to act together—it would show them that they have reciprocal interests, reciprocal duties—that each is necessary to the other—and that the cordial co-operation of all is necessary to the well-being of the whole. I therefore augur much good from the establishment of a poor-law, under circumstances similar to those now existing in Donegal; and believe that such a law, whilst it provides for the relief of the destitute, will be a safeguard to property, and facilitate the introduction of other ameliorations.

There ought to be a law of Settlement.—“There is no part of the subject to which I have given more attention than to the question of settlement. Of the evils arising from settlement in England, there can be no doubt, and the grounds on which it was proposed to establish a poor-law in Ireland without settlement, are explained in my former Report. But it appears that many persons still consider some law of settlement necessary for securing local co-operation based upon local interests, for the protection of particular unions from undue pressure, and for guarding the towns on the eastern coast from being burdened with the destitute who may flock thither, or be sent thither from England or Scotland, or with the families of the large body of migrants who proceed to Great Britain in the harvest season and return at its conclusion. If there were danger from all or any of these sources, it might be right to make provision against it in the bill; but I am satisfied that, in carrying out the measure as now proposed, none of these inconveniences would arise, beyond what the commissioners could meet by special regulations, without recurring to a settlement law. There is this primary objection to settlement, that it impedes the free distribution of labour, and interferes with the fair and open competition which is alike necessary for protecting the employer and the employed, and by which an equalisation of supply and demand in the labour-market can alone be maintained. Its direct tendency is to depress the social condition and character of the people; for by narrowing the field of labour, and binding individuals to a particular locality, not perhaps favourable to the development or most profitable employment of their faculties, improvement is checked, independence is destroyed, and the working classes, without resource or elasticity of spirit, are led to depend upon their place of settlement in every contingency, instead of upon themselves. If therefore the bill as at present proposed, by requiring the rate to be levied upon the union for relief of the actually destitute within it is sufficient, as I believe it to be, for securing attention to the business of the union, there can be no necessity to establish a law of settlement for such purpose; and nothing short of absolute necessity in that or some other respect, could justify the introduction of a law, the direct tendency of which would be in other respects so injurious.

Out-door Relief should have been provided for.—“Much has been said as to the necessity of providing out-door relief in Ireland; but most of the arguments in favour of an extension of relief beyond the workhouse appear to be founded, either upon a misapprehension of the objects of a poor-law, or upon an exaggerated estimate of the number of destitute persons for whom relief would be required. The object of a poor-law is to relieve the destitute—that is, to relieve those individuals who from sickness, accident, mental or bodily infirmity, failure of employment, or other cause, may be unable to obtain the necessaries of life by their own exertions. Under such circumstances, the destitute individual, if not relieved, might be driven to beg or to steal; and a poor-law, by providing for the relief of destitution, prevents the necessity or the excuse for resorting to either. This is the legitimate object of a poor-law, and to this its operations are limited in the bill of last session. But if, disregarding this limitation, it be attempted to provide relief for all who are needy, but not destitute—for all who are poor, and whose means of living are inferior to what it may be desirable that they should possess—if property is to be taxed, not for the relief of the destitute only, but for ensuring to every one such a portion of the comforts and conveniences of life as are assumed to be necessary—the consequence of any such attempt must be in Ireland, as it notoriously was in England, not only to diminish the value of property, but also to emasculate and demoralise the whole labouring population.

“The evidence collected by the Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry in England, establishes the conclusion that out-door relief is inevitably open to abuse, and that its administration entails consequences prejudicial to the labouring classes, and to the whole community—in short, that there is no security for the prevention of abuse, nor any mode of ensuring a right administration of relief, but by restricting it to the workhouse. The facts and reasonings contained in the Reports on this subject, have been confirmed by the experience of the present Poor Law Commission; and although out-door relief has not yet been totally prohibited in any of the English unions, there can be no doubt that the intention of the Poor Law Amendment Act points eventually to the workhouse as the sole medium of relief, and requires that it should be so restricted as early as circumstances permitted. To establish out-door relief in Ireland, would therefore be in direct contradiction to English experience, and to the spirit of the English law. It would introduce a practice in the one country, under the prejudicial effects of which the other has long been suffering, and from which it has not yet entirely recovered. Some persons have recommended that out-door relief in Ireland, should be restricted to the aged, sick, and infirm; but even with this limitation, how is abuse to be prevented, and how is the precise limit to be defined of the age, sickness, or infirmity, entitling an individual to be relieved out of the workhouse?—I believe it to be impossible so to define the conditions as to prevent the occurrence of gross abuses, which would not only be a source of demoralisation, but would also serve to engender strifes jealousies and ill feeling in every locality. After the best consideration which I have been able to give the subject, in all its bearings, I still retain the opinion that in Ireland relief should be restricted to the workhouse, or in other words, that out-door relief in any shape should be prohibited.

The mode of Rating is objected to.—“The question of rating is obviously open to much contrariety of opinion. The mode of valuation, of assessment, of collection, and the proportions in which the rate shall be paid, are all questions on which different opinions might possibly be formed by different persons; and accordingly the views expressed upon these points have been various and conflicting. Some have contended that the whole of the rate should be charged upon the owner, on the ground that the tenant derives little profit, often no profit whatever from the occupation, and ought not therefore to be called on to pay any part of the rate. Those taking this view, appear to overlook the fact that the destitute classes in Ireland are now supported almost entirely by the occupiers, who will be relieved from this charge when the proposed measure shall have come into operation. To require the occupiers to pay half the rate, is not therefore to impose on them a new charge, but a portion only of an old charge, to which they had long been accustomed. Moreover the occupiers have an interest in the property rated—not permanent indeed like the owners, but more immediate; and on this ground also they are fairly chargeable with a portion of the rate. If the owners paid the whole, the occupiers would of course not be entitled to take part in the distribution of the funds, nor in the management of the business of the union—they would have no interest in common with their landlords, and would to a certain extent be arrayed against them; for their interest and their sympathies would probably lead them to increase the amount of the burthen, rather than lessen it. Even if there were a sufficient number of resident owners, it would be inexpedient to place the whole control of the unions in their hands, thus constituting them a separate class, and at the same time lowering the position of the occupiers; but in the present state of Ireland, such a proposition seems especially open to objection. The exemption in favour of occupiers of 5l. value and under, and the charging the owners of such property with the entire rate, forms an exception to the above reasoning, and will probably be disapproved by those whose interests may appear to be affected by it. But every such charge is eventually borne by the property, and in the long run it is perhaps not very material whether the rate is paid by the owner or by the tenant, it being in fact a portion of the rent. This arrangement is proposed, partly as a matter of convenience, on account of the difficulty and expense of collecting a rate from the vast number of small holdings of 5l. value and under which exist in Ireland, and partly also with the view of relieving this description of occupiers, who are for the most part in a state of poverty bordering on destitution, from a portion of the burthen; and it is gratifying to find that this proposition has on the whole been favourably received.

The Unions as proposed are too large.—“In almost every discussion during the progress of the bill last session, the proposed number and size of the unions were objected to. Yet the discretion of the commissioners is unfettered in these respects. They are left at liberty to form the unions, as may appear best adapted to the circumstances in each case. The same discretion was confided to the commissioners in England, and it must be equally necessary that they should possess it in Ireland. The objections to the intended size of the unions, do not therefore apply to the bill, but to my first Report, in which it is stated that, ‘If the surface of Ireland be divided into squares of twenty miles each, so that a workhouse placed in the centre would be about ten miles from the extremities in all directions, this would give about eighty workhouses for the whole of Ireland.’ Instead of eighty workhouses however, I assumed that a hundred might be required, and calculated the probable expense accordingly. But this was mere assumption, for it is obviously impossible to state what will be the precise number of unions, until some progress has been made in the work of formation. The commissioners are bound to form the unions in the best manner, according to the best of their judgment. Their credit as public functionaries would be compromised by any failure in this respect; and it may be fairly presumed that they will use due vigilance and impartiality, and avail themselves of all the experience which England affords in this matter.

The suppression of Mendicancy objected to.—“Objections have been made to the vagrancy clauses, and it has been contended that if such provisions were necessary, they should be established by a separate Act. Whether the suppression of mendicancy be provided for in the Poor Law Bill, or by a separate bill, does not seem very material; but it is important that the provision should be made concurrently with the Poor Law measure. To establish a poor-law, without at the same time suppressing mendicancy, would be imperfect legislation, especially with reference to the present condition of the Irish people. It is true there are now vagrancy laws in Ireland, which enact whipping, imprisonment, and transportation as the punishments of mendicancy; but these laws are inoperative, partly from their severity, and partly from other causes. Ireland wants a vagrancy law that shall operate in unison with the Poor Law, for without such concurrent action, both laws would be in a great measure ineffective. The suppression of mendicancy is necessary for the protection of the peasantry themselves. No Irish cottier, however poor, closes his door whilst partaking of his humble meal. The mendicant has free access, and is never refused a share. There is a superstitious dread of bringing down the beggar’s curse, and thus mendicancy is sustained in the midst of poverty, perpetuating itself amongst its victims. Much of the feeling out of which this state of things has arisen may, I think, be traced to the absence of any provision for relieving the destitute. A mendicant solicits charity on the plea of destitution. His plea must be admitted, for it cannot be disproved; and to refuse relief, may occasion the death of a fellow-creature, which would be a crime of great magnitude. Hence the admission of the mendicant’s claim, which is regarded in the light of an obligation by the Irish peasantry. To make provision for relieving mendicants at the public charge, without at the same time preventing the practice of begging, would leave the peasant exposed to much of the pressure which he now sustains from this source; for the mendicant class would generally prefer the vagrant life to which they are accustomed, to the order and restraint of a workhouse. To suppress mendicancy, is therefore necessary both as an adjunct of the proposed Poor Law, and for the protection of the labouring classes throughout Ireland.

Objections to cumulative voting, &c.—“It might perhaps be sufficient to say, in answer to the objections which were made to cumulative voting, voting by proxy, and constituting magistrates ex-officio guardians, that the Irish bill follows in these cases the example of the English Poor Law Amendment Act. There are, however, weighty reasons in favour of each of these provisions, some of which it may be useful to notice.

“With respect to cumulative votes, it may be observed, that the raising and disbursing of a poor-rate involves nothing political, but is to be regarded rather in the light of a mutual assurance, in which the community joins for the purpose of being protected against the effects of pauperism, each member contributing in proportion to his means, and each having an interest according to the amount of his contributions. If therefore the amount contributed be the measure of each ratepayer’s interest, it ought in justice also, within certain convenient limitations, to be the measure of his influence; and these limitations the bill provides, by fixing a scale according to which every ratepayer is entitled to vote. As regards the voting by proxy, such a power is necessary for enabling the owner to protect his property, his interest in which is permanent, although he may not always be present to represent it by his personal vote; and the bill therefore provides for his doing so by proxy. The occupier is always present, and may vote in person; not so the owner, whose interest would be unprotected without this power of voting by proxy. That the owner’s interest ought to be represented will not be denied. The rate is levied upon property, and thus in fact becomes a portion of the rent, which would be increased by the amount of the rate, if this were not levied for Poor Law purposes; so that in reality it is the landlord, the permanent owner of the property, who finally bears the burthen of the rate, and not the tenant or temporary occupier. It seems consonant with justice therefore, that every facility should be afforded to the owner for protecting his interest by his vote.

“There are many reasons why magistrates should form a portion of every board of guardians. The elected guardians will for the most part consist of occupiers, or renters, not the owners of property; and their interest will be temporary, whilst the interest of the owner is permanent. Some union of these two interests seems necessary towards the complete organization of a board of guardians; and as the magistrates collectively may be regarded as the chief landed proprietors of the country, the bill proposes to effect this union by creating them ex-officio members of the board. The elected guardians are moreover subject to be changed every year, and their proceedings might be changeable, and perhaps contradictory, and confusion might arise through the opposite views of successive boards. The ex-officio guardians will serve as a corrective in this respect. Their position as magistrates, their information and general character, and their large stake as owners of property, will necessarily give them much weight; whilst the proposed limitation of their number to one-third of the elected guardians, will prevent their having an undue preponderance. The elected and the ex officio members may be expected each to improve the other, and important social benefits may arise from their frequent mingling, and from the necessity for mutual concession and forbearance which such mingling cannot fail to teach. Each individual member will feel that his influence depends upon the opinion which his colleagues entertain of him, or upon the respect or regard which they feel towards him; and hence will arise an interchange of good offices, and a cultivation of mutual good-will, beginning with the board of guardians, and extending throughout the union, and eventually it may be hoped throughout the country; and thus the union system may become the means of healing dissensions, and reconciling jarring interests in Ireland. On these grounds, I consider that the establishment of ex-officio guardians, voting by proxy, and cumulative voting, as provided in the bill, should be adhered to.

“Many measures, local as well as general, have been suggested, either for removing restrictions to the application of capital, or for giving direct encouragement to its application in Ireland; and some of these measures, I understand government intend taking into early consideration. In the survey which I have been able to take of the state of Ireland, and of the condition of the Irish people, it has appeared to me that quiet, and the absence of excitement, is the object chiefly to be desired. With repose would come security, and the investment of capital, and thence would arise employment, and the development of the productive powers of the country. The proposed Poor Law will not of itself accomplish these objects, but it will be found a valuable accessory; and with the progress of education, and that orderly submission to lawful authority which is at once the cause and the consequence of peace and prosperity, all those other objects will, we may hope, be eventually secured for Ireland.”[^[78]]

My Report was considered by the Cabinet,[^[79]] and the whole subject was again very fully discussed, and several minor alterations in the bill were decided upon. It was also determined to bring it forward as the first measure of the session. The subject continued to occupy a good deal of public attention, as well in England as in Ireland. It was discussed in the papers, and pamphlets were written upon it. In this instance however, as in most others, the opponents were the most active, and much ingenuity was displayed in animadverting on the asserted incongruities of the proposed Irish Poor Law. The inquiry commissioners also had their advocates, and in Ireland especially their recommendations were, as might be expected, more popular than the government bill. However, on the whole, the measure may be said to have held its ground, and to be regarded as a matter of first-rate importance.

The bill reintroduced, December 1, 1837.

Parliament assembled on the 10th of November, and on 1st of December Lord John Russell reintroduced the bill, in an argumentative speech of considerable length. After going through and commenting on the several recommendations of the inquiry commissioners,[^[80]] and noticing the objections to which they were all more or less open, he explained by way of contrast the principle on which the present bill was founded, much in the same manner that he had done on the first introduction of the measure. The statement was generally well received, although there were some marked exceptions in this respect, and the bill was read a first time without a division. It was in like manner read a second time on the 5th of February 1838. But on the motion for going into committee on the 9th, Mr. O'Connell strongly opposed the bill, and moved that it be committed that day six months. The amendment was however negatived by 277 to 25, a majority which made the passing of the measure in some form pretty certain. On the 23rd of February the question of settlement was again very fully discussed, and its introduction decided against by 103 to 31, the latter number comprising all who could be brought to vote for a settlement law of any kind. The vagrancy clauses were now also withdrawn from the bill, on the understanding that there would hereafter be a separate measure for the suppression of |The bill passed the commons and read a first time in the lords.| mendicancy[mendicancy]. The bill continued to be considered in successive committees until the 23rd of March, when all the clauses having been gone through and settled, it was ordered to be reported, which was done on the 9th of April. On the 30th of April the bill was read a third time and passed by the commons, and on the day following was introduced and read a first time in the lords.

It had been thought desirable that during the Easter vacation I should visit Holland and Belgium, with the view of ascertaining whether there was anything in the institutions of those countries, or in the management of their poor, that could be made available in the present measure of Irish Poor Law; and it was arranged that Dr. Kay, one of our assistant-commissioners should accompany me. The time at our disposal was short, and our investigations were necessarily hurried; but the letters with which we were furnished procured for us ready access everywhere, and enabled us to obtain information which would not otherwise have been accessible. On our return, I reported to government the result of our inquiries.[^[81]] The first portion of the Report was chiefly furnished by my companion, and had reference to the subject of education, in which Dr. Kay[^[82]] felt a deep interest, and in the promotion of which he afterwards took a distinguished part. The latter portions of the Report applied more immediately to our present subject, and from these portions I will now abstract so much as seemed calculated to be useful with regard to the question of Irish Poor Law, or to bear in any way upon the state of Ireland—

Third Report.—May 5, 1838.

“The institutions for the relief of indigence are numerous in Holland, and consist of hospices for the aged and infirm, orphan-houses, workhouses of towns, depôts de mendicité, or district workhouses, the poor colonies, and private charitable institutions. The funds for the support of these establishments are to a great extent derived from endowments and voluntary contributions, the direct tax not being more than about 1,800,000 guilders, or 150,000l. per annum. Among the classes having ability to labour, a state of even temporary dependence is considered disgraceful, and great exertions are made by the labouring population to avoid it. But no sense of degradation attaches to the orphan establishments, which are calculated to invite rather than to discourage dependence. The depôts de mendicité, or provincial workhouses bear so close a resemblance to the old English workhouses and those established under Gilbert’s and the various local Acts, as to warrant a belief that the English workhouses must have been formed upon a Dutch model; but however this may be, the result has certainly been the same in both countries, the evil of pauperism having been increased rather than diminished by these institutions, in which the profitable application of pauper labour has been sought for, rather than the repression of pauperism.

“The workhouse of Amsterdam is a vast building, capable of containing upwards of 1,500 inmates. The imposing character of its exterior, the elegance of its entrance-hall, and the decorations of the rooms appropriated to public business, were in marked contrast with the aspect of the several wards. The inmates chiefly consisted of the lowest and least moral part of the population of the great cities, who had sought refuge in the workhouse because they had forfeited their claim to regular employment, and the vigilance of the police did not permit them to subsist by mendicancy. The sexes were strictly separated at all times, but the children were in the same apartment with the adults of each sex. The males and females each occupied separate day-rooms, in which the dirt and disorder were very offensive. In these rooms the inmates ate their meals, without any attention to regularity or propriety. Here also they worked in the looms, or at other occupations. The first group of men to whom we advanced, were seated at a table playing at cards; we found another party playing at draughts, and a third at hazard. Others were idly sauntering up and down the room. The women’s day-room presented a scene of similar disorder. Both men and boys were clothed in a coarse kind of sacking. The chief article of their diet is rye-bread, almost black, and not over-abundant, with an indefinite quantity of boiled buttermilk; but they are permitted to work at certain rates of wages, and to spend a portion of their earnings at a canteen in the house, where coffee tobacco gin &c. may be obtained. On application for admission, the paupers undergo a strict examination as to their ability to maintain themselves; and while inmates they are not permitted to go abroad, ‘unless they give positive hopes that on re-entering society, they will render themselves worthy of their liberty, by diligently endeavouring to gain their own livelihood by honest means.’

“The establishment at La Cambré, near Brussels, was superior in its internal arrangements to the workhouse at Amsterdam, particularly in the separate classification of the aged, the children, and the adults, and also in the good arrangement and cleanliness of the sleeping-rooms. The sexes are strictly separated, as is invariably the case in all the other Dutch and Belgian institutions. By the penal code, a mendicant once condemned to a depôt de mendicité for begging, may be kept there during the remainder of his life; but in practice, he is allowed to leave the establishment whenever the commission of superintendence are satisfied that he is disposed to labour for his subsistence, without resorting to mendicancy.

“There are three great workhouses for the whole of Holland, which are situated, one at Amsterdam, another at Middleburgh, and a third in the commonalty Nieuve Pekel A, in the province of Groningen. Belgium has five great workhouses, situated respectively at La Cambré, near Brussels, for the province of Brabant; at Bruges, for the two Flanders; at Hoogstraeten, for the province of Antwerp; at Mons, for Hainault, Namur, and Luxembourg; and at Reickheim, for Liege and Limburgh. Under their present regulations, these provincial workhouses, or depôts de mendicité, both in Holland and Belgium, are I think, judging from what we could learn and what we saw, very defective institutions; and hence seems to have arisen the necessity for resorting to some stricter measures, which ended in the establishment of the poor colonies. In England, the defects of the old workhouses were remedied by the introduction of regulations calculated to render them efficient tests, by the aid of which we have succeeded in establishing the distinction between poverty and destitution: for the latter we have provided relief, but we have left the former to its own natural resources. In Holland and Belgium no such distinction has been made, or test established. Their workhouses remain as they were originally formed—nurseries for indolence, and stimulants to pauperism. But in order to correct this evil, the Dutch have had recourse to the establishment of penal colonies, to which all persons found begging (or committing vagabondage as it is termed) are sent, if able to work, and compelled to labour for their subsistence, under strict discipline and low diet. Had the workhouses been made efficient, there would have been no occasion for these establishments; but the workhouses not being efficient, recourse has been had to the penal colonies, where the test of strict discipline, hard labour, and scanty diet, is so applied as to be held in the greatest dread by the vagrant classes. All beggars are apprehended by the police; if able to work, they are sent to the penal colonies; if aged or infirm, or unable to perform out-door work, they are sent to the workhouses; and although the discipline of the workhouses is defective, and the management in many respects faulty, yet with the aid of the penal colonies they secure the repression of mendicancy.

“In the workhouses of the penal colonies to which the able-bodied mendicants are sent, one ward is used in common as a dormitory, refectory, and workshop. The inmates sleep in hammocks, and are very coarsely clad. They labour in the fields, or in making bricks, or at manufactures in the house, under the superintendence of an inspector. Each colonist is furnished with a book, in which is entered the work executed daily, the amount of food and clothes furnished, his share of the general expenses of the establishment, and whatever he has received in the paper-money of the colony. Guards on horseback to patrol the boundary of the colony, rewards given for bringing back any colonist who has attempted to escape, and an uniform dress, are the means adopted to prevent desertion from the colony. Mendicants when arrested, may choose whether they will be brought before the tribunals as vagabonds, or be sent to the coercive colony, where they must remain at least one year. These rigorous measures for the suppression of mendicancy, have been adopted in the absence of any acknowledgment of a right to relief, and notwithstanding that a large portion of the relief actually administered arises from endowments and voluntary contributions. This forms an important feature in the Dutch and Belgian system; and if, as I believe, the rigour of this part of their institutions has been caused by the imperfect organization of the others, the true remedy would have been, not in the establishment of penal colonies, but in such an improvement of those other institutions as would have rendered them efficient for the repression of mendicancy, as well as for the administration of relief. On comparing the modes of relief existing in Holland and Belgium, with the system of relief it is proposed to establish in Ireland, the latter will I think be found to be much more simple and complete, and consequently to promise greater efficiency. No right to relief exists in Holland or Belgium, yet mendicancy is suppressed in both those countries. It is proposed not to give a right to relief in Ireland, and it is intended to suppress mendicancy,—in this respect therefore the circumstances are similar. But in Ireland, it is proposed to divide the whole country into districts of convenient extent, with a workhouse to each, so that every destitute and infirm person will be within easy reach of adequate relief; and this arrangement is obviously preferable to the various, and in some respects conflicting modes of relief which exist in Holland and Belgium, and will be more effective in its operation. The example of Holland and Belgium may therefore be cited, in addition to that of England, in support of the proposed Irish Poor Law.

“Another matter of much interest, is the different condition of the smaller class of cultivators in the two countries. Small farms of from five to ten acres abound in many parts of Belgium, closely resembling the small holdings in Ireland; but the Irish cultivator is without the comforts and conveniences of civilised life, whilst the Belgian peasant-farmer enjoys a large portion of both. The houses of the small cultivators in Belgium are generally substantial, with a sleeping-room in the attic, and closets for beds connected with the lower apartment, a dairy, a store for the grain, an oven, a cattle-stall, piggery, and poultry-loft. There is generally decent furniture and sufficient bedding, and although the scrupulous cleanliness of the Dutch may not be everywhere observable, an air of comfort and propriety pervades the whole establishment. In the cowhouse the dung and urine are preserved in the tank; the ditches are scoured, the dry leaves potato-tops and offal of every kind are collected for manure, and heaps of compost are in course of preparation. The premises are kept in compact order, and a careful attention to economy is everywhere apparent. The family are decently clad, none are ragged or slovenly, although their dress may be of the coarsest material. The men universally wear the bleuse[bleuse], and wooden shoes are in common use by both sexes. Their diet consists chiefly of rye-bread milk and potatoes. The contrast of what is here described, with the state of the same class of persons in Ireland, is very marked. Yet the productive powers of the soil in Belgium are certainly inferior to the general soil of Ireland, and the climate does not appear to be superior. To the soil and the climate therefore, the Belgian does not owe his superiority in comfort and position over the Irish cultivator. The difference is rather owing to the greater industry economy and forethought of the people.

“A small occupier, whose farm we examined near Ghent, paid 225 francs per annum for about two bonniers, or six acres of land, with a comfortable house, stabling, and other offices attached, all very good of their kind; this makes the rent (reckoning the franc at 10d.) equal to 9l. 7s. 6d. sterling per annum; and, if we allow 3l. 7s. 6d. for the rent of the house, stabling, and other offices, there will be 6l., or 1l. per acre for the land, which accords with the information we obtained at other places. This farmer had a wife and five children, and appeared to live in much comfort. He owed little or nothing, he said, but he had no capital beyond that employed on his farm. We questioned him respecting his resources in case of sickness. He replied that if he were ill, and his illness was severe and of long duration, it would press heavily upon him, because it would interrupt the whole farm-work; and in order to provide for his family and pay the doctor he feared he should be obliged to sell part of his stock. If his wife and family were long ill, and he retained his strength, the doctor would give him credit, and he should be able to pay him by degrees in a year or two. We suggested that the Bureau de Bienfaisance, or charitable individuals, might afford him aid in such a difficulty, but he replied cheerfully that he must take care of himself If a sick club, or benefit society, were established among these people, to enable them by mutual assurance to provide for the casualty of sickness, the chief source of suffering to their families would be obviated, and there would be little left to wish for or amend in their social condition. The Belgian peasant farmer here described, is not very different from the small Irish occupier as respects his position in society, but how much better is his condition as regards the comforts and conveniences of life. The cause of this difference I believe to be, the more skilful system of culture pursued by the six-acre farmers of Belgium, the rigid economy which characterises them as a class, and the persevering industry and forethought with which they adjust their limited resources to their wants; and one of the first steps to the improvement of this important class in Ireland should be, to endeavour to assimilate their farming operations and domestic management, to that of the same class in Belgium.

“It is not necessary to discuss the comparative advantages of small and large farms, it being notorious that the former abound in all parts of Ireland, in some districts almost to the exclusion of the other; and that any attempt at a rapid consolidation of these small holdings would occasion great misery and suffering. Changes of this nature cannot be successful, without special regard to local circumstances; and the obstructions which arise from fixed habits and old social arrangements, generally render any great organic change impracticable, excepting in the lapse of years. An improved management of the small farms in Ireland, would however afford the means of increasing the comfort, and ameliorating the condition of the cottier tenantry, and at the same time facilitate the progress of other changes conducive to their general well-being. It would, in fact, be beginning at the lowest point of the scale—improved management would bring increase of capital and improved habits, and thence would arise an enlargement of occupancies, which the vast extent of now waste but reclaimable land in Ireland would greatly facilitate. The establishment of a poor-law, by removing the burthen of supporting mendicancy which now presses almost exclusively on the class of small cultivators, will afford them relief and encouragement, and facilitate the improvement of their condition: but the Poor Law alone will not effect the necessary ameliorations, which can only be accomplished by a combination of efforts, of which the establishment of a poor-law is one, possibly it is the chief; for a poor-law will unite the interests of the other classes with the well-being of the poorest, and thus secure for the least intelligent, and therefore the most dependent portion of the community, the sympathies and the assistance of the most competent and intelligent of the middle and higher classes. The Poor Law will in this way, I believe, become the means of combining the now discordant elements of society in Ireland, for the promotion of the common interest; but the first impulse in the career of amelioration must be given by the landed proprietors, who should unite in promoting improvements among their tenantry, as well as in carrying out the provisions of the law.”

Bill read a first time in the lords, May 1, 1838.

The feeling in the house of lords with regard to the bill, was decidedly more adverse than had been the case in the house of commons. Many of the Irish peers whose properties were deeply encumbered, were alarmed at the threatened position of a poor-rate, which they feared would swallow up a large portion of their incomes. These fears were appealed to, and the danger declaimed against and magnified, both by the economical opponents of any poor-law whatever, and by the opponents of the present measure. It was evident therefore from the first that the bill would encounter a strenuous opposition in the lords, and that its passing was far from certain. |Bill read a second time in the lords.| On the 21st of May the bill was read a second time, after a long and stormy debate, which lasted nine hours. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading in a judicious and temperate speech, touching skilfully on most of the leading points, and deprecating the intervention of party feeling. The bill was, he said, founded on the amended system of the English Poor Law. It was in fact an adaptation of the Act of 1834 to the circumstances of Ireland, with such alterations as were required by the peculiar condition of that country, and as the experience of its working suggested. He thought the establishment of the measure would be the beginning of a system of order, and that it would introduce order in a beneficial form. It would among other things form the foundation of a measure for the suppression of mendicancy; and one great advantage to which he looked as arising from it was, that the struggle for land, and the violent means the people took of enforcing what they conceived to be their right with regard to it, would be much lessened, if not extinguished. The writings of eminent political economists had, he said, led him at one time to doubt whether the evil effects attending a system of poor-laws, did not more than counterbalance any advantage to be derived from them; but a full and careful consideration of the subject had convinced him, that it was most beneficial for the landlords to be made to take an interest in the condition of the people on the land. The principle on which a poor-law should be established, was that of the general benefit of the country—we should relieve the destitute, but not do so in a way to paralyze the feeling of energy and enterprise which ought to be paramount in every man’s bosom; and for this purpose he thought the workhouse system was the one best adapted for testing the necessity and means of the applicant.

The Marquis of Londonderry spoke strongly against the bill, and moved that it be read that day six months. Many other peers joined in denouncing the measure, but none more violently than Lord Lyndhurst, who declared that it would lead to a dissolution of the Union. The Duke of Wellington supported the second reading, with a view to amending the bill in committee, and rendering it better fitted for its objects. The distress existing in Ireland was he said undoubted. There had been inquiry after inquiry on the subject, and on the outrages of every description to which it led. He expected from this bill that it would improve the social relations of the people of Ireland, and prevent the distress which now so often prevailed there. Another result he anticipated from the measure was, that it would induce the gentry of Ireland, whether resident or not, to look after their properties, and pay some attention to the state of the population on their estates. This, the duke observed, would improve the social relations between landlord and tenant—between the occupier and the labourer of the soil. If the Poor Laws had not been amended in England, he should have hesitated before consenting to the introduction of a poor-law into Ireland; but seeing the results the measure of 1834 had produced in this country—seeing the great advantage which had occurred from the working of that system—and seeing how it has improved the relations of landlord and tenant, he could not help desiring some such measure for Ireland, in order, if possible, to remedy in like manner the evils of that country. With regard to settlement, he was firmly convinced that its establishment in connexion with the bill, would be productive of unbounded litigation and expense, and lead to disputes of which no one could foresee the end. At the same time, he thought care should be taken that all parishes should be required to pay the expenses connected with the relief of their paupers, “that being one of the principles of the Poor Law in this country; and such an amendment should be introduced into the present bill.” The measure being thus supported by the duke, the second reading was carried by a majority of 149 to 20.

The bill in committee.

It was proposed that the bill should be committed on the 28th of May, but the debate was exceedingly violent and was continued by adjournment to the 31st. It is difficult to describe the scene which took place, on the motion for going into committee on the bill. The confusion then, and indeed during the whole night, surpassed anything one could have expected in such a deliberative assembly. The alarms of the Irish peers as to the effects of the measure exceeded all bounds, and they were joined by several English peers who are supporters of the English Poor Law. On the resumption of the debate on the 31st however, and after a further discussion for eight hours, the house resolved by 107 to 41 to support the principle of the bill, as embodied in the 41st clause. This clause provided that relief to the destitute might be administered in the workhouses, at the discretion of the boards of guardians, subject to the condition—in the first place of a preference being given to the aged and infirm poor, and to destitute children; and in the second place to persons residing in the union before those not so resident, when there is not sufficient accommodation for all the destitute.

These latter provisions were introduced at the instance of the Duke of Wellington, in order to meet the objections and mitigate the hostility of the opponents of the bill, as was also the provision in the 44th clause charging the cost of relief to the several electoral divisions, instead of to the unions at large, as it before stood. These changes were arranged between the duke and myself, with the approval of government, previous to the second reading. |The bill read a third time.| The bill was considered in committee on the 7th, 21st, 22nd, and 26th of June, and was read a third time on the 6th of July. On the 11th I find it recorded in my journal—“The bill is now clear of the lords, altered and in some respects improved, although the localisation of the charge upon the electoral divisions approximates too nearly to settlement to be quite satisfactory. I wish this had been left as it at first stood; but so long as no right to relief, and no power of removal are given, we shall I trust be able to avoid the infliction of actual settlement.”[^[83]]

Although so far “clear of the lords,” there nevertheless remained much to be done in reconciling differences between the two houses with regard to some of the amendments, and in particular with regard to the schedule of rating, which it was desired to make available for the purposes of the municipal franchise. Several conferences were held, and “reasons” pro and con were delivered in, and it was not until the 27th of July that the bill was ready for the royal assent—This was given on the 31st, and thus a law was at length established, making provision for the systematic and efficient relief of destitution in Ireland.