As regards voluntary associations, it is proposed that the Poor Law Commissioners shall frame rules for their government, and that each association shall transmit to the commissioners an estimate of its probable expenditure and its funds for the year ensuing, and that they shall award such grant to it as they think proper. The commissioners to be also authorised “to advance to any voluntary association, out of the national rate, the whole sum which may be necessary for the building and outfit of a mendicity or alms house for any parish;” and if such mendicity or alms house be not afterwards duly maintained, the sum so advanced is to be repaid by the parish to the credit of the national rate.
Certain recommendations are then made with the view of promoting sobriety, and lessening “the inordinate use of ardent spirits”—also with reference to the Board of Charitable Bequests, whose functions may, it is suggested, be advantageously transferred to the Poor Law Commissioners—likewise the details of a plan for purchasing the tithe composition, and vesting it in the Poor Law Commissioners as a fund for the relief of the poor, by doing which, it is said, “there would be a surplus of 313,000l. a year applicable to the purposes of the national rate.” In conclusion, the commissioners express their belief, that upon the whole there is a rising spirit of improvement in Ireland, which however requires to be stimulated by sound legislation, “or it cannot speedily relieve the country from the lingering effects of the evil system of former times.” At present, it is observed, with a population nearly equal to half that of Great Britain, Ireland yields only about a twelfth of the revenue to the state that Great Britain does, nor can it yield more until it has more to yield. Increased means must precede increased contribution, and to supply Ireland with these is, the commissioners say, the great object of their recommendations.
Such was the commissioners’ final Report on the condition of the Irish poor and the means for its amelioration, the substance and general import of which I have endeavoured to give with the fulness and completeness the importance of the subject demanded. The Report was not however signed by all the commissioners. Three of their body withheld their signature, and recorded their “reasons for dissenting from the principle of raising funds for the relief of the poor by the voluntary system, as recommended in the Report.”[[67]] The ‘Reasons’ are set forth in thirteen propositions, the most material of which are the following.
“Because—in the lamentably distressed state of the Irish poor, any system of relief to be effectual must be comprehensive, uniform, and prompt; whilst the very constitution of voluntary associations proclaims that their operations must be tardy; and circumstanced as Ireland is in the distribution of her population, must be partial and precarious.
“Because—it is notorious that many contributions, in name voluntary, are frequently obligations of the severest character. The pressure of such a tax must be unequal. The class least removed from want, would furnish as it now does, the largest number of contributors, and to the greatest amount; whilst the wealthier classes, resident as well as absentee, would in a great measure be exempted from the liability of contributing in proportion to their wealth, or even from contributing at all.
“Because—viewing the peculiar state of society in Ireland, the extent to which religious zeal prevails, as well as the influence it must exercise, we consider the difficulties attendant on the raising of a voluntary fund in the first instance, and of an impartial distribution of relief in the next, all but insurmountable.
“Because—the mendicity institutions of Dublin, Limerick, Newry, Birr, Sligo, Waterford and Londonderry, as well as the voluntary poor’s fund established in some of the rural districts, afford strong proofs of the inefficiency of the support afforded to these institutions; for although they have not totally failed, yet their subscriptions are falling off, and they are by no means adequate to the relief of the objects they contemplate.
“Because—although we admit that there are districts in Ireland in which voluntary societies might be established, and which would afford means of constructing a local administration for the management of the poor’s fund—still we feel satisfied that in the present state of society, and under the existing distribution of the population, such a system cannot be either comprehensive or uniform. We are therefore of opinion that the fund should be obtained by an assessment, wholly and not partially compulsory; and that it will be most efficiently managed by elective boards of guardians as in England, directed by responsible public officers whose proceedings shall be subjected to the strictest public scrutiny.”
These are no doubt weighty reasons in favour of certain means being provided to meet a certainly recurring contingency. But reasons were also adduced on the opposite side of the question, the other eight commissioners having in a series of sixteen propositions likewise recorded their “reasons for recommending voluntary associations for the relief of the poor;”[[68]] of which ‘Reasons’ the following are the chief:—
“Because—there are and must necessarily be continually arising, many cases of real destitution which cannot be relieved by a compulsory assessment, without bringing claims upon it to an unlimited extent. The attempt was made in England to meet all cases of distress by a compulsory rate, and the consequence was, that in one year the rate amounted to the enormous sum of more than 7,800,000l. sterling; and besides the oppressive amount of the assessments, it did much evil in pauperising a large portion of the labouring population.