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