“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.