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

by Sir George Nicholls

“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.