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

by Sir George Nicholls

“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.”