“It is not necessary to discuss the comparative advantages of small and large farms, it being notorious that the former abound in all parts of Ireland, in some districts almost to the exclusion of the other; and that any attempt at a rapid consolidation of these small holdings would occasion great misery and suffering. Changes of this nature cannot be successful, without special regard to local circumstances; and the obstructions which arise from fixed habits and old social arrangements, generally render any great organic change impracticable, excepting in the lapse of years. An improved management of the small farms in Ireland, would however afford the means of increasing the comfort, and ameliorating the condition of the cottier tenantry, and at the same time facilitate the progress of other changes conducive to their general well-being. It would, in fact, be beginning at the lowest point of the scale—improved management would bring increase of capital and improved habits, and thence would arise an enlargement of occupancies, which the vast extent of now waste but reclaimable land in Ireland would greatly facilitate. The establishment of a poor-law, by removing the burthen of supporting mendicancy which now presses almost exclusively on the class of small cultivators, will afford them relief and encouragement, and facilitate the improvement of their condition: but the Poor Law alone will not effect the necessary ameliorations, which can only be accomplished by a combination of efforts, of which the establishment of a poor-law is one, possibly it is the chief; for a poor-law will unite the interests of the other classes with the well-being of the poorest, and thus secure for the least intelligent, and therefore the most dependent portion of the community, the sympathies and the assistance of the most competent and intelligent of the middle and higher classes. The Poor Law will in this way, I believe, become the means of combining the now discordant elements of society in Ireland, for the promotion of the common interest; but the first impulse in the career of amelioration must be given by the landed proprietors, who should unite in promoting improvements among their tenantry, as well as in carrying out the provisions of the law.”
Bill read a first time in the lords, May 1, 1838.
The feeling in the house of lords with regard to the bill, was decidedly more adverse than had been the case in the house of commons. Many of the Irish peers whose properties were deeply encumbered, were alarmed at the threatened position of a poor-rate, which they feared would swallow up a large portion of their incomes. These fears were appealed to, and the danger declaimed against and magnified, both by the economical opponents of any poor-law whatever, and by the opponents of the present measure. It was evident therefore from the first that the bill would encounter a strenuous opposition in the lords, and that its passing was far from certain. |Bill read a second time in the lords.| On the 21st of May the bill was read a second time, after a long and stormy debate, which lasted nine hours. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading in a judicious and temperate speech, touching skilfully on most of the leading points, and deprecating the intervention of party feeling. The bill was, he said, founded on the amended system of the English Poor Law. It was in fact an adaptation of the Act of 1834 to the circumstances of Ireland, with such alterations as were required by the peculiar condition of that country, and as the experience of its working suggested. He thought the establishment of the measure would be the beginning of a system of order, and that it would introduce order in a beneficial form. It would among other things form the foundation of a measure for the suppression of mendicancy; and one great advantage to which he looked as arising from it was, that the struggle for land, and the violent means the people took of enforcing what they conceived to be their right with regard to it, would be much lessened, if not extinguished. The writings of eminent political economists had, he said, led him at one time to doubt whether the evil effects attending a system of poor-laws, did not more than counterbalance any advantage to be derived from them; but a full and careful consideration of the subject had convinced him, that it was most beneficial for the landlords to be made to take an interest in the condition of the people on the land. The principle on which a poor-law should be established, was that of the general benefit of the country—we should relieve the destitute, but not do so in a way to paralyze the feeling of energy and enterprise which ought to be paramount in every man’s bosom; and for this purpose he thought the workhouse system was the one best adapted for testing the necessity and means of the applicant.
The Marquis of Londonderry spoke strongly against the bill, and moved that it be read that day six months. Many other peers joined in denouncing the measure, but none more violently than Lord Lyndhurst, who declared that it would lead to a dissolution of the Union. The Duke of Wellington supported the second reading, with a view to amending the bill in committee, and rendering it better fitted for its objects. The distress existing in Ireland was he said undoubted. There had been inquiry after inquiry on the subject, and on the outrages of every description to which it led. He expected from this bill that it would improve the social relations of the people of Ireland, and prevent the distress which now so often prevailed there. Another result he anticipated from the measure was, that it would induce the gentry of Ireland, whether resident or not, to look after their properties, and pay some attention to the state of the population on their estates. This, the duke observed, would improve the social relations between landlord and tenant—between the occupier and the labourer of the soil. If the Poor Laws had not been amended in England, he should have hesitated before consenting to the introduction of a poor-law into Ireland; but seeing the results the measure of 1834 had produced in this country—seeing the great advantage which had occurred from the working of that system—and seeing how it has improved the relations of landlord and tenant, he could not help desiring some such measure for Ireland, in order, if possible, to remedy in like manner the evils of that country. With regard to settlement, he was firmly convinced that its establishment in connexion with the bill, would be productive of unbounded litigation and expense, and lead to disputes of which no one could foresee the end. At the same time, he thought care should be taken that all parishes should be required to pay the expenses connected with the relief of their paupers, “that being one of the principles of the Poor Law in this country; and such an amendment should be introduced into the present bill.” The measure being thus supported by the duke, the second reading was carried by a majority of 149 to 20.
The bill in committee.
It was proposed that the bill should be committed on the 28th of May, but the debate was exceedingly violent and was continued by adjournment to the 31st. It is difficult to describe the scene which took place, on the motion for going into committee on the bill. The confusion then, and indeed during the whole night, surpassed anything one could have expected in such a deliberative assembly. The alarms of the Irish peers as to the effects of the measure exceeded all bounds, and they were joined by several English peers who are supporters of the English Poor Law. On the resumption of the debate on the 31st however, and after a further discussion for eight hours, the house resolved by 107 to 41 to support the principle of the bill, as embodied in the 41st clause. This clause provided that relief to the destitute might be administered in the workhouses, at the discretion of the boards of guardians, subject to the condition—in the first place of a preference being given to the aged and infirm poor, and to destitute children; and in the second place to persons residing in the union before those not so resident, when there is not sufficient accommodation for all the destitute.
These latter provisions were introduced at the instance of the Duke of Wellington, in order to meet the objections and mitigate the hostility of the opponents of the bill, as was also the provision in the 44th clause charging the cost of relief to the several electoral divisions, instead of to the unions at large, as it before stood. These changes were arranged between the duke and myself, with the approval of government, previous to the second reading. |The bill read a third time.| The bill was considered in committee on the 7th, 21st, 22nd, and 26th of June, and was read a third time on the 6th of July. On the 11th I find it recorded in my journal—“The bill is now clear of the lords, altered and in some respects improved, although the localisation of the charge upon the electoral divisions approximates too nearly to settlement to be quite satisfactory. I wish this had been left as it at first stood; but so long as no right to relief, and no power of removal are given, we shall I trust be able to avoid the infliction of actual settlement.”[[83]]
Although so far “clear of the lords,” there nevertheless remained much to be done in reconciling differences between the two houses with regard to some of the amendments, and in particular with regard to the schedule of rating, which it was desired to make available for the purposes of the municipal franchise. Several conferences were held, and “reasons” pro and con were delivered in, and it was not until the 27th of July that the bill was ready for the royal assent—This was given on the 31st, and thus a law was at length established, making provision for the systematic and efficient relief of destitution in Ireland.
CHAPTER IV.
Summary of the ‘Act for the more effectual Relief of the Poor in Ireland,’ and of the ‘Amendment Act’—Arrangements for bringing the Act into operation—-First and second Reports of proceedings—Dublin and Cork unions—Distress in the western districts—Third, fourth, fifth, and sixth Reports—Summary of the Act for the further amendment of the Law—Seventh Report—Cost of relief, and numbers relieved—Issue of amended orders.