Great pains were taken in forming the unions, and for the most part the arrangements made were satisfactory to the parties interested, but not always so to the extent desired; for it was not always found possible “to adapt the limits of the union to the limits of individual properties, and at the same time adhere to other local boundaries and pay a due regard to general convenience.” Difficulties likewise arose in determining the portion of rural district to be included in the same electoral division with towns, or with other places where the destitute and mendicant classes were numerous. Such places were regarded as likely to bring a burden upon whatever else they might be combined with. It does not follow however because mendicancy prevails in a town, that the poor-rates will be heavier there than in the neighbouring country districts. The reverse will often be the case, the larger amount of property rateable in a town, being more than equivalent to its comparatively greater charge of pauperism. The practice generally adopted on such occasions, was to attach to a town as much of the adjoining district as seemed naturally to belong to it, and over which the town mendicants habitually levied contributions. No part of an electoral division so formed would be subjected to any new burden. It had supported the mendicant classes heretofore—it would have to pay rates for supporting the destitute thereafter; and of the two, the latter would probably be found the lighter.
Before submitting a proposal for establishing a union, the assistant-commissioners in every instance called a meeting of the inhabitants of the district, and explained the nature and intent of the law, together with the proposed arrangements for carrying it into effect, and also took into consideration whatever objections or suggestions there might have been made on the occasion; and it was not until after this public exposition of the course proposed to be pursued, and a careful sifting of testimony for and against it, that the arrangements for the several unions were proposed to, and received the sanction of the board in Dublin. The Reports of the assistant-commissioners on these occasions were sometimes long and minute, entering into a detail of the circumstances of the district, and thus forming “a valuable body of information general and statistical, which may hereafter serve to test the working of the measure, and its effects upon the population.” A copy of one of these Reports furnished by each of the assistant-commissioners, was inserted by way of example in the Appendix to the annual Report.
The Dublin house of industry.
The Board’s attention was early directed to the state of the charitable institutions in Dublin, and especially to the house of industry and the foundling hospital, both of which became vested in the commissioners under the 34th section of the Poor Relief Act. The house of industry consisted of an asylum for aged and infirm poor and incurable lunatics, together with the Hardwick, the Whitworth, and the Richmond Hospitals, and the Talbot Dispensary. It was constituted under the Irish Act of 11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 11,[[94]] and was expected to be supported by voluntary contributions, but these soon failed, and in 1777 it received a grant of 4,000l. from parliament, and had continued ever since to be supported in like manner. In 1816 it was determined to appropriate the house of industry to the reception of the aged and infirm and the sick poor, orphan children, and lunatics and idiots. This led to the introduction of a large number of persons requiring medical treatment, and made it necessary to provide hospitals for the purpose. The expense of the entire establishment was defrayed by parliament, and the grant for each of the preceding five years had been 20,000l. The estimate for 1839 was 21,136l. The number of inmates was as follows—
| Aged and infirm poor | 888 |
| Incurable lunatics and epileptics | 474 |
| 1,362 | |
| Sick in the hospitals | 303 |
| Total | 1,665 |
The Dublin foundling hospital.
The foundling hospital was established in 1704 by the 2nd Anne, cap. 19, and was re-constituted in 1772 by the 11th and 12th Geo. 3, cap. 11.[[95]] With the exception of a small rent from property devised to it, the institution had been supported by parliamentary grants, which during the last five years had averaged 14,765l. The estimate for the current year was 11,255l. Infants were at first, and for many years subsequently, received into the hospital without payment or inquiry, the annual number varying from 1,500 to 2,000. In 1822 a deposit of 5l. was required with each child, which soon had the effect of reducing the admissions to below 500; and in 1829 a committee of the house of commons recommended that admissions should cease altogether, which they accordingly did in the following year. The previous admissions however had been so numerous, that on the 25th of March 1839 the dependents on the institution still amounted to 4,258, viz.—
| Children at nurse in the country, of whom 446 are under ten years of age | 1,484 |
| Apprentices | 2,528 |
| In course of being apprenticed, or under medical treatment in the house | 40 |
| Adults on the invalid list | 206 |
| 4,258 |
The invalid class consisted of 150 females and 56 males, and had accumulated principally since 1797, only 13 having been admitted previous to that year. “Many were blind, some crippled, others were severe cases of scrofula, and a few were deaf and dumb. They were quartered in the country, and were annually visited by the inspectors.”
Arrangements with regard to the house of industry and foundling hospital.