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

by Sir George Nicholls

Pauper lunatics.

Applications had been frequently made both to the Irish government, and to the Board in Dublin, representing that if the idiotic and harmless lunatics then confined in the gaols or maintained in the lunatic asylums, were transferred to the workhouses of the unions to which they belonged, those institutions would be greatly relieved, more especially the asylums, which would then be enabled to receive more curable cases, and thus extend their usefulness. To such communications it had always been replied—“that the Irish Poor Relief Act made no provision for the support of insane and lunatic persons, specially as such; but that a destitute person, being insane or lunatic, might be admitted into the workhouse if the guardians so decided, in the same manner as any other destitute individual.” To provide for cases of this description, idiot wards had been prepared in every workhouse, which were calculated to afford accommodation for about 2,400 of this class of paupers, whenever the guardians in the exercise of their discretion, should think fit to admit them. It had however been thought right to discourage any forced or immediate transfer of insane or idiotic persons or harmless lunatics from the asylums and gaols, but rather to wait for the gradual absorption by the workhouses of such of these unfortunates as could be properly relieved therein.

Emigration.

Fruitless efforts were made, particularly at Cork and Belfast, to raise the funds necessary for defraying the expense of emigration. In Cork, Dublin, Waterford, Belfast, and certain other large towns, a considerable number of young persons chiefly females, and for the most part the remnants of a former system, had as has been before stated,[^[115]] accumulated in the workhouses, for whom emigration would afford at once the most eligible, and it may almost be said the only outlet. Yet in the present state of the law, it was found nearly if not quite impossible to take advantage of it. The workhouses had not created the present burden, but they had gathered it into mass, and might be made useful auxiliaries to a well-directed plan of emigration. The commissioners declared that it would materially facilitate this object, if the boards of guardians were empowered to apply a portion of the rates for the emigration of such fit persons as had been resident sufficiently long in the workhouse for testing their actual helplessness and destitution. This would in fact be reverting to what was originally proposed, but which had been altered in the progress of the bill through the house of lords, by substituting divisional chargeability for that of the entire union—a change to which is mostly owing whatever difficulties have since occurred in the working of the measure.

Electoral divisions.

The 18th and 44th sections of the Relief Act provide for dividing the unions into electoral divisions, and for charging against each electoral division not only its proportion of the general expenses of the union, but also the expense incurred for the relief of persons stated in the registry to have been resident in such electoral division; the relief of others not stated to have been so resident, being charged against the union at large. These provisions were inserted in the bill in the house of lords, on the motion of the duke of Wellington, with the professed view of assimilating the mechanism of the Irish unions to the unions in England; but the circumstances in the two countries were widely different, and there would be little analogy between the long-established English parish, and the newly-created electoral divisions. This difference was however overlooked in the desire for assimilation, and the electoral division system was incorporated in the Act, together with a sort of quasi settlement as between the different divisions, approximating to settlement as between parishes in the English unions. Under these circumstances, it can hardly occasion surprise, that although arranged with the utmost care, and with every endeavour to give them a general harmony and coherence, the electoral divisions did not work smoothly. Their separate chargeability interfered with the efficient action of the unions for general purposes, as in the case of emigration, and led to struggles and contention in the boards of guardians as soon as the unions got fully into operation, each division endeavouring to relieve itself from the charge of a registered pauper, by fixing it upon some other, or by casting it upon the union at large; and thus one of the evils of the English settlement-law was inflicted upon the Irish unions, contrary to the intentions of the original framers of the Act, and contrary likewise to what a more thorough knowledge of the condition of the two countries would it is believed have dictated.

Valuation and rating.

There was moreover still considerable difficulty with respect to the valuations, and the difficulty was not a little increased by the complexity of the form in which the rate is directed to be made out. This form is expressly prescribed by the Amendment Act, and is rather calculated for the state of things in England, than for what exists in Ireland, although it is too minute and complex to admit of its working satisfactorily in either. The form was engrafted on the bill in the house of lords, with a view to other than poor-law purposes, and contrary to the author’s earnest representations. As the number and the business of the unions increased, it was found nearly impossible to adhere to this form, owing to the extreme subdivision of property.[^[116]] In all the 130 unions the number of persons rated whose valuations did not exceed 5l. was 630,272, whilst the number whose valuations were above that amount was 550,866, and those at 50l. and upwards 46,565; thus showing that a considerable majority of the ratepayers were valued at and under 5l.[^[117]] Believing that such would turn out to be the case, the author had recommended that no occupier under 5l. should be called upon to pay the poor-rate, but that the rate on all such holdings should be paid by the landlord. It was however provided by the 72nd section of the Act, that instead of the exemption of 5l. holdings, the landlord might agree to pay the rate himself, and be allowed a rebate of 10 per cent. for so doing: but this provision has not been acted upon, and all the small tenements are required to be rated in the complex form of the 2nd schedule of the Act, comprising no less than eighteen distinctive columns, under penalty of the rates being deemed illegal. There can be no doubt that in the abstract, as the commissioners observe, “all property should contribute to the rate, and the whole population be interested in the prevention of pauperism, and in the well-being of the class for whose immediate benefit statutory provision has been made.” But the small ratepayers in Ireland are so numerous, and the amounts to be severally collected from them are so trifling, whilst the distinction between them and the destitute is often so little perceptible, that Ireland seems to constitute an exception to the general rule in this respect; and it would be a great convenience, and tend to facilitate the working of the Poor Law, if as was at first proposed, the burden of the rate on the smaller holdings were to be thrown upon the owner or immediate lessor, rather than on the tenant himself.

The defects above noticed are explained and commented upon at great length in the fifth Report. They no doubt impede the orderly working of the law, and add to the labours and embarrass the proceedings of the entire executive; but they do not affect the principle of the measure, nor very materially detract from its usefulness. They are of a different origin from the measure itself, having been grafted upon the bill in its progress through parliament; and they will no doubt be removed, or so modified as to be less obstructive than at present, to which end they were now brought prominently under notice.

1844.
Sixth report of proceedings in Ireland.