Sections 16, 17, 18.—The rules orders and regulations of the Poor Law Commissioners are to continue in force until varied or rescinded by the commissioners appointed under this Act, whose authority is in all cases to be substituted for the former, and is to have like force and effect in Ireland. Acts under seal not to be valid, unless signed by two of the commissioners, or by the chief commissioner, or in his absence by the assistant-commissioner.
Sections 19, 20.—The commissioners empowered to summon witnesses not exceeding twenty miles distant, and to make inquiries and call for returns, and examine on oath. Persons giving false evidence are subjected to the penalties of perjury; and on refusing to give evidence, or neglecting to obey the commissioners’ summons, or to produce books vouchers &c., are to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour.
Sections 21, 22.—The commissioners are annually to report their proceedings to the lord lieutenant. The Report is to be laid before parliament, and is to contain a distinct statement of every order and direction issued in respect to out-door relief. All lawful proceedings of the Poor Law Commissioners, and all things done under previous Acts, and not varied or repealed by this Act, are declared valid.
Section 23.—The chief commissioner and other persons to be appointed and employed under this Act, are not to hold office or exercise any of the powers hereby given, “for a longer period than five years next after the day of the passing of this Act, and thenceforth until the end of the then next session of parliament,” after which the power of appointing commissioners is to cease to operate or have effect.
These three Acts have, it will be seen, made very considerable changes in the law, and taken conjointly with the original Relief Act of 1838, and the Amendment Act of 1843,[[157]] may be considered as forming the entire code of Irish Poor Laws, and such moreover as they may be expected to continue, there being apparently no room for further alteration, or at least not to any material extent.
General import of the new Acts.
The sanction of out-door relief given by the first of the three Acts is a most important departure from the principle of the original statute, and was wrung from the legislature by the distressing circumstances in which the country was placed by the successive failures of the potato crop. With starvation raging almost universally around, it was felt that it would be impossible to maintain the restriction of relief to the limits of the workhouse. The concession made in the 1st and 2nd sections must however be regarded as exceptional, and as being intended to meet an exceptional case; for the necessity of workhouse relief being the established rule, never perhaps commanded more general assent, than at the time when a departure from it was thus sanctioned. The author was examined before a committee of the house of lords on this question, and he gave it as his deliberate opinion that under the circumstances existing in Ireland the concession was necessary, the preservation of life being paramount to all other considerations; but at the same time he considered, that the rule of in-door relief should be departed from only so far, and in such a way, as would secure its resumption with the least difficulty and at the earliest possible period; and the two first sections of the Act are not at variance with this view.[[158]] In sanctioning out-door relief under the then emergency, the legislature limited its application, imposing certain conditions and restrictions, and at the same time investing the commissioners with large powers for checking abuse. Nay more, as if distrusting the discretion of the commissioners themselves, the 21st section of cap. 90 provides that their Report, which is to be laid before parliament, “shall contain a distinct statement of every order and direction issued by them in respect to out-door relief.” The appointment of relieving and medical officers and of district committees, was no doubt a considerable extension of the union machinery, but it was necessary for giving effect to the law at the time, and either or all might be discontinued when no longer required. The limitation of relief by the 9th section, and the extension of assistance for the purpose of emigration to persons not in a workhouse by the 14th section, are both likely to be of use, as may also be the provision in the 16th section with regard to ex-officio guardians. But the power given to the commissioners by the 17th and 18th sections, to alter unions, and to dissolve boards of guardians and appoint paid officers to carry the law into execution, is by far the most important of the provisions of this Act, with the exception of those sanctioning out-relief.
The second of the above Acts (cap. 84) is in fact a resumption of the vagrancy clauses which were intended to form part of the original Relief Act,[[159]] and which have now been rendered more necessary by the sanctioning of out-relief. The third of the above Acts (cap. 90) providing for the appointment of a separate commission for Ireland, may be regarded as a consequence of the unfortunate condition of that country, which was now said to require all the care and undivided attention of distinct functionaries. I have already stated that such was not my opinion, and after all that has passed I still am satisfied that the Poor Laws of England and Ireland might be administered under the superintendence of the same commission, as efficiently as under separate commissions; and that there would be a weight of authority influence and other advantages arising from the combination of the two, which would not be found in a separate commission. The example of Scotland was much relied upon as warranting the separation, but the cases are not similar, the Scottish Poor Law differing essentially from that of England, whereas the Irish law is directly founded upon it, and in its working must to a great degree be regulated by English experience. But the separation having taken place, it would be difficult to retrace the step, unless indeed there should be, as has on high authority been proposed, an entire amalgamation of the two governments by abolishing the office of lord lieutenant, in which case the Irish commission would naturally if not necessarily become merged in the English. It is bootless however to speculate upon these or other possible changes, and we will therefore resume our task of tracing out the progress of the law, and inquiring into the circumstances under which it has to be administered.
Change of the commission. August 27, 1847.
On the passing of the first of the above Acts (10th and 11th Vict. cap. 31, commonly known as the Relief Extension Act), copies of it were forwarded to all the unions, and the attention of the several boards of guardians was called to the necessity of making provision on a much larger scale than heretofore for the relief of the poor, and pointing out the conditions on which the relief was henceforward to be administered to the classes of infirm and able-bodied. Five additional assistant-commissioners were also appointed[[160]] to attend to the large increase of duties now devolved upon the commission. On the 27th of August the appointment of Mr. Twisleton as chief commissioner, under the 10th and 11th Vict. cap. 90, was notified in the Dublin Gazette, and on the following day the administration of the law became vested in the new commission established by that Act, the ten gentlemen then acting as assistant-commissioners were appointed inspectors, and Mr. Power was appointed the assistant-commissioner.