The third important object which demanded attention, was the procuring of suitable workhouses for the several Unions. The Commissioners were of opinion that one central workhouse, of a size sufficient for the whole of the Union, would be best; but for the sake of hastening the practical benefits of the act, and to save expense as much as possible, they were disposed to avail themselves of existing buildings nearly central, capable of being converted into workhouses, if obtainable. Their expectations on this head, however, were very far from being realized. It seems certain that the opinion originally formed as to the excess of barrack accommodation in Ireland was unfounded, there being in fact no more than the exigencies of the public service require; and of barracks, eventually, they obtained but one, situate in the town of Fermoy, which is now in process of conversion into a workhouse for that Union. In other Unions, old houses and other buildings were carefully surveyed; but in no one instance, says Mr Wilkinson, the intelligent and skilful architect of the Commissioners, have premises of this kind been found eligible in point of economy or convenience of arrangement, the sums asked in nearly every instance having been far beyond the value for the purpose of conversion. As a general result, the only old buildings which have been actually converted, or are now in process of conversion, into workhouses, are, in Dublin, the House of Industry for the North Union, and the Foundling Hospital for the South; in Fermoy the barrack already mentioned; and the House of Industry in Clonmel.
The number of new buildings contracted for, and in progress, was in March last 64; the notices for contracts since published amount to 50; so that building arrangements remain to be made for only 16 Unions.
In the appendix to the last Annual Report of the Commissioners there is a tabular statement, showing at one view the number and names of the Unions which have been declared up to April last—the area in statute acres, and population of each—the number of Guardians respectively—with other particulars, including indeed every thing necessary to afford satisfactory information on the subject; and, but that it would occupy a great deal of space, we would gladly transfer it to our columns.
Having thus briefly noticed the three leading points indispensably preliminary to the working of the poor-law, namely, 1st, the Unions, or districts within which each local administration is to be comprised; 2dly, the Guardians, or local administrators of the law; and, 3dly, the Workhouses or buildings designed for the reception of the destitute poor, it only remains to add a few observations relative to certain topics on which there has been a good deal of discussion, and concerning which a clear opinion has not yet been arrived at by many.
In the first place, there has been much misconception as to the true nature of the work which the act of Parliament devolved upon the Commissioners of Poor-Laws. That such is the case, is evident from the many applications which have been made to them from time to time to afford relief in different districts under various circumstances of distress, as though the Commissioners possessed any general powers for this purpose. The applications were not indeed at all surprising. “Hunger,” saith the proverb, “will break through stone walls;” and it was not to be expected that those who witnessed and deeply sympathised with numerous and touching instances of extreme destitution would be very nice in scanning the phraseology or exact intendments of an act of Parliament. However, in reality the Commissioners had no power to act in any manner different from that which the legislative chart, if we may use the phrase, had prescribed to them. Their mission was to fulfil the great work of founding and bringing into operation an extensive system of poor relief, not to distribute a bounty, or immediately to afford relief in any specific case of distress, however urgent. Their task was formidable and onerous; and if the accomplishment of it has appeared to some to have been tedious in its course, it may well be asked, wherein has there been a failure of any means necessary to the end, or by what better means could the work have been made to advance more speedily and more securely to completion, than by those which have been employed? The law, it may be said, has as yet been brought to bear on the wants of the poor only in the Unions of Cork and Dublin. True; but for this the law itself, or that process which it made imperative in order to effect the essential and solid purposes which it had in view, is alone answerable.
Unions, Guardians, Workhouses, and Assessment, must, by the terms of the act, in every instance precede relief. By the 41st section it is enacted, “That when the Commissioners shall have declared the workhouse of any Union to be fit for the reception of destitute poor, and not before, it shall be lawful for the Guardians, with the approbation of the Commissioners, to take order for relieving and setting to work therein destitute poor persons.” Thus it appears that until a workhouse be provided, the practical benefits of the act cannot be obtained.
It may be premature at present to speak of the interior economy of the workhouse, but we may shortly refer to the leading views put forth by the Commissioners on the subject. They disapprove, then, we collect in the first place, of more land being occupied in connection with the house than may be sufficient for the purpose of a garden, or than can be conveniently managed by the boys, or the aged and infirm men. Employment for the able-bodied is to be provided within the workhouse, to which they are to be strictly confined so long as they remain dependent on the Union for support. This, in the opinion of the Commissioners, given in their Fifth Annual Report, “Should be of such a nature as to be irksome, and to awaken or increase a dislike to remain in the workhouse, for which purpose corn-mills will probably be found, as in England, to be the most effective. With the aged and infirm the case is somewhat different: they should all be employed, but their employment need not partake so much of the character of a test: and with the children the test is altogether inapplicable; so long as they remain in the workhouse, they should be taught and trained to become useful members of the community; and for this purpose an acre or two of garden ground, in which the boys may work and acquire habits of industry, as well as skill and strength for manual labour, will be found extremely useful.”
With regard to diet, they observe in their Sixth Report, that, as a general rule, it is unquestionably desirable that the workhouse diet should be, on the whole, inferior to that of the labouring classes of the surrounding district; yet that it is not on this circumstance alone, or even in any very great degree, that the efficiency of the workhouse depends. On the contrary, say they, “We are satisfied that the diet, clothing, bedding, and other merely physical comforts, may in the workhouse be better than in the neighbouring cottages, and yet that none but the really destitute poor will seek for admission into the workhouse, provided that order and discipline be strictly maintained therein. It is in truth the regularity, order, strict enforcement of cleanliness, constant occupation, the preservation of decency and decorum, and exclusion of all the irregular habits and tempting excitements of life, on which reliance must mainly be placed for deterring individuals, not actually and unavoidably destitute, from seeking refuge within the workhouse, and not upon the absence of mere physical comforts. This is the view by which the legislature appears to have been governed in adopting the general principles of the Irish poor relief act; and to this view we consider it to be essential that the dietaries and the other regulations of the workhouse should conform.”
With these general views no reflecting person will, we should think, be disposed to quarrel.
A good deal of discussion has taken place as to the regulation which prohibits strangers, and particularly reporters of the press, from attending the meetings of Guardians. However, we in Ireland have nothing specially to complain of in this respect, as the same rule exists in England, and has not been attended there by any public inconvenience. The question properly is, why the rule should be different here? The Guardians, it must be understood, are under no obligation of secrecy. They are quite at liberty to note, report, and publish at their own discretion; the rule merely excludes strangers, and of course reporters who are not Guardians, from the Board. The Commissioners in their Sixth Report very truly say that “the presence of strangers would be a restraint upon the deliberations of the Guardians; while the knowledge that their proceedings were to be published would certainly conduce to debate and display, and obstruct the dispatch of business. A desire for popularity would be awakened, and individual Guardians would too probably be led to address themselves to the passions of their hearers, or to party or sectarian feelings prevalent without doors, rather than to the sober disposal of the business in hand. Prejudices would be excited, passions inflamed, personalities would arise, and the most respectable members of the Board, who, from their property, position, and habits of business, would be best entitled and best fitted to take part in and guide its proceedings, would be borne down by clamour, or wearied by lengthened discussion, if not finally compelled to abandon their post.”