“Because—in the lamentably distressed state of the Irish poor, any system of relief to be effectual must be comprehensive, uniform, and prompt; whilst the very constitution of voluntary associations proclaims that their operations must be tardy; and circumstanced as Ireland is in the distribution of her population, must be partial and precarious.
“Because—it is notorious that many contributions, in name voluntary, are frequently obligations of the severest character. The pressure of such a tax must be unequal. The class least removed from want, would furnish as it now does, the largest number of contributors, and to the greatest amount; whilst the wealthier classes, resident as well as absentee, would in a great measure be exempted from the liability of contributing in proportion to their wealth, or even from contributing at all.
“Because—viewing the peculiar state of society in Ireland, the extent to which religious zeal prevails, as well as the influence it must exercise, we consider the difficulties attendant on the raising of a voluntary fund in the first instance, and of an impartial distribution of relief in the next, all but insurmountable.
“Because—the mendicity institutions of Dublin, Limerick, Newry, Birr, Sligo, Waterford and Londonderry, as well as the voluntary poor’s fund established in some of the rural districts, afford strong proofs of the inefficiency of the support afforded to these institutions; for although they have not totally failed, yet their subscriptions are falling off, and they are by no means adequate to the relief of the objects they contemplate.
“Because—although we admit that there are districts in Ireland in which voluntary societies might be established, and which would afford means of constructing a local administration for the management of the poor’s fund—still we feel satisfied that in the present state of society, and under the existing distribution of the population, such a system cannot be either comprehensive or uniform. We are therefore of opinion that the fund should be obtained by an assessment, wholly and not partially compulsory; and that it will be most efficiently managed by elective boards of guardians as in England, directed by responsible public officers whose proceedings shall be subjected to the strictest public scrutiny.”
These are no doubt weighty reasons in favour of certain means being provided to meet a certainly recurring contingency. But reasons were also adduced on the opposite side of the question, the other eight commissioners having in a series of sixteen propositions likewise recorded their “reasons for recommending voluntary associations for the relief of the poor;”[68] of which ‘Reasons’ the following are the chief:—
“Because—there are and must necessarily be continually arising, many cases of real destitution which cannot be relieved by a compulsory assessment, without bringing claims upon it to an unlimited extent. The attempt was made in England to meet all cases of distress by a compulsory rate, and the consequence was, that in one year the rate amounted to the enormous sum of more than 7,800,000l. sterling; and besides the oppressive amount of the assessments, it did much evil in pauperising a large portion of the labouring population.
“Because—although such cases of distress might, and probably would be, relieved by spontaneous charity, yet the leaving of such cases of distress to be relieved by the operation of undirected benevolence, inevitably leads to an extensive vagrancy. This is now the state of Ireland. On the most moderate computation the amount of spontaneous alms given, chiefly by the smaller farmers and cottars, is from one to two millions sterling annually; but being given without system or without inquiry to the good and to the bad, the really destitute and the pretenders to destitution receive alike their maintenance out of the earnings of the industrious, to their great impoverishment, and to the great injury of the morals and good order of the kingdom.
“Because—the most direct and effectual, if not the only means of avoiding these two great evils, namely, an extensive and ruinous pauperism created by an attempt to make compulsory provision for all cases of destitution, and an extensive and equally ruinous vagrancy created by the want of public provision, is to endeavour to bring voluntary almsgiving under regulations and system, so as to direct it to the relief of real distress exclusively.
“Because—the best means of systematising and regulating voluntary almsgiving, is to hold out the offer of a measure of public aid for all voluntary associations, based on certain principles, and governed by fixed regulations approved by a central board.
“Because—while a fund thus founded upon voluntary contributions would provide effectual relief for those who are really destitute, the very nature of it would debar the poor from establishing legal claims upon it; since the contribution to a voluntary fund being wholly spontaneous, the contributors could at any time withhold them, if an attempt were made to compel an appropriation of the joint fund contrary to their instructions.
“Because—the example of an organised system of relief for the poor by voluntary contribution is afforded in Scotland, where it has been eminently successful.
“Because—although the system of providing for the poor by means of voluntary associations, aided by the public purse, and constructed upon well-digested principles, may not succeed at once in every part of the country—yet that, so far as it does succeed, it will tend to bring the population into a sound state with respect to the poor, and will we trust gradually work its way over the face of the island, and probably supersede in many places, as the Scottish system does so extensively, the necessity of a compulsory rate. Whereas we are convinced, that although a compulsory rate might be rendered general more rapidly, and be administered by artificial means, it would every day become more difficult to manage, and tend to bring the country into a worse state than our inquiry has found it.”
The arguments for and against establishing a system of relief in Ireland founded upon voluntary contributions, are here deliberately stated by the advocates of such a procedure on one side, and by its opponents on the other. The question is vitally important with regard to the relief of the Irish poor, and deserves the most careful consideration. If the voluntary system be susceptible of the organisation and the certainty its advocates assume, it might doubtless be made to a considerable extent available, although still open to the objection that it would operate unequally upon the absentee and the resident proprietor, upon the liberal man and the niggard. The majority of the commissioners, we see, attach much weight to the example of Scotland, where they believe the voluntary system to have “been eminently successful.” How little ground there was for such belief, is shown in the recent working of that system;[69] and as regards the combining public aid with voluntary contributions which is recommended, it may be remarked, that such a combination has always led to the whole charge being eventually borne by the public.
In addition to the two schedules of ‘Reasons’ already noticed, another document was appended to the Report, entitled ‘Remarks on the Evidence &c., by one of the Commissioners.’ This was prepared by Mr. Bicheno, as an exposition of his own peculiar views, and fills upwards of forty closely printed folio pages. It contains a good deal of information upon the state of the country, and the condition and habits of the people, selected from the evidence furnished by the assistant-commissioners; but is too long for insertion. The concluding paragraph however indicates the spirit in which the ‘Remarks’ were written, and may therefore have a place; it is as follows—“After all the assistance that can be extended to Ireland by good laws, and every encouragement afforded to the poor by temporary employment of a public nature, and every assistance that emigration and other modes of relief can yield, her real improvement must spring from herself, her own inhabitants, and her own indigenous institutions, irrespective of legislation, and English interference. It must be of a moral nature; the improvement of the high and the low, the rich and the poor. Without this, her tenantry will be still wretched, and her landlords will command no respect; with it, a new face will be given to the whole people.”
Another paper, entitled ‘Remarks on the Third Report of the Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners,’ was submitted to government shortly after the delivery of that Report. It was dated in July 1836, and was drawn up by George Cornewall Lewis Esq.,[70] who had been one of the assistant-commissioners for prosecuting the inquiry in Ireland. The objections to the system, or rather the several systems of relief recommended by the commissioners, are stated by Mr. Lewis with great force and clearness, and he comes to conclusions on the whole question very similar to those contained in the ‘Suggestions’ which had been submitted by the author in the month of January preceding.[71] He proposes to apply the principle of the amended English Poor Law to Ireland, including the workhouse, with regard to the rejection of which by the commissioners, he remarks—“as the danger of introducing a poor-law into Ireland is confessedly great, I can conceive no reason for not taking every possible security against its abuse. Now if anything has been proved more decisively than another by the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Act in England, it is that the workhouse is an all-sufficient test of destitution, and that it is the only test; that it succeeds as a mode of relief, and that all other modes fail. Why therefore, this tried guarantee against poor-law abuses is not to be employed, when abuses are, under the best system, almost inevitable, it seems difficult to understand. If such a safeguard were to be dispensed with anywhere, it would be far less dangerous to dispense with it in England than in Ireland.”
An account of the further steps taken with reference to the commissioners’ Report, and as regards the whole of the very important question to which it applies, will be given in the next chapter.