We have now reached a portion of our narrative when the author will be compelled to speak of himself, and the part taken by him, first in devising a poor-law for Ireland, and next in superintending its introduction into that country; and he is very anxious to bespeak an indulgent consideration for the difficulty in which he is placed, by having been thus personally engaged in the transactions which he will have to describe. The great social importance of the Irish Poor Law, imposes upon him the duty of giving a full and complete account of all that took place with regard to it; and he feels that this duty cannot be rendered less imperative, by the fact of his official connexion with the measure. He will therefore proceed to detail the circumstances as they severally occurred; and it will be more simple, and may save circumlocution for him to speak in the first person, on the occasions in which he was himself immediately concerned.

On the 22nd of August I received directions to proceed to Ireland, taking with me the Reports of the commissioners of inquiry, and there to examine how far it might be judicious or practicable to offer relief to whole classes of the poor, whether of the sick, the infirm, or orphan children—whether such relief might not have the effect of promoting imposture, without destroying mendicity—whether the condition of the great bulk of the poorer classes would be improved by such a measure—whether a rate limited in its amount rather than its application, might be usefully directed to the erection and maintenance of workhouses for all those who sought relief as paupers—whether any kind of workhouse can be established which should not give its inmates a superior degree of comfort to the common lot of the independent labourer—whether the restraint of a workhouse would be an effectual check to applicants for admission; and whether, if the system were once established, the inmates would not resist, by force, the restraints which would be necessary. Supposing the workhouse system not to be advisable, I was directed to consider in what other mode a national or local rate might be beneficially applied; and to examine the policy of establishing depôts where candidates for emigration might resort. My attention was also specially directed to the machinery by which rates for the relief of the poor might be raised and expended; and to the formation and constitution of a central board, of local boards, of district unions, and of parochial vestries. I was also directed to inquire whether the capital applied to the improvement of land, and the reclaiming of bogs and wastes was perceptibly or notoriously increasing or diminishing, and to remark generally upon any plans which might lead to an increased demand for labour; and lastly, to “carefully read the bills which had been brought into the house of commons on this subject during that year, and the draft of a bill prepared by one of the commissioners of inquiry in conformity with their Report.”

It will thus be seen that the proposed inquiry was sufficiently extensive; and I hardly need say that I entered upon the duty assigned me with a deep sense of the responsibility it involved. The working of the English Poor Law, afforded means for obtaining some insight into the character and habits of such of the Irish as had become resident in the metropolis and the larger towns of England, and I immediately instituted inquiries on the subject among the workhouse masters and other officers of several of the London parishes where the Irish labourers principally resided. They all assured me as the result of their experience, that the discipline of a workhouse operated with the Irish precisely as it did with the English poor. There was in fact no difference in this respect, nor any greater difficulty with regard to the one, than there was in the management of the other. This was so far satisfactory; but further examination and inquiry were necessary for giving entire confidence on this point, and these could best be pursued in Ireland whither I accordingly proceeded early in September.

The evidence collected by the late commissioners of inquiry and appended to their Report, established so conclusively the existence of a state of poverty throughout Ireland, amounting in numerous cases to actual destitution,^[73] that I felt it to be unnecessary to adduce any additionaladditional proofs on the subject. To this extent moreover, the evidence was fully borne out by previous investigations of committees and commissions on the state of Ireland. The fact of wide-spread destitution was therefore notorious, and its existence was universally admitted; so that in reporting to government at the end of my mission, I considered it enough to state as the result of my own inquiries, “that the misery now prevalent among the labouring classes in Ireland, appears to be of a nature and intensity calculated to produce great demoralization and danger;” and such being the case, it was doubtless the duty of government and the legislature to endeavour to devise a remedy for the one, and thus at the same time to guard against the other.

My first Report was delivered on the 15th of November. It stated that after examining the several institutions in Dublin, I had visited the west of Ireland from Cork to Limerick Westport and Sligo, and back by Armagh—“everywhere examining and inquiring as to the condition and habits of the people, their character and wants; and endeavouring to ascertain whether, and how far, the system of relief established in England, was applicable to the present state of Ireland.” The above route was deemed the most eligible, because the inhabitants of the manufacturing and commercial districts of the north and east, more nearly resembled the English than those of the southern and western parts of Ireland; and if the English system should be found applicable to them, there could be no doubt of its applicability to the others.

The Report is divided into three parts or principal divisions—

The first, gives the general result of inquiries into the condition habits and feelings of the people, especially with regard to the introduction of a law for the relief of the poor.

In the second part, the question whether the workhouse system can with safety and advantage be established in Ireland is considered, and also whether the means for creating an efficient union machinery exists there.

Assuming these questions to be answered affirmatively, the chief points requiring attention in framing a poor-law for Ireland, are in the last part considered.

It is now proposed to insert, under the above divisions, so much of the Report as will be sufficient for showing its general import, and the nature of its recommendations; but omitting such portions as are not necessary for this purpose—

Part the First.—“The investigations and inquiries in which I have been engaged, have led to a conviction that Ireland has, on the whole, during the last thirty or forty years, been progressively improving. It is impossible to pass through the country without being struck with the evidence of increasing wealth almost everywhere apparent, although it is of course more visible in towns than in the open country. Great as the improvement in England has been within the same period, that in Ireland, I believe, has been equal. There are towns and districts there, as there are towns and districts in England, in which little improvement is seen, or which may even have retrograded; but the general advance is certain, and the improvement in the condition and increase in the capital of the country, are still, I think, steadily progressive. If it be asked how this accords with the misery and destitution apparent among a large portion of the people, the answer is obvious—The capital of the country has increased, but the increase of the population has been still greater; and it therefore does not follow that there is an increase of capital or comfort in the possession of each individual, or even of the majority. The reverse is unhappily the fact—Towns, exhibiting every sign of increased wealth, are encircled by suburbs composed of miserable hovels, sheltering a wretched population of mendicants. In the country, evidence of the extreme subdivision of land everywhere appears, and as a consequence, the soil, fertile as it naturally is, becomes exhausted by continual cropping; for the cottier tenant, too often reduced to a level little above that of the mendicant, is unable to provide manure for his land, and has no other mode of restoring its vigour but by subjecting it to a long and profitless fallow. Farmers of three hundred acres, or even of two or one hundred, except in the grazing districts, have become almost extinct in Ireland. A variety of circumstances seem to have contributed to bring about this change. In some instances the proprietor has himself subdivided his land into small holdings of five, ten, or fifteen acres, with a view of increasing his rent-roll, or adding to his political influence. In other cases the land has been let on lease to a single tenant on lives, or for a term of years, or both conjointly; and he has sublet to others, who have again gone on dividing and subletting, until the original proprietor is almost lost sight of, and the original holding is parcelled out among a host of small occupiers.

“The occupation of a plot of land has now gotten to be considered, by a great portion of the Irish people, as conferring an almost interminable right of possession. This seems to have arisen in great measure out of the circumstances in which they have been placed; for there being no legal provision for the destitute, and the subdivision of the land into small holdings having destroyed the regular demand for labour, the only protection against actual want, the only means by which a man could procure food for his family, was by getting and retaining possession of a portion of land; for this he has struggled—for this the peasantry have combined and burst through the restraints of law and humanity. So long as this portion of land was kept together, it was possibly sufficient to supply his family with a tolerable degree of comfort; but after a time he would have sons to provide for, and daughters to portion off, and this must all be effected out of the land—until the holding of ten or fifteen acres became divided into holdings of two, three, or five acres. After a time, too, the same process of subdivision is again resorted to, until the minimum of subsistence is reached; and this is now the condition of a large portion of the Irish peasantry. Land is to them the great necessary of life. There is no hiring of servants. A man cannot obtain his living as a day-labourer. He must get possession of a plot of land to raise potatoes, or starve. It need scarcely be said that a man will not starve, so long as the means of sustaining life can be obtained by force or fraud; and hence the scenes of violence and murder which have so frequently occurred in Ireland.

“One of the circumstances that first arrests attention on visiting Ireland, is the prevalence of mendicancy. It is not perhaps the actual amount of misery existing amongst the mendicant class, great as that may be, which is most to be deprecated; but the falsehood and fraud which form a part of their profession, and spread by their example. Mendicancy appeals to our sympathies on behalf of vice, as well as want; and encouragement is often afforded to the one, by the relief intended for the other. To assume the semblance of misery is the business of the mendicant, and his success depends upon the skill with which he exercises deception. A mass of filth, nakedness, and squalor, is thus kept moving about the country, entering every house, addressing itself to every eye, and soliciting from every hand; and much of the filth and indolence observable in the cabins, clothing, and general conduct of the peasantry, may I think be traced to this source, and I doubt even if those above the class of labourers altogether escape the taint. Mendicancy and filth have become too common to be disgraceful.

“The Irish peasantry have generally an appearance of apathy and depression. This is seen in their mode of living, in their habitations, in their dress, in the dress of their children, and in their general economy and conduct. They seem to have no pride, no emulation; to be heedless of the present, and careless of the future. They do not strive to improve their appearance, or add to their comforts. Their cabins are slovenly, smoky, dirty, almost without furniture, or any article of convenience or common decency. On entering a cottage, the woman and children are seen seated on the floor surrounded by pigs and poultry, the man is lounging at the door, which can only be approached through mud and filth. Yet he is too indolent to make a dry approach to his dwelling, although there are materials close at hand, and his wife is too slatternly to cleanse the place in which they live, or sweep the dirt and offal from the floor. If you point out these defects, and endeavour to show how easily they might improve their condition and increase their comforts, you are invariably met by excuses as to their poverty. Are a woman, and her children, and her cabin filthy, whilst a stream of water runs past the door—the answer invariably is, ‘Sure, how can we help it? we are so poor!’ With the man it is the same; you find him idly basking in the sun, or seated by the fire, whilst his cabin is scarcely approachable through the accumulation of mud—and he too will exclaim, ‘Sure, how can we help it? we are so poor!’ whilst at the very time he is smoking tobacco, and has probably not denied himself the enjoyment of whisky. Now poverty is not the cause, or at least not the sole cause, of this condition of the Irish peasantry. If they desired to live better, or to appear better, they might do so; but they seem to have no such ambition, and hence the depressed tone of which I have spoken. This may be partly owing to the remains of old habits; for bad as the circumstances of the peasantry now are, they were yet, I am persuaded, worse fifty or thirty years ago. A part also may be attributed to the want of education, and of a feeling of self-respect; and a part likewise to their poverty—to which last cause alone, everything that is wrong in Ireland is invariably attributed.

“The desultory habits of the peasantry are likewise remarkable. However urgent the demands for exertion—if, as in the present season, their crops are rotting in the fields from excessive wet, and every moment of sunshine should be taken advantage of—still, if there be a market to attend, a fair, or a funeral, a horse-race, a fight, or a wedding, all else is neglected or forgotten; they hurry off in search of the excitements which abound on such occasions, and with a recklessness hardly to be credited, at the moment that they are complaining of poverty, they take the most certain steps to increase it. Their fondness for ardent spirits is probably one cause of this, and another will be found in their position as occupiers of land. The work required upon their small holdings is easily performed, and may, as they say, ‘be done any day.’ Working for wages is rare and uncertain; and hence arises a disregard of the value of time, a desultory sauntering habit, without industry or steadiness of application. Such is too generally the character, and such the habits, of the Irish peasantry; and it may not be uninstructive to mark the resemblance which these bear to the character and habits of the English peasantry in the pauperised districts, under the abuses of the old Poor Law. Mendicancy and indiscriminate almsgiving have produced in Ireland, results similar to what indiscriminate relief produced in England—the like reckless disregard of the future, the like idle and disorderly conduct, and the same proneness to outrage having then characterised the English pauper labourer, which are now too generally the characteristics of the Irish peasant. An abuse of a good law caused the evil in the one case, and a removal of that abuse is now rapidly effecting a remedy. In the other case, the evil appears to have arisen rather from the want, than the abuse of a law; but the corrective for both will, I believe, be found to be essentially the same.

“The objections usually urged against the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland, are founded on an anticipated demoralization of the peasantry—and on the probable amount of the charge. The first objection derives its force from the example of England under the old Poor Law; but the weight of this objection is destroyed by the improved administration under the new law, which is rapidly eradicating the effects of previous abuse; and will, there is good reason to believe, effectually prevent their recurrence. This belief is founded on the experience of the effects of the system in every instance in which it has been brought into operation, and particularly in two important parishes in Nottinghamshire, where the workhouse principle was first established in its simplicity and efficiency fifteen or sixteen years ago, and where it has continued to be equally effective up to the present time. Similar results have invariably attended its application in the unions formed under the new law, which are conducted essentially upon the same principle, but with a superior combination of machinery, and administrative arrangement.

“With respect to the second objection, founded on the probable amount of expenditure, it may be remarked that the Irish population, like every other, must be supported in some way out of the resources of the country; and it does not follow that the establishment of such a system of relief will greatly increase the charge, if it increase it at all. During the progress of my inquiries, I was often told that the recognition of any legal claim for relief would lead to universal pauperism, and would amount to a total confiscation of property. Many Irish landowners appeared to participate in this apprehension—under the influence of which it seems to have been overlooked, that the only legal claim for relief in England is founded on the actual destitution of the claimant, and that as the existence of destitution is the ground of the claim, so is its removal the measure of relief to be afforded. This, if the destitution be rightly tested, will be a sufficient protection to property. At present there is no test of destitution in Ireland. The mendicant, whether his distress be real or fictitious, claims and receives his share of the produce of the soil in the shape of charity, before the landlord can receive his portion in the shape of rent, and before the tenant has ascertained whether he is a gainer or a loser by his labours and his risks. The mendicant’s claim has now precedence over every other. If the whole property of Ireland was rated to the relief of the poor, it would be no more; but in such case the charge would be equally borne, whereas at present it is unequal, and tends to evil in its application.

“The voluntary contributions of Scotland have been recommended as an example to be followed, rather than the compulsory assessments of England; and the Dublin Mendicity Association has been referred to, and its working described as at once effective for the suppression of mendicancy, and for the relief of the indigent within the sphere of its operations, without injury to the sensibilities of individual benevolence. But the feelings of charity and gratitude, which it is delightful to contemplate as the motive and the fruit of benevolent actions, can only exist between individuals. It matters not whether the fund to be distributed has been raised by voluntary contribution, or by legal assessment, or whether it has been devised for purposes of general charity. The application of the fund becomes, in each case, a trust; it is distributed as a trust, and it is received as a right, not as a gift. It may moreover be remarked, that the Dublin Mendicity Association has with difficulty been kept in existence by great exertions on the part of the committee, and by threats of parading the mendicants through the streets. If difficulty is thus found in supporting such an institution in Dublin, how impracticable must it be to provide permanent support for similar institutions in other parts of the country. Some persons contend that relief for the indigent classes in Ireland should be provided in ‘houses of industry,’ similar to those now existing in Dublin and a few other places. These institutions are in general not badly managed, and some classification is enforced in them, and the sexes are invariably separated. But they are certainly not entitled to the designation of ‘houses of industry.’ They are in fact places for the maintenance of a number of poor persons, mostly aged or infirm, and idiots, and lunatics; but as a general means of supplying necessary relief, and of testing the necessity, they are totally inefficient.

“Notwithstanding these objections, I found everywhere, after quitting Dublin, a strong feeling in favour of property being assessed for the relief of the indigent. At present, the burthen falls almost exclusively upon the lower classes, whilst the higher classes generally escape. A system of poor-laws, similar in principle to the English system, would go far to remedy this inequality—the people are aware of this—and, as the general result of my inquiries, I have been led to the conclusion, that poor-laws may be now established in Ireland, guarded by the correctives derived from experience in England, with safety and success. I think also, that such a measure would serve to connect the interest of landlords and tenants, and so become a means of benefiting both, and promoting the general peace and prosperity of the country. The desire now so generally expressed for a full participation in English laws and English institutions, will dispose the Irish people to receive with alacrity any measure tending to put them on the same footing as their fellow-subjects of England—a circumstance particularly favourable to the establishment of a poor-law at this moment. At another season, or under other circumstances, it might be difficult to surround a legal provision for the relief of the Irish poor, with sufficient guards against abuse; but at present, I think the legislature may venture to entertain the subject, having the experience of England before them, with a reasonable confidence of being able to bring the measure to a successful issue; and if the landed proprietors and gentry of Ireland will there perform the same part, which the proprietors and gentry of England are now performing in the administration of the new Poor Law, the result will be neither distant nor doubtful.

“If a poor-law were established in Ireland, it must not however be expected to work miracles. It would not give employment or capital, but it would, I think, help the country through what may be called its transition period; and in time, and with the aid of other circumstances, would effect a material improvement in the condition of the people. The English Poor Laws, in their earlier operation, contributed to the accomplishment of this object in England; and there seems nothing to prevent a similar result in Ireland. Facilities now exist in Ireland for helping forward the transition, and for shortening its duration as well as securing its benefits, which England did not possess in the time of Elizabeth, or for a century and a half afterwards. By ‘transition period,’ I mean that season of change from the system of small holdings, con-acre, and the subdivisions of land, which now prevails in Ireland, to the better practice of day-labour for wages, and to that dependence on daily labour for support, which is the present condition of the English peasantry. This transition is, I believe, generally beset with difficulty and suffering. It was so in England; it is, and for a time will probably continue to be so in Ireland; and every aid should be afforded to shorten its duration, and lessen its pressure. It has been considered that the existence of the con-acre system is favourable to such a transition. I am disposed to concur in this view, and think that the annual hiring of the con-acre, may help to wean the Irish peasantry from their present desire of occupying land, and lead them to become labourers for wages. The eager clinging to land, and its subdivision into small holdings, is at once a cause and a consequence of the rapid increase of the people, and of the extreme poverty and want which prevail among them. It is not because the potato constitutes their food, that a kind of famine occurs annually in Ireland between the going out of the old, and the in-coming of the new crop; but it is because the peasantry are the sole providers for their own necessities, each out of his own small holding; and being all alike hard pressed, and apt to under-calculate the extent of their wants, they thus often find themselves without food before the new crop is ripe. In this emergency there is no store provided to which they can have recourse, and misery and disease ensue. A poor-law would lighten the pressure under such a visitation, and the poor-law machinery might be useful in cases of extreme need, as well as for preventing a recurrence of the calamity.

“It is impossible to mix with the Irish people without noticing the great influence of the clergy, and it seemed important therefore to ascertain their views in regard to a poor-law. I discussed the subject with many of them, as well Roman catholic as protestant, in all parts of the country; and I found them, with few exceptions, decidedly favourably to such a law. In the cases where they were not so, it appeared to be owing to an apprehension that their influence might be lessened, by taking from them the distribution of the alms which now pass through their hands; but this feeling was of rare occurrence, and I am warranted in saying, that the clergy of every denomination are almost unanimously favourable to a system of Poor Laws for Ireland. This was perhaps to be expected, the duties of the clergy leading them to mix more with the people, and to see more of their actual wants, than any other class of persons. The shopkeepers too, and manufacturers and dealers generally, I found favourable to a poor-law. They declared that they should be gainers at the end of the year, whatever might be the amount legally assessed upon them; for that they could neither close their doors, nor turn their backs upon the wretched objects who were constantly applying to them; whilst the gentry, if resident, were in a great measure protected from such applications, and if non-resident, escaped them altogether.

“A legal provision for the destitute, is moreover an indispensable preliminary to the suppression of mendicancy. If the state offers an alternative, it may prohibit begging—it would be in vain to do so otherwise, for the law would be opposed to our natural sympathies, and would remain inoperative. This was the course adopted in England, where it was long endeavoured to repress vagrancy by severe enactments, but apparently with little advantage. At last the offer of relief was coupled with the prohibition of mendicancy, and until our Poor Law administration became corrupt, with perfect success. To establish a poor-law, then, is I believe a necessary preliminary to the suppression of mendicancy. That it will be, on the whole, economical to do this in Ireland, it is I think scarcely possible to doubt; but whether it be so or not, the advantage both morally and socially of removing such an evil, is beyond question important.

“It may be regarded as a circumstance favourable to the introduction of a poor-law, that so much land is lying waste and uncultivated in Ireland. Much of this land is susceptible of cultivation, and the order and security which a poor-law would tend to establish, will encourage the application of capital to such objects. If capital were to be so applied, considerable tracts would be brought under culture, and thus afford occupation to the now unemployed labourers. Most of the reclaimed bog which I saw in the western counties, was effected by the small occupiers, who partially drained and enclosed an acre or two at a time; but such operations were without system or combination, and for the most part indifferently performed. In this way, however, the reclamation of these wastes will of necessity proceed—constantly adding to the number of small cottier tenants, and swelling the amount of poverty and wretchedness in the country—unless proprietors and capitalists shall be induced to take the matter in hand, and by enclosing and effectually draining whole tracts, secure the means of applying economical management on a large scale. The enclosing and draining, and the whole process of reclamation, would afford employment to labourers who are now, for a great portion of the year, idling about without occupation; and when the land so reclaimed becomes subjected to a regular process of cultivation, it will continue to afford them regular employment at daily wages, instead of the often miserably insufficient produce of their own small holdings, to which they now are compelled to cling as their sole means of support.

“It appears then, I think, that a poor-law is necessary for relieving the destitution to which a large portion of the population in Ireland is now exposed. It appears too, that circumstances are at present favourable for the introduction of such a measure. A poor-law seems also to be necessary, as a first step towards bringing about improvement in the habits and social condition of the people. Without such improvement, peace, good order, and security cannot exist in Ireland; and without these, it is in vain to look for that accumulation of wealth, and influx of capital, which are necessary for developing its resources, agricultural and commercial, and for providing profitable employment for the population. Ireland is now suffering under a circle of evils, producing and reproducing one another. Want of capital produces want of employment—want of employment, turbulence and misery—turbulence and misery, insecurity—insecurity prevents the introduction or accumulation of capital—and so on. Until this circle is broken, the evils must continue, and probably increase. The first thing to be done is to give security—that will produce or invite capital—and capital will give employment. But security of person and property cannot co-exist with extensive destitution. So that, in truth, the reclamation of bogs and wastes—the establishment of fisheries and manufactures—improvements in agriculture, and in the general condition of the country—and lastly, the elevation of the great mass of the Irish people in the social scale, appear to be all more or less contingent upon establishing a law providing for the relief of the destitute.—How such a law may be best formed, so as to secure the largest amount of good, with the least risk of evil, it is proposed next to consider.

Part the Second.—“There are two points for consideration under this division of the subject which are of primary import, the question of a Poor Law for Ireland mainly depending upon them. First—Whether the workhouse system can be safely and effectively established in Ireland; and secondly—Whether a machinery can be there established for their government, such as exists in the English unions.

“In my inquiries with regard to these points, I endeavoured to exercise a care and vigilance proportioned to their importance. The inquiry was entered upon under an apprehension that the workhouse would be less efficient in Ireland, than experience had shown it to be in England; and that it would probably be applicable to the able-bodied in a limited degree only, if applicable to them at all. I was doubtful also, whether it would be practicable to control any considerable number of the able-bodied in a workhouse—whether the proneness of the Irish peasantry to outrage and insubordination would not, as had often been represented, lead them to break through all restraint, and perhaps demolish the building, and commit other acts of violence. The probability of such outrage is strongly insisted upon by the Commissioners of Inquiry, and the same argument was urged upon me by some persons with whom I communicated in Dublin. In the progress of my inquiries however, I soon found reason for concluding that there was no ground for apprehension, either as to the applicability of the workhouse for the purposes of relief, or as to any danger of resistance to such a system of classification and discipline within it, as would make it a test of destitution. In the several ‘houses of industry’ established in Ireland, a strict separation of the sexes is enforced, and a discipline more or less approximating to our workhouse discipline is established. No spirits are admitted, and on the whole, there is enough in these institutions to render them distasteful as places of partial restraint. Yet from no governor of a house of industry could I learn that resistance had ever been made to their regulations, and surprise was even expressed at my thinking it necessary to make the inquiry. I received the same opinion from the governors of gaols. In short, every man whom I conversed with, who had any experience of the habits of the people, declared that the peasantry are perfectly tractable, and never think of opposing authority, unless stimulated by drink, or urged on by that species of combination for securing the occupancy of land, which has become so common in certain districts. Neither of these influences will interfere with the establishment of a workhouse, or the regulation of its inmates, all of whom will have sought refuge in it voluntarily, and may quit it at any moment. As regards the security of the workhouse, therefore, and the establishment of a system of discipline as strict as that maintained in the English workhouses, I believe that there will be neither danger nor difficulty.

“How far the workhouse, if established, may be relied upon as a test of destitution and a measure of the relief to be afforded; how far it will be effectual for the prevention of pauperism, and for stimulating the people to exertion for their own support;—how far, in short, the workhouse system, which has been safely and effectually applied to dispauperise England, may be applied with safety and efficiency to prevent pauperism in Ireland, now remains for inquiry. The governing principle of the workhouse system is this:—that the support which is afforded at the public charge in the workhouse, shall on the whole be less desirable than the support obtained by independent exertion. To carry out this principle, it might seem to be necessary that the inmates of a workhouse should be in all respects worse situated—worse clothed, worse lodged, and worse fed, than the independent labourers of the district. In fact, however, the inmates of our English workhouses are as well clothed, and generally better lodged and better fed than the agricultural labourer and his family: yet the irksomeness of the discipline and confinement, and the privation of certain enjoyments, produce such disinclination to enter the workhouse, that experience warrants the fullest assurance that nothing short of destitution, and that necessity which the law contemplates as the ground for affording relief, will induce the able-bodied labourer to seek refuge therein; and that if driven thither by necessity, he will quit it again as speedily as possible, and strive (generally with increased energy and consequent success) to obtain subsistence by his own efforts.

“It would perhaps be in vain, even if it were desirable, to seek to make the lodging, the clothing, and the diet, of the inmates of an Irish workhouse, inferior to those of the Irish peasantry. The standard of their mode of living is so low, that the establishment of one still lower is difficult, and would under any circumstances be inexpedient. In Ireland therefore, there would not perhaps be found the same security in this respect for the efficiency of the workhouse test, which may in some degree be operative in England. There are countervailing circumstances in Ireland however, which more than balance this drawback, even if it were greater than it really is. The Irish are naturally, or by habit, a migratory people, fond of change, hopeful, sanguine, eager for experiment. They have never been practically limited to one spot by a law of settlement, as has been the case with the English peasantry. They have never been enervated by a misapplied system of parish relief. Rather than bear the restrictions of a workhouse, the Irishman, if in possession of health and strength, would wander the world over to obtain a living. All the opinions I have collected from persons most conversant with the Irish character, agree in this. Confinement of any kind is even more irksome to an Irishman than to an Englishman. Hence, although he might be lodged, fed, and clothed, in a workhouse, better than he could lodge, feed, and clothe himself—he will yet, like the Englishman, never enter the workhouse, unless driven thither by actual necessity; and he will not then remain there longer than that necessity exists. The test of the workhouse is then, I think, likely to be as efficient in Ireland, as it is proved to be in England; and if relief be there restricted to the workhouse, it will be at once a test of destitution, and a measure of relief, and will serve to protect the administration of a legal provision for the destitute poor, from those evils and abuses which followed the establishment, and led to the perversion, of the old Poor Laws in England. I speak of the workhouse as a test of destitution generally, without limiting its operation to age, infirmity, or other circumstances; for independent of the difficulty of discriminating between those who may fairly be considered as aged and infirm, and those who are not—as well as certain other difficulties, practical and theoretical, in the way of making any such distinction—I have found in the state of Ireland, no sufficient reason for departing from the principle of the English Poor Law which recognises destitution alone as the ground of relief, nor for establishing a distinction in the one country, which does not exist in the other.

“The expense of providing workhouses, will not, I apprehend, be so considerable as has by some been anticipated. If the surface of Ireland be divided into squares of twenty miles each, so that a workhouse placed in the centre would be distant about ten miles from the extremities in all directions, this would give about eighty workhouses for the whole of Ireland. A diameter of twenty miles was the limit prescribed for the size of unions by Gilbert’s Act, but it was often exceeded in practice—it may however, be assumed as a convenient size on the present occasion. In some cases, owing to the position of towns, or other local causes, the unions will probably be smaller; in others, especially in the thinly-peopled districts of the west, they may be larger: but still, there is, I think, every probability that the number of workhouses required will not greatly exceed eighty. In aid of this number, the houses of industry, and mendicity and other establishments, which will be unnecessary as soon as a legal provision is made for the relief of the destitute, will become available at probably a small expense. In some instances, moreover, barracks, factories, or other buildings suitable for conversion into workhouses, may perhaps be obtained on easy terms:—but excluding all such considerations, and assuming that instead of eighty workhouses, a hundred will be required, and that the cost of erecting each will be about the same as for the largest class of English workhouses, namely, about 7,000l.—this would give a gross outlay of 700,000l. for the whole of Ireland—a sum not disproportionally large, when the nature of the object is taken into account. If government were to advance the sum necessary for providing the workhouses by way of loan, as has been done to the unions in England, requiring an instalment of five per cent. of the principal to be paid off annually out of the rates, it would make the whole charge so easy, that it would scarcely be felt. The payment of 35,000l. per annum for twenty years, with the interest on the constantly-decreasing principal, could not be considered a hardship on Ireland; and this is in fact the whole of the new or additional outlay proposed: for as regards the relief of the destitute, that would not be a new charge, the destitute classes being now supported, although in a manner calculated to injure and depress the general character of the people.

“As respects the means for local management in Ireland, if it were attempted to establish a parochial machinery similar to that which exists in England, I believe the attempt would fail. The description of persons requisite for constituting such a machinery, will not be found in the majority of Irish parishes. In some parts however, and especially in the north and the east, competent individuals would be found in many, if not in most of the parishes. If an Irish Poor Law were established, the uniting of parishes for the purpose of securing the benefits of combined management, is therefore more necessary even than it was in England; and by making the unions sufficiently large, there can be no doubt that in almost every instance, such a board of elected guardians may be obtained as would secure the orderly working of the union, under a due system of supervision and control.

“In the first instance, and until a rate for the relief of the destitute is established, the contributors to the county-cess might be empowered to elect the guardians. But in some cases an efficient board may not be obtainable by election, and this is most likely to occur at the commencement, when individuals will be ill instructed as to their duties, and when the public will perhaps have formed erroneous notions of what is intended to be done. To meet such a contingency, it seems essential that large general powers should be vested in some central authority, to control and direct the proceedings of the boards of guardians, and even to supersede their functions altogether, whenever such supersession shall be necessary. Power should also be given to declare unions, and to appoint paid officers to conduct the business, under the direction of the central authority, without the intervention of a board of guardians; and in order to guard against mistakes to be expected on the first introduction of an entirely new order of things, and to prevent the mischief that might ensue from failure or misconduct at the outset, the central authority should also, I think, be empowered to dispense with the election of the first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as may appear most fit and competent to act as guardians of the union, until the Lady-day next ensuing, or the Lady-day twelvemonths. The number and selection of such specially-appointed guardians to be at the discretion of the central authority. These powers are greater than were given to the English commissioners by the Poor Law Amendment Act: but they are, in my opinion, necessary in the present state of Ireland. With such powers confided to the central authority, no difficulty can arise for which it will not be prepared; and it will, I think, be enabled to establish the unions, and to constitute an adequate machinery for their government throughout the whole of Ireland, with certainty and efficiency.

“In England, the county magistrates residing and acting within a union, are ex-officio members of the board of guardians. The number and position of the magistracy in Ireland seem to require some modification in this respect. The principle of administration established in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act, is based essentially upon popular representation. The guardians are elected by the occupiers and owners of the property rated, and in the hands of the guardians the administrative power is vested. The county magistrates, it is true, in virtue of their office, sit and act as members of the board; but this does not destroy its elective character, as the number of elected so far exceeds that of the ex-officio guardians, that the popular character of the board is maintained; whilst the presence of the magistrates, who in virtue of their office are permanent members, and therefore connecting links between the successive boards of elected guardians, secures a stability and continuity of action, which, if based entirely upon election, the board might not possess. This is the constitution of the boards of guardians in England, and nothing can work better: but in Ireland, the number of magistrates who would be entitled under a similar provision to act as ex-officio guardians, would in general greatly exceed the number so qualified in England, and in some cases might outnumber the elected guardians. If this should occur, the elective character of the board would of course be destroyed; but even if this should not be the case, yet any undue preponderance of the permanent ex-officio guardians would detract from the popular character of the governing body, and lower it in the confidence of the people. With a view therefore of keeping as nearly as possible to the practical constitution of the English boards of guardians, I propose in the Irish unions,—1st. That the number of ex-officio guardians shall never exceed one-third the number of elected guardians: 2dly. That immediately on the declaration of a union, the county magistrates residing and acting within its limits, shall nominate from among themselves a number nearest to, but not exceeding, one-third of the elected guardians,—which magistrates so nominated by their compeers, shall be entitled to act as ex-officio guardians of the union, until the Michaelmas twelvemonth after such nomination: and 3dly. That at each succeeding Michaelmas, the magistrates entitled as aforesaid, shall proceed to a new election. These regulations will, I think, not only preserve a due proportion in the constitution of the boards of guardians, but also ensure the co-operation of the most efficient portion of the magistracy in the government of the unions; as the magistrates will doubtless nominate those members of their body who are most active and able.

“A different practice from that established in England, seems also to be necessary with respect to the Clergy. Under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, ministers of religion of every denomination are eligible for the office of guardian, elected or ex-officio. In the present condition of Ireland, I fear this would be attended with inconvenience, and might destroy the efficiency of the boards of guardians. I therefore propose that no clergyman, or minister of any religious denomination, shall be eligible to act either as elected or ex-officio guardian. This exclusion is not proposed from any notion of the general unfitness of the clergy to fill the office of guardian; but with reference solely to the present state of religious opinion in Ireland, and to the importance of keeping the functions of the boards of guardians free from the suspicion of sectarian bias. If the ministers of one persuasion were to be admitted, the ministers of every persuasion must be so; and then the deliberations would too probably he disturbed by religious differences. On no point have I taken more pains to arrive at a sound conclusion than on this, being fully sensible of the objections, on principle, to the exclusion of any class of men from office: but the great majority of the clergy themselves with whom I have conversed, Roman catholic and protestant, have agreed in thinking that it will be, on the whole, inexpedient to admit any of the ministers of religion to act as guardians; and after the fullest consideration and inquiry, I therefore recommend that they should all be declared ineligible.

“In England, under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, every parish or township rated for the maintenance of its poor, and included in a union, is entitled to return a guardian. In Ireland it will, I think, be essential that the central authority should be empowered to fix the limits of a union, without being restricted to parish boundaries. It should be enabled to divide parishes, either for the purpose of electing guardians, or for joining a portion of a parish to one union, and another portion to another union. It should also be empowered to consolidate parishes for the purpose of electing one or more guardians, and likewise to form election districts for this purpose, without reference to parochial boundaries. And lastly, the central authority should be empowered to add to, take from, and remodel unions, whenever such change might be found necessary. These powers would have enabled the English Poor Law Commissioners to make their unions more compact and convenient than they at present are, local prejudices and local interests having frequently compelled them to abandon the arrangement which would have been best for the general interest. In Ireland, full powers in these respects are, I think, indispensable for enabling the central authority to deal with the various circumstances under which the unions will there have to be formed. But with adequate powers, and with such modifications as are before described, the principle of union which has been established in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act, may I think be advantageously extended to Ireland; and as it has been shown that no insurmountable difficulty exists to prevent the introduction of the workhouse as a test of destitution—so neither will there be any insurmountable difficulty in establishing an adequate machinery for the government of the unions when formed.

Part the Third.—“Assuming that a system of Poor Laws ought to be established in Ireland; that the workhouse system may there be relied upon, as a test of destitution; and that the means of forming and governing unions exist there, as well as in England—It now remains to describe the several points which require attention in framing a measure comprising these objects; and also to offer such further observations, as did not seem to come within the scope of the preceding divisions.

“The governing principle to be observed in dealing with this portion of the subject is, that the Poor Law of Ireland should assimilate in all respects as nearly as possible to that established in England,—varying only in those instances, in which the different circumstances of the two countries require it. In conformity with this principle, the first point for consideration would naturally be the constitution of the central or chief authority, and the powers to be confided to it; but I postpone this part of the subject—assuming only that a central authority is to be established, with powers similar in kind to those conferred upon the English Poor Law Commissioners. The other points for consideration are the following—

1st. Of Relief.—“The only legal claim for relief in England, is founded upon the destitution of the party claiming it. I propose to extend the same principle to Ireland; and as a test of the actual existence of such destitution, and to guard against the evils which have invariably attended the distribution of out-door relief, (that is, of relief administered either in money or in kind to parties out of the workhouse) I further propose that, in Ireland, no relief should be given except in the workhouse. I do not propose to impart a right to relief, even to the destitute poor. The claim to relief in England, is founded on prescription, rather than enactment; for although the 43rd of Elizabeth provides for the levying a rate for the purpose of relieving the destitute poor, it invests them with no right to claim relief, the administration of which is left to the local authorities, who are of course responsible for its due exercise. The promulgation of rules for the administration of relief will therefore rest with the central authority, limited by the proviso that relief is only to be administered in the workhouse. The central authority will declare when the workhouse shall be so applied in each union, and will also take care that no time be lost in providing suitable workhouse accommodation, as well as to establish such regulations as may be necessary for the guidance of the local authorities in the interim; but it will be most safe to prohibit all relief whatever, until the test of the workhouse can be applied.

“The strict limitation of relief to the workhouse may possibly be objected to, on the ground that extreme want is found occasionally to assail large portions of the population, who ought then to be relieved at the public charge, without being subjected to the restraint of the workhouse. But this is an exceptional case, and it would not, I think, be wise to adapt the regulations of poor-law administration in Ireland to the possible occurrence of such a contingency. In a period of famine, the whole population may be said to become destitute; but it surely would not be expedient to hold out an expectation, that if this should unhappily occur, support for all would be unconditionally provided at the public charge?—During such a visitation, the workhouse might not be sufficient for the numbers who were anxious to crowd into it; but to the extent of its means of accommodation it would help to relieve the general distress, and the union machinery would probably be found useful in other respects. The occurrence of a famine, however, if general, seems to be a contingency beyond the powers of a poor-law to provide for. There is then an actual deficiency of supply; and as there is less to consume, less must be consumed. It is however, I think, impossible to contemplate the continuance of such a state of things in Ireland, as that in which any considerable portion of its population would be subjected to the occurrence of famine. As the habits and intelligence of the people improve, these visitations will be guarded against or averted; and I do not propose to make any exception permissive of out-door relief in such cases, but recommend that relief should be limited strictly to the workhouse. It is moreover necessary that no individual of a family should be admitted, unless all its members enter the house. Relief to the father or husband is equivalent to relief to the child or the wife, and vice versâ; and, while they continue one family, a part cannot be considered as destitute, and the rest not so; a family must be taken as a whole, and so admitted or excluded. The provisions of the 43rd of Elizabeth, requiring parents to support children, and children to support parents, should also be extended to Ireland; and I think relief by way of loan, as provided for by the 58th section of the Poor Law Amendment Act, might in certain cases be useful, and if exercised with discretion, can scarcely be productive of mischief.

2ndly. Of the Local Machinery.—“I propose that the local machinery for the administration of relief to the destitute in Ireland, under the direction of a central authority, should be the same as is provided in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act; namely, the union of a district for common management, under a board of guardians elected by the ratepayers, with paid officers appointed or approved by the central authority.

“In forming the unions, it will be necessary to observe the civil, rather than the ecclesiastical boundaries of parishes; but cases will arise, in which it may be requisite to disregard all such boundaries—it being obviously more important that the district to be united should be compact, convenient, and accessible, and be naturally connected with its centre, than that the old and often inconvenient boundaries should be observed. This applies no less to county or baronial boundaries than to those of parishes or other divisions. The principle which has governed the formation of the English unions, whenever the commissioners have not been driven from it by local circumstances, has been to fix upon some market-town conveniently situated as a centre, and to attach to it the whole surrounding district, of which it may be considered the capital, and in which the general business of the district, both public and private, for the most part centres. The roads of a district always converge upon the market-town. The communications with it are constant, and the people settled within the range of its influence constitute almost a distinct community. To form such a district into a union, seems an obvious course, and I recommend its being adopted in Ireland. There may be parts of the country in which such a convenient centre does not exist, but this will be of rare occurrence, and the general powers of the central authority will be competent to deal with it.

“Much of what appeared to be necessary with reference to the members of the boards of guardians, both elected and ex-officio, is given in the second part of this Report: but the important question—in whose hands the right of appointing guardians shall be confided, and in what way that right shall be exercised, still remains to be considered. In this, as in other cases, the principle established in England, should, I think, be applied to Ireland, and the election of guardians be vested in the ratepayers and owners of property within the union; but the circumstances of Ireland require some modification of the English practice, in this respect. The owners of property in England, are entitled to vote according to the scale which was established by the Select Vestry Act, and which ascends by gradations of 25l. each, from a rated value of 50l. per annum up to 150l. per annum, giving one vote for the former, and six votes for the latter. This scale seems open to some objection, on the grounds of complexity and over-minuteness. It moreover differs from the scale of voting fixed for the ratepayers by the Poor Law Amendment Act, which provides that ratepayers, if rated under 200l. shall have one vote; if rated at 200l. and under 400l., two votes; and if at 400l. and upwards, three votes. Such a scale seems on the whole well adapted to the condition of ratepayers in England, but the amounts specified are too high for Ireland; and the scale is not sufficiently minute in its graduation, for the subdivision of property which prevails there. Instead of adopting these English scales, therefore, I propose to establish one scale in Ireland, by which simplicity of detail, and a right result, will I think be more effectually secured; and I recommend the following for regulating the votes of owners of property, as well as occupiers,

3rdly. Of Rating.—“The power to assess the property and levy a rate within a union for the purpose of relieving the destitute, must, I think, be confided to the board of guardians, by whom such relief is to be administered. The mode of assessing and collecting the rate, as well as its application, will be prescribed by the central authority. The Parochial Assessments Act passed last session, establishes the principle that the rates are to be paid upon the net annual value of property. This was always the law, although it had not always been acted upon. As regards the principle by which the assessment of property should be regulated, it will therefore be only necessary to extend the provisions of that Act to Ireland, substituting the union for the parish authorities. The valuation of property for rating need not, I apprehend, be made in every instance by surveyors or professional valuators. The fairly-estimated value of the property is all that is necessary. In many instances a valuation has already been made for the purpose of tithe commutation, and wherever that, or any other fair valuation has been made, it will be available for rating to the relief of the poor. Hitherto there has been no such rate in Ireland. The destitute classes have gone on increasing in numbers, but still there has been no recognised or legal provision for their relief. Property has been acquired, capital invested, and contracts made, under this state of things, and it will be impossible now to impose a rate upon property, without affecting existing arrangements: but I believe the effect will be slight, and that in a few years it will cease altogether. If it were far greater than I anticipate however, all objections to the imposition of a rate on this ground must be overborne by considerations of the public welfare.

“The question as to who shall pay the rate, and in what proportions, is next to be considered. The parties immediately interested are the owner or person possessing the beneficial interest of the property assessed, and the tenant or occupier. Between these therefore, it seems both equitable and expedient to apportion the rate. Where the two are combined, the same person would be answerable for the entire rate. The Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners appeared to be of opinion that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and the occupier one-third; and it seemed to me, at first, that this would be a suitable division: but after further consideration and inquiry, I thought that each should be called upon to pay half the rate.^[74] I was mainly influenced to adopt this view, by the consideration that at present nearly the whole support of the destitute falls upon the tenantry. It is to the occupiers that the mendicant resorts, and from them he receives his daily rations. There is thus in reality, a rate now levied, although not sanctioned by legal enactment; and no occupier, however limited may be his means, turns away the mendicant empty-handed from his door. The pressure of these continual calls upon the occupiers, help to bear them down, and keep them at their present low level; but if the destitute classes were relieved by means of a general rate upon property, of which the occupiers were called upon to pay half, they would be relieved from nearly one-half their present burthen. A poor-law, if rightly administered, although it ensures relief for the destitute, will not increase their number, or eventually swell the fund appropriated to their support. On the contrary, I believe it will help to lessen both. But admitting that the number and the amount remain the same, still the occupiers will then have to pay only one-half, the landlord the other; whereas now the occupier contributes nearly the whole.

4thly. Of Settlement.—“Parochial settlement, as established in England, is almost universally admitted to have been productive of great mischief. It has led to much litigation and expense; and by fixing the peasantry to the narrow limits of their parish, beyond which the world was to them almost a blank, it has done more to injure their character, to destroy its elasticity, and to banish self-reliance and resource, than any other portion of the old Poor Law system. It will not, therefore, I presume, be considered right to establish parochial settlement in Ireland. The habits of the Irish are migratory, their movements depending upon their own volition. To establish a law of settlement, would be to fix them to one locality. No such law has yet been established there; and it is therefore open to the legislature to prescribe the limits, if a settlement shall be deemed advisable; or else to dispense with settlement altogether.

“Without a law of settlement, it is true, vagrants from other districts may congregate in particular unions, and may claim relief, or be sent to the workhouse; but if the workhouses are all regulated upon the same scale of diet and discipline, there would be no inducement for the vagrant classes to prefer one union to another, and they would probably remain scattered throughout the country, in much the same proportion as at present. If such a preference was in any instance shown by them, it might be taken as a proof of inefficient management or lax discipline on the part of the favoured union, and would be a signal for the central authority to interfere. Thus, if there should be no law of settlement, the number of inmates in the several workhouses would serve as a kind of index to the management of each; and the local authorities would be compelled in self-defence to keep their unions in good order, to prevent their being overrun with paupers. Such a competition, if well regulated, might go far to ensure the general efficiency of the unions.

5thly. On Mendicancy—“Whenever relief is provided for the destitute, mendicancy may be suppressed. A law which says, ‘You shall not beg or steal, but you shall starve,’ would be contrary to natural justice, and would be disobeyed; but if the law first makes provision for the destitute, and then says, ‘You shall not beg, but you shall be relieved at the public charge,’ the alternative thus offered will entitle the community to suppress a practice which is held to be injurious. On these grounds, I think the law which establishes a system of public relief for destitution, should at the same time prohibit mendicancy. The present state of Ireland however, and the habits and feelings of the Irish people, throw considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate suppression of mendicancy. The number of mendicants is very great, and they are therefore of some importance as a class, and support and keep each other in countenance whilst following, what they consider, no disreputable vocation. They enter the cottages of the peasantry as supplicants, it is true, but still with a certain sense of right; and the cottager would be held to be a bold, if not a bad man, who resisted their appeal. In fact, the appeal never is resisted,—if there is only a handful of potatoes, they are divided with the beggar; and there is thus perhaps levied from the produce of the soil in Ireland for the support of mendicancy, as large a contribution as it is now proposed to raise by an assessment of property for the relief of destitution. The ‘sturdy beggars,’ noticed in the 14th of Elizabeth, must have been very similar to those now common in Ireland. Indeed the state of society at the two periods seems to have been nearly the same in both countries, the prevalence of begging in each being accompanied by the same general disposition to give, and this disposition of course increasing the number of beggars.