“The evils of mendicancy in Ireland are certainly very great, and its suppression should be provided for at the earliest practicable period. The best mode of effecting this would probably be, to enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the responsibility of bringing it into operation in the several unions, as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. The central authority might, I think, so regulate their proceedings, as that the now itinerant mendicants who may be really unable to provide for themselves, should be placed in the several workhouses with the least degree of coercion and inconvenience; and that the ablebodied vagrants and disorderly persons should be compelled to provide for their own subsistence, by the application of strict workhouse discipline. Time and forbearance will doubtless be necessary in carrying such a measure into operation in Ireland, and these the powers of the central authority will enable it to afford. The present generation will probably pass away before the disposition to encourage begging by indiscriminate almsgiving, which now prevails so generally among all classes in Ireland, will be corrected by the adoption of a more enlightened benevolence. It will then we may hope be seen, that the real friends of the people are those who lead them to independent exertion, to a reliance upon themselves and their own efforts for support—not those who, by the constant doling of miscalled charity, entice the people into a state of dependence. It may minister to human pride, to be surrounded by a crowd of such dependents; but it surely is inconsistent with genuine benevolence to encourage, or even to permit this, if it can possibly be prevented.

6thly. Of Bastardy.—“As far as I had opportunity of observing and inquiring, the Irish females are generally correct in their conduct. I am aware that opinions somewhat different have been expressed; but my own impression of the moral conduct of the Irish females is highly favourable. Their duties appear to be more laborious than those of the same class in England. Their dress, too, is inferior, and so likewise seems their social position; yet they universally appear modest, industrious, and sober—I state this as the result of my own observation; and if the Irish females have preserved their moral character untainted hitherto, as I believe in the main to be the case, it affords an argument for ‘letting well alone.’ If it had been otherwise however, and if the extent of bastardy, and its demoralising influence on public manners had been greater, I should still have recommended that the Irish females should be left, as now, the guardians of their own honour, and responsible in their own persons for all deviations from virtue. The abuses under the old English bastardy law, and our brief experience of the improved practice established by the Amendment Act, warrant the recommendation that no such law should be applied to Ireland; but that bastards, and the mothers of bastards, in all matters connected with relief, should be dealt with in the same manner as other destitute persons solely on the ground of their destitution.

7thly. Of Apprenticeship.—“The experience which England affords with regard to apprenticeship, is of a somewhat conflicting character, although the preponderance of testimony is opposed to it. It is open to much abuse, and has operated mischievously in several parts of the country, by increasing that dependence upon the parish which under the old Poor Law had become so characteristic of the English peasantry. It must however I think be admitted, that the apprenticing of orphan and destitute children, as provided for by the 43rd of Elizabeth, has in many cases been productive of good; and if judiciously limited, so as not to be regarded as the ordinary mode of providing for the children of the labouring classes, but merely as a resource for the destitute and the orphan, it might still I think be continued with advantage. I am aware that this opinion differs somewhat from that of the members of the late English Poor Law Inquiry Commission; but the evidence of abuse submitted to the commissioners was taken in the time of the old Poor Law, which converted everything it touched into an abuse; and it does not follow, because apprenticeship added to the accumulation of evils under such circumstances, that it is incapable of producing good under others. It is on the different application of apprenticeship, and on the different circumstances in which it would be applied, that I now rely. None of the abuses exist in Ireland which prevailed under the old parochial management in England; and by the aid of the union machinery apprenticeship may, I think, be safely applied to the placing out of destitute and orphan children, the number of whom in Ireland is very considerable. The Poor Law Amendment Act empowers the commissioners to frame regulations for apprenticing the children of poor persons; and I propose to extend this provision to Ireland, by which it may be hoped that all the beneficial effects of the law may be secured, whilst the evils which certainly have resulted from it in England will in great measure be avoided.

8thly. Of Pauper Idiots and Lunatics.—“For individuals of this description, if not dangerous, the union workhouses will be available. Dangerous lunatics, and insane persons, must of course be sent to asylums, as at present; and it is important, I think, that these institutions should be kept distinct from poor-law administration. The deprivation of reason is a misfortune so extreme, that special efforts are called for on behalf of individuals subjected to such a visitation. The careful supervision of such unhappy persons is necessary for the protection of the community. But with respect to pauper idiots and lunatics not dangerous, these might, I think, be advantageously provided for in the several workhouses, where a lunatic ward should be prepared for such of them as might be unfitted to mingle with the other paupers. Idiots, labouring under a deficiency, rather than a deprivation of reason, appear in general to feel contentment in proportion as they are employed on something of a nature suitable for them. In a workhouse, such employment might always be found, and they would probably there partake as largely of comfort as their unhappy state is susceptible of. I propose, therefore, that the provision of the Poor Law Amendment Act, permissive of the retention in a workhouse of idiot and lunatic paupers, not dangerous, be extended to Ireland, and that their mode of treatment and employment be in all cases subject to the direction of the central authority.

9thly. Of Emigration.—“A country may be so circumstanced, as to require that a portion of its population should migrate from one part of it to another, either permanently or occasionally; and may still, on the whole, have no actual excess of population. A country may also, with reference to its means of employment, labour under an excess of population; or both these circumstances may exist at the same time, which appears, in fact, to be the state of Ireland at present. The Irish population is excessive, compared with the means of employment; and the effect of this excess would be more felt, were it not for the opening which England presents for migration. Where the population is in excess, it must be exceedingly difficult to effect any material improvement in the condition of a people; for as long as the labourers exceed the number required, so long will their competition for employment serve to depress their condition, and counteract whatever efforts may be made to improve it. The only alternative in such case is, either to increase the amount of employment, or to decrease the number of labourers depending upon it. To bring about by direct interposition any material increase of permanent employment, is in every view difficult, and under common circumstances, perhaps impossible; but something may be done indirectly in this respect, by the removal of impediments and the establishing of increased facilities for the application of capital, and something also perhaps by the intervention of government: but all such aids must of necessity be limited in their application, as well as remote in their effects—it is from spontaneous or natural employment alone, that the labouring classes can look for permanent occupation, and the means of support.

“To aim directly at effecting an increase of employment in Ireland, is beyond the powers if it be not foreign to the province of a poor-law, the immediate object of which is to provide for the relief of the destitute. Now destitution may be caused by an excess of labourers, or by a deficiency of employment, which are in truth convertible terms. If an able-bodied labourer becomes destitute through want of employment, he must be relieved at the common charge, like any individual reduced to a state of destitution by age or infirmity. If the want of employment and destitution be owing to an excess of population, to relieve that excess by emigration must be a good. Yet it may be doubted whether the parent stock is not enfeebled by the remedy, for in general the most active and enterprising emigrate, leaving the more feeble and less robust at home; and thus a continual drain of its best elements will lower the tone and reduce the general vigour of a people, at the same time that it imparts an additional stimulus to their increase.

“Emigration however, not only may, but I believe must be had recourse to as a present means of relief, whenever the population becomes excessive. The excess will be indicated by the pressure of able-bodied labourers on the workhouse. If any considerable number of these enter the workhouse, and remain there subject to its discipline, it may be taken as a proof of their inability to provide for themselves, and of the consequent excess of labourers beyond the means of employment. Under such circumstances, emigration must be looked to as the only present remedy; and provision should be made for defraying the expense which this would occasion, as well as for the regulations under which it should be carried into effect. With regard to the expense, I propose that the charge should in every case be equally borne by the government, and the union from which the emigrants proceed. This division of the charge appears equitable, for although the union only is immediately benefited, yet eventually the whole empire is relieved, excess in one portion of it tending to occasion an excess in the whole. But the emigration should, I think, be limited to a British colony, and should be conducted under the control of the central authority, and be subjected to such regulations as the government may deem it right to establish.

10thly. Of Houses of Industry, and Charitable Institutions.—“There is now a kind of poor-law established in Ireland, under which the ‘houses of industry’ are managed, but it is partial and ineffective; and the several statutes providing for these houses of industry, and the other institutions intended for the relief of the poor, should be repealed, and the management of such establishments placed under the central authority. Institutions strictly charitable, and supported by voluntary contribution or otherwise, would of course remain as at present; but it would, I think, be extremely desirable to invest the central authority with such a power of revising their rules and superintending their practice, as would ensure their acting in unison with, or at least prevent their acting in contravention of, the principles which the Act establishes for poor-law administration in Ireland. The ‘houses of industry’ would generally become available as union workhouses, for which they are for the most part well adapted; and the other establishments, where they are public property, or supported by government, or by local grants from the county-rates, may be appropriated in like manner, under direction of the central authority.

“The foregoing appear to be the only points requiring especial attention, in framing a poor-law for Ireland, although there are several other matters of minor interest not to be overlooked. The ‘Poor Law Amendment Act’ should, I think, be taken as a guide in framing the measure, and the language, order, and general provisions of that Act should be adhered to, except where the contrary is herein indicated, or where a variation is obviously necessary. There will be much practical convenience in thus assimilating the two statutes, which provide for poor-law administration in the two countries. A measure framed on the principles developed in this Report, is I think necessary for Ireland. Unless the people are protected from the effects of destitution, no great or lasting improvement in their social condition can be expected. The establishment of a poor-law is, I conceive, the first step necessary to this end; and followed as it will be by other ameliorations, to the introduction of which it is a necessary preliminary, we may hope that it will ultimately prove the means of securing for Ireland the full amount of those benefits which ought to arise from her various local advantages, and the natural fertility of her soil.

“The proposed measure may, I believe, be carried into effect, either by means of a separate commission in Ireland, or by the existing English Poor Law Commission. One of these modes, I presume, must be adopted; and before deciding which, it will be necessary to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each. In doing this, it is important to bear in mind, that it is the English Poor Law system which is now proposed to be established; and that the knowledge and experience acquired in working that system, can be best made available for Ireland, by employing individuals conversant with the English practice. If there should be a separate commission for Ireland, it would be necessary that the commissioners should be acquainted with the English Poor Law, as now administered; and this, I apprehend, would exclude most of those Irishmen who might otherwise be deemed qualified for the office. Such exclusion, however necessary, would have an ungracious appearance, and might excite angry comment. But independent of this consideration, if there were a separate commission, the law would be similar in both countries, but the practice might become widely different, as was the case in different parts of England under the old Poor Law administration. With two commissions, there might possibly be no unity of principle,—there would certainly be no unity of action,—and probably no identity of result. Unless the existing English Poor Law Commission should be unequal to the additional duty of introducing the proposed law into Ireland, or unless it should appear that the commissioners ought not to be intrusted with the performance of this duty, the above reasons would seem to be conclusive against a separate commission.

“It must be admitted that the official duties of the English Poor Law Commissioners have been, and in fact still are, very heavy. As a member of the commission, and one too not unaccustomed to work, I may be permitted to say, that the labour has been throughout unceasing and excessive, to an extent that nothing but the hope of accomplishing a great public good would have rendered bearable. The success of the measure, however, in lessening the pressure on the ratepayers, and in improving the condition of the labouring classes, coupled with the support which has been afforded by government, and by nearly all the intelligent portions of the community, have given the commissioners encouragement and confidence; and when the process of forming unions shall be completed, their labours will become lighter. Under these circumstances, there would seem to be no insuperable difficulty in the way of the present Poor Law Commissioners being made the instruments of establishing the new law in Ireland; and whatever may be the difficulty at first, it will lessen as the amount of English business decreases, and the organisation of the Irish machinery is perfected. If, then, no other grounds of objection exist, and if it shall be deemed desirable, I see no reason to doubt that the English Poor Law Commissioners are competent to the additional duty of introducing the proposed measure into Ireland.”

Such was the substance of my first Report, which it has been here endeavoured to condense as far as was consistent with a full exposition of its import; and this it is necessary to give, in order to prepare the reader for correctly appreciating the important measure which was founded upon it. After undergoing much consideration, the Report was finally adopted by government on the 13th of December 1836, and on the following day I was directed to have a bill prepared embodying all its recommendations. This was accordingly done, and after being scrutinised clause by clause in a committee of the Cabinet specially appointed for the purpose, and receiving various emendations, the bill was introduced on the 13th February 1837.^[75] The public and parliament bad been prepared for the measure by the Royal speech at the commencement of the session, in which his Majesty recommended for early consideration “the difficult and pressing question of establishing some legal provision for the poor in Ireland, guarded by prudent regulations, and by such precautions against abuse as their experience and knowledge of the subject enable them to suggest.”

Lord John Russell^[76] introduced the bill in a comprehensive and very able speech—It appears, he said, from the testimony both of theory and experience, that when a country is overrun by marauders and mendicants having no proper means of subsistence, but preying on the industry and relying on the charity of others, the introduction of a poor-law serves several very important objects. In the first place it acts as a measure of peace, enabling the country to prohibit vagrancy which is so often connected with outrage, by offering a substitute to those who rely on vagrancy and outrage as a means of subsistence. When an individual or a family are unable to obtain subsistence, and are without the means of living from day to day, it would be unjust to say they shall not go about and endeavour to obtain from the charity of the affluent, that which circumstances have denied to themselves. But when you can say to such persons—here are the means of subsistence offered to you—when you can say this on the one hand, you may on the other hand say, “you are not entitled to beg, you shall no longer infest the country in a manner injurious to its peace, and liable to imposition and outrage.” Another way, he observed, in which a poor-law is beneficial is, that it is a great promoter of social concord, by showing a disposition in the state and in the community to attend to the welfare of all classes. It is of use also by interesting the landowners and persons of property in the welfare of their tenants and neighbours. A landowner who looks only to receiving the rents of his estate, may be regardless of the numbers in his neighbourhood who are in a state of destitution, or who follow mendicancy and are ready to commit crime; but if he is compelled to furnish means for the subsistence of persons so destitute, it then becomes his interest to see that those around him have the means of living, and are not in actual want. He considered that these objects, and several others collateral to them, were obtained in England by the Act of Elizabeth. Almost the greatest benefit that could be conferred on a country was, he observed, a high standard of subsistence for the labouring classes, and such a benefit was secured for England chiefly by the great Act of Elizabeth. His lordship then alluded to the abuses which subsequently arose, and to the correction of those abuses then in progress under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act; and said that “we ought to endeavour to obtain for Ireland all the good effects of the English system, and to guard against the evils which had arisen under it.”

The Report of the Poor Inquiry Commissioners for Ireland was next adverted to. They had, he said, recommended many measures of improvement for Ireland, and suggested certain measures with regard to the indigent. It was to the latter he wished to call the attention of the house, as being the principal object of the present bill. The other suggestions for the general improvement of Ireland he proposed to leave for future consideration. With regard to the question of immediate relief for the destitute, the commissioners, he said, propose in the first place, that a large class of persons should be provided for at the public expense by means of a national and local rate. They advise also that there should be money afforded for emigration, and that depôts should be provided for persons preparing to emigrate. In considering that Report, great doubts occurred to his Majesty’s ministers whether it was a good principle to provide only for certain classes, and whether those depôts for emigration could be safely and advantageously adopted. It appears, he observed, from every reflection on the subject, that the real principle is to afford relief to the destitute, and to the destitute only; and it would be quite as wrong to refuse relief to the able-bodied person in that situation, as to afford relief to the cripple, the widow, or a deaf and dumb person who had other means of support. It is not then the peculiar circumstances which excite public or individual compassion that we are to regard; but if we have a poor-law at all, it ought to be grounded on destitution, as affording a plain guide to relief. Then with regard to the emigration depôts, that part of the commissioners’ recommendations could not be adopted without a great deal more of consideration than the plan proposed by them appears to have received. And, he added, “deeply impressed as we have been with the responsibility that attaches to a government which proposes a law upon this subject, it occurred to us that the best method was to see whether the law which, as amended, has been applied to England, could be introduced with advantage in Ireland.” For this purpose Mr. Nicholls, one of the Poor Law Commissioners, was requested to go to Ireland, and ascertain on the spot whether anything resembling the machinery of the English Poor Law could be there applied; and the result of Mr. Nicholls’s inquiry is, that supposing it to be expedient to extend a poor-law to Ireland, there was no insurmountable obstacle or objection to the establishment of a law in many respects resembling the amended Poor Law in England. The reasons for that opinion are stated in the Report which has been laid on the table, and on which the bill is founded. His lordship then adverted to the chief portions of the Report, and stated generally his own views on the subject.

There is no doubt, he said, that there have occurred in Ireland many outrages consequent upon vagrancy and destitution, and the people’s being left without remedy or relief; and also that a large portion of the people, especially those not having land, do practise mendicancy for a great portion of the year. He had made some inquiry with respect to the amount of the relief thus afforded to mendicants, and the result is that in most cases a shilling an acre is paid in course of the year by farmers for the support of mendicants. In some cases it has been 6d. an acre, in others 9d., and in others 1s.; but in one case it amounted to 2s. an acre. This is a heavy tax, which cannot upon the whole amount to less than between 700,000l. and 800,000l., perhaps a million a year. But this practice of mendicancy, which raises so vast a sum, is not like a well-constituted poor-law, which affords relief to the really indigent—that which seems to afford relief to the distressed, also promotes and keeps up imposture, and in Ireland where mendicancy is so general, and relief so freely given, the number of impostors must be enormous.

His lordship then proceeded to consider whether the workhouse system was applicable to Ireland; and after noticing the objection made by the commissioners of inquiry, and urged by others, that the workhouse would not be safe—that there would be too much violence—that there would be such a dislike of restraint that it could not be enforced—he came to the conclusion “that there was no reason to apprehend anything of the sort.” In some of the houses of industry, he remarked, they have carried the system of restraint further than in the old English workhouses, and have established the separation of sexes such as exists in the new English workhouses; and no regulation was proposed which did not now exist, so “there need be no fear that violence would be used, or that we could not protect the workhouses in Ireland, as well and as securely as the workhouses in England.”

It had been much urged, he said, as a means of preventing undue pressure on the workhouse, that a residence in the district of three years or some other definite period should be a condition to any person’s being relieved therein; but he declared that he was opposed to establishing a law of settlement in Ireland, being quite convinced that it is one of the greatest evils of the poor-laws in England. It circumscribes the market for industry. It has led to immense litigation, and any person, he observed, “who has attended the quarter sessions, and there witnessed the disputes that arise between parishes as to whether a person had been hired for a year and a day, whether he had been ordered to go home on the day before the expiration of the term so as to destroy the settlement, or whether he had served a full year and a day, and various other similar questions—any person who has attended to this litigation and those disputes, will not have any wish that I should introduce the question of settlement into this bill.”

When the whole of the workhouses are in operation, and we are enabled to relieve all that are entitled to it, we may then, he observed, prohibit vagrancy; but until we can do the one, it will not be just altogether to prohibit the other. It is not therefore proposed to prevent persons asking alms, if they can show they have applied for and failed in obtaining relief. This is a necessary step in the transition from one state to another. If it succeeds, we shall hereafter be able to prohibit vagrancy.

His lordship then went over the ground more fully discussed in the Report, with regard to the local machinery, the question of rating, the extent of the unions, cost of the workhouses, emigration, and some other minor points; and then stated that the safest way of introducing such a law as had been described, would be to use the simple machinery which had been found so advantageous in England. It was therefore proposed, instead of forming a separate commission for Ireland, that the Poor Law Commissioners for England should have the power of intrusting to one or two of their body, the power of acting in Ireland for carrying the law into operation. This would he thought be better than establishing a separate commission. A lengthened discussion then took place in reference to the proposed measure, in which Mr. Shaw, Mr. O'Connell, Lord Howick, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and other members took part. |The bill read a first time.| Doubts were of course expressed, and objections stated; but on the whole the measure was not received unfavourably, and the bill was ordered to be read a first time.

On the 25th of April Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the bill, and the debate thereon was continued by adjournment to the 1st of May, when the second reading was carried without a division, although not without long and somewhat hostile discussion. On the 9th of May the house went into committee on the bill, and the first fourteen clauses were passed with only a few verbal alterations. On the 11th the committee got to the end of the 20th clause, after two unimportant divisions. It had been announced that on the 12th of May the question of settlement should be considered. Many members were still of opinion that a settlement law was necessary; but after a long and temperate discussion of the subject in all its bearings, the committee decided against the introduction of settlement by 120 to 68. On the 26th of May the bill was again in committee, when the clauses up to the 35th were agreed to. |Vagrancy clauses postponed.| On the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th of June, the committee proceeded in considering the clauses of the bill up to the 60th, but the vagrancy clauses (53 to 58 inclusive) were postponed. These clauses provided for the repression of mendicancy in the unions, as the workhouses were successively completed and in operation; but there appeared to be a strong feeling in the house that nothing should be done to prevent begging, until the poor-law was everywhere fully established. The clauses were therefore postponed for further consideration.

At this time the king’s illness had so much increased that his recovery became highly improbable, and the business of parliament was consequently suspended. William the Fourth died on the 20th of June, and was succeeded by his niece the Princess Victoria, our present gracious sovereign. On the 17th of July parliament was prorogued by the youthful queen, in a speech from the throne, which the manner of its delivery and the occasion combined to render more than ordinarily interesting. The Irish Poor Relief bill, and the other measures then in progress, were therefore put an end to, and would have to be commenced anew on the re-assembling of parliament.

The interval thus interposed, afforded opportunity for further consideration and inquiry, and it was determined that this should be taken advantage of, and that the author should again proceed to Ireland for the purpose of visiting “those districts which a want of time prevented his inspecting last year.” I was also directed to bear in mind the discussions which had taken place during the progress of the bill in the late session, and generally to report whether the circumstances of the districts about to be visited, or any new matter that I might discover, “shall have caused me in any way to alter or modify the recommendations set forth in my last Report.”

Accordingly at the end of August I proceeded to Ireland, and continued in the active prosecution of my inquiries until early in October. I moreover took advantage of the opportunity afforded me in going and returning, to inquire very carefully at Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, into the habits of the large number of Irish congregated in each of these towns, and into the mode of dealing with such of them as become destitute, or stand in need of relief, on which points I obtained much valuable information, for the most part confirmatory of my previous views. On the 3rd of November I reported the result of my further inquiries;^[77] and I will now, as was done in the case of the ‘First Report,’ give an abstract of this ‘Second Report,’ although much less fully, it not being now necessary to go so much at length into what may be considered matters of detail, as was requisite in the first instance—

“The investigations which I have just concluded, have not afforded ground for any material change of opinion. I may perhaps estimate the difficulty of establishing a poor-law in Ireland somewhat higher than I did before, but of the necessity for such a measure, I am if possible more fully convinced; and now, after a more extended inquiry, both in England and in Ireland, I am enabled substantially to confirm the statements in my Report of last year, to which I can add but little in the way of recommendation, although it may be necessary to notice certain objections which have been made to portions of the Report, and to some of the provisions of the bill of last session. No material change in the bill however appears to be called for, and I presume government will again proceed with it as then proposed. The measure is essentially based upon the English workhouse system; and as, notwithstanding the facts and reasonings which were adduced in proof of its applicability to Ireland, doubts were still expressed both in and out of parliament upon this vital point, it seemed important to ascertain whether any grounds for such doubts really existed.

“With this view I visited Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, through which places nearly the whole of the Irish migrants pass and repass, and in all of which there is a large resident Irish population, and where therefore their habits are well known. All the persons whom I consulted in these places, were unanimous in declaring their belief, that nothing but absolute inability to provide for himself would induce an Irishman to enter the workhouse. But it may be objected, that although disinclination to the workhouse is characteristic of the Irish when in England, such would not be the case if the system were established in Ireland. This objection does not admit of an answer founded on direct experience; but judging from analogy, and making due allowance for the circumstances of the two countries, there seems no reason to doubt that the result would be the same in one as in the other. The Irishman is by habit and temperament more roving and migratory than the Englishman; but this is surely not calculated to reconcile him sooner to the restraints of a workhouse. I made it my business to inquire, and obtain information from all classes of persons, and was everywhere assured that the Irish would not go into the workhouse, if they could in any way obtain support out of it. The result of my investigations in the several houses of industry and mendicity establishments has been to the same purport, all tending to show that if the workhouse is properly regulated, it will be resorted to only by the actually destitute. It is not less important to state however, that I found the same persons decidedly opposed to anything in the shape of out-door relief. I have not met with an individual conversant with the subject, either in England or in Ireland, who did not declare against out door relief. ‘Confine relief to the workhouse,’ was the general reply, ‘and you will be safe; but if you once grant out-door relief, your control is gone, and the whole Irish population will become a mass of paupers.’

“It has been argued that the workhouses will eventually fail in Ireland, as they have failed in France, at Munich, and at Hamburgh; but there is no analogy between the two cases. The workhouse principle was never recognised in these establishments, which were all either poorhouses for the maintenance of the aged and infirm, or manufactories for setting to work vagrants, mendicants, and other idle persons. All these institutions were established under the notion that profitable labour could be always found, and that pauper labour could be made profitable to the community, and their management had reference to these objects. There were certain variations in practice to suit local circumstances, but this was the view under which the institutions were founded, by Count Rumford, at Munich, by the imperial government in France, and by Baron de Voght, at Hamburgh. I need scarcely say that this view is essentially different from the workhouse system established in England, and as it is proposed to establish it in Ireland. Experience has proved that pauper labour can never be profitable. The workhouse is here used merely as a medium of relief; and in order that the destitute only may partake of it, the relief is administered in such a way, and on such conditions, that none but the destitute will accept it. This is the workhouse principle, as first established in the two parishes of Bingham and Southwell eighteen or twenty years ago, and as it has recently been established in the unions formed under the Poor Law Amendment Act; and we have the experience of these parishes, and the more varied, though less prolonged experience of the English unions, in proof of the efficiency of the system, which has worked hitherto without a single instance of failure. It is not therefore upon mere hypothesis, that it is proposed to proceed with regard to the Irish Poor Law, but upon the surer ground of experience.

“It has been further argued, that there is always a tendency to deterioration in such institutions, and that after a time they fall away from the principle on which they were originally established—to which it may be answered, that no such deterioration occurred in the two parishes above named—on the contrary, the workhouse principle continued to operate in these parishes in all its simplicity and efficiency, up to the day when they were each constituted the centre of a union. May it not therefore be inferred, that if established as a test of destitution, the workhouse will continue to be effective, and the principle free from deterioration, as in the two cases named above? But the proposed measure does not depend on this inference alone—a safeguard is provided by the Poor Law Amendment Act in the appointment of commissioners, who under the control of the executive, and the supervision of parliament, are to superintend the working of the measure, and to apply from time to time such correctives, whether local or general, as may be necessary for securing its efficiency. Whatever doubts may have arisen on either side of the Channel, as to the sufficiency of the workhouse for relieving the destitute, as well as for protecting the ratepayers, I therefore feel warranted in expressing my conviction, not only that the workhouse system is applicable to Ireland, but that it is the only mode in which relief can be safely administered to the destitute classes in that country.

“The question of the workhouse being thus disposed of, I shall now proceed to notice such objections as have been made to the bill generally, or to any of its provisions; and in doing this, I will endeavour to introduce such illustrations as seem to be called for, and such further information as I have been able to collect during my recent visitation, which extended from Waterford to Belfast and Londonderry, and the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, Cavan, and Meath.

“The chief objections which have been made to the measure, as it was introduced in the last session, are comprised under the heads hereafter specified, to each of which a full explanation is appended in the Report. From these several explanations, so much is here given, as will, it is hoped, serve to lessen, if not altogether to remove, the weight of the objections which were raised during the discussion on the bill, or which may have appeared in pamphlets or in any other shape.

The measure is said not to be applicable to the North of Ireland.—“It has frequently been asserted, both in and out of parliament, that the condition of the people in the north of Ireland differs so essentially from those in the south, that a poor-law which might be applicable in one case, would be inapplicable in the other; and it was urged as a ground of objection to the measure of last session, that it had been framed exclusively with reference to the southern and western districts. This objection seems to have been made mainly on the ground, that no specific information had been obtained as to the north of Ireland; whereas, in fact, a large mass of information had been collected by the commissioners of Irish Poor Inquiry, with respect to the north, as well as the other parts of the country; and this information, coupled with what I had obtained from other sources, and supported by my own observation in those of the northern counties which I had visited, appeared to be sufficient, without further examination of the northern districts. An opportunity for such examination having however been afforded by the postponement of the bill, I have now visited most of the northern counties, and carefully examined the condition and habits of the people, with special reference to the contemplated measure; and I can with entire confidence state, in my opinion, it is as well adapted to the circumstances existing in the north, as to those which prevail in the south. The habits of the people are there in some degree fitted for its reception. The necessity of relieving the destitute is there admitted, and in most of the northern towns of any note, there is now a kind of voluntary poor-law established. In Monaghan, in Armagh, at Newry, Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry, I found provision made for relieving destitution, and the principle virtually recognised, that it is the duty of a civilised community to protect its members from perishing by want. Indeed, if any doubt existed as to establishing a poor-law in Ireland, an inspection of the northern counties would, I think, remove the doubt, and show the expediency of such a measure. The extent of poverty is there less than in the south and west; but the amount of destitution is probably as great. There is this important difference however—in the south and west the destitute depend for support upon the class immediately above them, the small cottiers and cultivators; but in the north, the sympathy existing between the different ranks of society—between the opulent and the needy—has led to the making of some provision for the relief of the latter class. If the charge of this provision was fairly spread over the whole community—if the relief afforded was sufficient, and permanent, and equally distributed, it would be equivalent to a poor-law; but the charge is unequal, the provision uncertain, and the relief partial and inefficient. To apply the proposed measure to the north of Ireland, will therefore be little more than carrying out, in an equal and effective manner, that which has been long but unequally and ineffectually attempted by the communities themselves.

“In speaking of the north of Ireland, I ought to except the county of Donegal, the inhabitants of which differ materially from those of the other northern counties, and approximate to those of the west and south. Small holdings, and minute subdivisions of land, prevail in Donegal to a greater extent than I have found in any other part of Ireland; and the consequent growth of population there presses so hard upon the productive powers of the soil, as to depress the condition of the people to nearly the lowest point in the social scale—exposing them, under the not unfrequent occurrence of an unfavourable season, or a failure of the potato-crop, to the greatest privations. This has unhappily been the case during the last four years, in each of which, and especially in the last, there has been a failure of the crops in Donegal. In May, June, and July last, nearly the whole of the population along the northern and western coasts of the county, were reduced to a state bordering on starvation; and had not government sent a supply of meal and medical aid, numbers of the people would have fallen victims to famine and disease. The surface of Donegal is generally covered with bog, susceptible of profitable cultivation wherever lime or sea-sand or sea-weed is obtainable, and the people have in consequence congregated wherever these elements of fertility abound—along the coasts, and on the shores of the numerous bays and inlets opening upon the Atlantic, along the banks of the rivers, and up the narrow valleys and ravines with which the country is intersected—everywhere, in short, where the soil is most easily reclaimed by individual exertion. But wherever combined effort, or an outlay of capital is necessary for draining, fencing, and reclaiming—there nothing has been done, and the surface is permitted to lie waste and unproductive. The process of reclamation in such circumstances is above the limited means of the people, each one of whom just manages to cultivate land enough to raise potatoes for his family—a patch of oats to supply them, mostly I fear, with whisky—and then, as to rent (for they all pay rent), they rely for raising that upon a few cattle or sheep running wild upon the mountains.

“Nothing can exceed the miserable appearance of the cottages in Donegal, or the desolate aspect of a cluster of these hovels, always teeming with a crowded population. Yet if you enter their cabins, and converse with them frankly and kindly, you will find the people intelligent and communicative, quick to comprehend, and ready to impart what they know. They admitted that they were too numerous, ‘too thick upon the land,’ and that, as one of them declared, ‘they were eating each other’s heads off,’—but what could they do? There was no employment for the young, nor relief for the aged, nor means nor opportunity for removing their surplus numbers to some more eligible spot. They could only therefore live on, ‘hoping,’ as they said, ‘that times might mend, and that their landlords would sooner or later do something for them.’ To improve the condition of such a people would increase the productive powers of the country, a point well deserving the attention of the great landowners, with whom it mainly rests. But no material or lasting improvement can be effected, so long as the present subdivision of land continues. This practice, wherever it prevails, forces the population down to the lowest level of subsistence—to that point where subdivision is arrested by the dread, or by the actual occurrence of want; and it is alike the duty and the interest of the landowner, so to exercise the right of property as to guard his tenantry from such depression. In the case of Donegal, a two-fold remedy seems to be necessary, that is, emigration, and an extension of cultivation. There is abundant room for the latter, and if undertaken with spirit and intelligence, it will not only ensure an ample return on the capital expended, but also afford employment, and provide suitable locations for a part of the surplus population. If a portion of this surplus were removed by emigration, and another portion placed on new grounds, effectually reclaimed, a consolidation of the present small holdings might be effected. This would be a great point gained, where the average rental of such holdings does not exceed 2l., and numbers are under 1l. per annum. A poor-law would facilitate this change, so necessary for the landowners, as well as for the great mass of the people of Donegal. The principle of a poor-law is to make the property of a district answerable for the relief of destitution within it; and the application of this principle would serve to connect the several orders of society, and teach them to act together—it would show them that they have reciprocal interests, reciprocal duties—that each is necessary to the other—and that the cordial co-operation of all is necessary to the well-being of the whole. I therefore augur much good from the establishment of a poor-law, under circumstances similar to those now existing in Donegal; and believe that such a law, whilst it provides for the relief of the destitute, will be a safeguard to property, and facilitate the introduction of other ameliorations.

There ought to be a law of Settlement.—“There is no part of the subject to which I have given more attention than to the question of settlement. Of the evils arising from settlement in England, there can be no doubt, and the grounds on which it was proposed to establish a poor-law in Ireland without settlement, are explained in my former Report. But it appears that many persons still consider some law of settlement necessary for securing local co-operation based upon local interests, for the protection of particular unions from undue pressure, and for guarding the towns on the eastern coast from being burdened with the destitute who may flock thither, or be sent thither from England or Scotland, or with the families of the large body of migrants who proceed to Great Britain in the harvest season and return at its conclusion. If there were danger from all or any of these sources, it might be right to make provision against it in the bill; but I am satisfied that, in carrying out the measure as now proposed, none of these inconveniences would arise, beyond what the commissioners could meet by special regulations, without recurring to a settlement law. There is this primary objection to settlement, that it impedes the free distribution of labour, and interferes with the fair and open competition which is alike necessary for protecting the employer and the employed, and by which an equalisation of supply and demand in the labour-market can alone be maintained. Its direct tendency is to depress the social condition and character of the people; for by narrowing the field of labour, and binding individuals to a particular locality, not perhaps favourable to the development or most profitable employment of their faculties, improvement is checked, independence is destroyed, and the working classes, without resource or elasticity of spirit, are led to depend upon their place of settlement in every contingency, instead of upon themselves. If therefore the bill as at present proposed, by requiring the rate to be levied upon the union for relief of the actually destitute within it is sufficient, as I believe it to be, for securing attention to the business of the union, there can be no necessity to establish a law of settlement for such purpose; and nothing short of absolute necessity in that or some other respect, could justify the introduction of a law, the direct tendency of which would be in other respects so injurious.

Out-door Relief should have been provided for.—“Much has been said as to the necessity of providing out-door relief in Ireland; but most of the arguments in favour of an extension of relief beyond the workhouse appear to be founded, either upon a misapprehension of the objects of a poor-law, or upon an exaggerated estimate of the number of destitute persons for whom relief would be required. The object of a poor-law is to relieve the destitute—that is, to relieve those individuals who from sickness, accident, mental or bodily infirmity, failure of employment, or other cause, may be unable to obtain the necessaries of life by their own exertions. Under such circumstances, the destitute individual, if not relieved, might be driven to beg or to steal; and a poor-law, by providing for the relief of destitution, prevents the necessity or the excuse for resorting to either. This is the legitimate object of a poor-law, and to this its operations are limited in the bill of last session. But if, disregarding this limitation, it be attempted to provide relief for all who are needy, but not destitute—for all who are poor, and whose means of living are inferior to what it may be desirable that they should possess—if property is to be taxed, not for the relief of the destitute only, but for ensuring to every one such a portion of the comforts and conveniences of life as are assumed to be necessary—the consequence of any such attempt must be in Ireland, as it notoriously was in England, not only to diminish the value of property, but also to emasculate and demoralise the whole labouring population.

“The evidence collected by the Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry in England, establishes the conclusion that out-door relief is inevitably open to abuse, and that its administration entails consequences prejudicial to the labouring classes, and to the whole community—in short, that there is no security for the prevention of abuse, nor any mode of ensuring a right administration of relief, but by restricting it to the workhouse. The facts and reasonings contained in the Reports on this subject, have been confirmed by the experience of the present Poor Law Commission; and although out-door relief has not yet been totally prohibited in any of the English unions, there can be no doubt that the intention of the Poor Law Amendment Act points eventually to the workhouse as the sole medium of relief, and requires that it should be so restricted as early as circumstances permitted. To establish out-door relief in Ireland, would therefore be in direct contradiction to English experience, and to the spirit of the English law. It would introduce a practice in the one country, under the prejudicial effects of which the other has long been suffering, and from which it has not yet entirely recovered. Some persons have recommended that out-door relief in Ireland, should be restricted to the aged, sick, and infirm; but even with this limitation, how is abuse to be prevented, and how is the precise limit to be defined of the age, sickness, or infirmity, entitling an individual to be relieved out of the workhouse?—I believe it to be impossible so to define the conditions as to prevent the occurrence of gross abuses, which would not only be a source of demoralisation, but would also serve to engender strifes jealousies and ill feeling in every locality. After the best consideration which I have been able to give the subject, in all its bearings, I still retain the opinion that in Ireland relief should be restricted to the workhouse, or in other words, that out-door relief in any shape should be prohibited.

The mode of Rating is objected to.—“The question of rating is obviously open to much contrariety of opinion. The mode of valuation, of assessment, of collection, and the proportions in which the rate shall be paid, are all questions on which different opinions might possibly be formed by different persons; and accordingly the views expressed upon these points have been various and conflicting. Some have contended that the whole of the rate should be charged upon the owner, on the ground that the tenant derives little profit, often no profit whatever from the occupation, and ought not therefore to be called on to pay any part of the rate. Those taking this view, appear to overlook the fact that the destitute classes in Ireland are now supported almost entirely by the occupiers, who will be relieved from this charge when the proposed measure shall have come into operation. To require the occupiers to pay half the rate, is not therefore to impose on them a new charge, but a portion only of an old charge, to which they had long been accustomed. Moreover the occupiers have an interest in the property rated—not permanent indeed like the owners, but more immediate; and on this ground also they are fairly chargeable with a portion of the rate. If the owners paid the whole, the occupiers would of course not be entitled to take part in the distribution of the funds, nor in the management of the business of the union—they would have no interest in common with their landlords, and would to a certain extent be arrayed against them; for their interest and their sympathies would probably lead them to increase the amount of the burthen, rather than lessen it. Even if there were a sufficient number of resident owners, it would be inexpedient to place the whole control of the unions in their hands, thus constituting them a separate class, and at the same time lowering the position of the occupiers; but in the present state of Ireland, such a proposition seems especially open to objection. The exemption in favour of occupiers of 5l. value and under, and the charging the owners of such property with the entire rate, forms an exception to the above reasoning, and will probably be disapproved by those whose interests may appear to be affected by it. But every such charge is eventually borne by the property, and in the long run it is perhaps not very material whether the rate is paid by the owner or by the tenant, it being in fact a portion of the rent. This arrangement is proposed, partly as a matter of convenience, on account of the difficulty and expense of collecting a rate from the vast number of small holdings of 5l. value and under which exist in Ireland, and partly also with the view of relieving this description of occupiers, who are for the most part in a state of poverty bordering on destitution, from a portion of the burthen; and it is gratifying to find that this proposition has on the whole been favourably received.

The Unions as proposed are too large.—“In almost every discussion during the progress of the bill last session, the proposed number and size of the unions were objected to. Yet the discretion of the commissioners is unfettered in these respects. They are left at liberty to form the unions, as may appear best adapted to the circumstances in each case. The same discretion was confided to the commissioners in England, and it must be equally necessary that they should possess it in Ireland. The objections to the intended size of the unions, do not therefore apply to the bill, but to my first Report, in which it is stated that, ‘If the surface of Ireland be divided into squares of twenty miles each, so that a workhouse placed in the centre would be about ten miles from the extremities in all directions, this would give about eighty workhouses for the whole of Ireland.’ Instead of eighty workhouses however, I assumed that a hundred might be required, and calculated the probable expense accordingly. But this was mere assumption, for it is obviously impossible to state what will be the precise number of unions, until some progress has been made in the work of formation. The commissioners are bound to form the unions in the best manner, according to the best of their judgment. Their credit as public functionaries would be compromised by any failure in this respect; and it may be fairly presumed that they will use due vigilance and impartiality, and avail themselves of all the experience which England affords in this matter.

The suppression of Mendicancy objected to.—“Objections have been made to the vagrancy clauses, and it has been contended that if such provisions were necessary, they should be established by a separate Act. Whether the suppression of mendicancy be provided for in the Poor Law Bill, or by a separate bill, does not seem very material; but it is important that the provision should be made concurrently with the Poor Law measure. To establish a poor-law, without at the same time suppressing mendicancy, would be imperfect legislation, especially with reference to the present condition of the Irish people. It is true there are now vagrancy laws in Ireland, which enact whipping, imprisonment, and transportation as the punishments of mendicancy; but these laws are inoperative, partly from their severity, and partly from other causes. Ireland wants a vagrancy law that shall operate in unison with the Poor Law, for without such concurrent action, both laws would be in a great measure ineffective. The suppression of mendicancy is necessary for the protection of the peasantry themselves. No Irish cottier, however poor, closes his door whilst partaking of his humble meal. The mendicant has free access, and is never refused a share. There is a superstitious dread of bringing down the beggar’s curse, and thus mendicancy is sustained in the midst of poverty, perpetuating itself amongst its victims. Much of the feeling out of which this state of things has arisen may, I think, be traced to the absence of any provision for relieving the destitute. A mendicant solicits charity on the plea of destitution. His plea must be admitted, for it cannot be disproved; and to refuse relief, may occasion the death of a fellow-creature, which would be a crime of great magnitude. Hence the admission of the mendicant’s claim, which is regarded in the light of an obligation by the Irish peasantry. To make provision for relieving mendicants at the public charge, without at the same time preventing the practice of begging, would leave the peasant exposed to much of the pressure which he now sustains from this source; for the mendicant class would generally prefer the vagrant life to which they are accustomed, to the order and restraint of a workhouse. To suppress mendicancy, is therefore necessary both as an adjunct of the proposed Poor Law, and for the protection of the labouring classes throughout Ireland.

Objections to cumulative voting, &c.—“It might perhaps be sufficient to say, in answer to the objections which were made to cumulative voting, voting by proxy, and constituting magistrates ex-officio guardians, that the Irish bill follows in these cases the example of the English Poor Law Amendment Act. There are, however, weighty reasons in favour of each of these provisions, some of which it may be useful to notice.

“With respect to cumulative votes, it may be observed, that the raising and disbursing of a poor-rate involves nothing political, but is to be regarded rather in the light of a mutual assurance, in which the community joins for the purpose of being protected against the effects of pauperism, each member contributing in proportion to his means, and each having an interest according to the amount of his contributions. If therefore the amount contributed be the measure of each ratepayer’s interest, it ought in justice also, within certain convenient limitations, to be the measure of his influence; and these limitations the bill provides, by fixing a scale according to which every ratepayer is entitled to vote. As regards the voting by proxy, such a power is necessary for enabling the owner to protect his property, his interest in which is permanent, although he may not always be present to represent it by his personal vote; and the bill therefore provides for his doing so by proxy. The occupier is always present, and may vote in person; not so the owner, whose interest would be unprotected without this power of voting by proxy. That the owner’s interest ought to be represented will not be denied. The rate is levied upon property, and thus in fact becomes a portion of the rent, which would be increased by the amount of the rate, if this were not levied for Poor Law purposes; so that in reality it is the landlord, the permanent owner of the property, who finally bears the burthen of the rate, and not the tenant or temporary occupier. It seems consonant with justice therefore, that every facility should be afforded to the owner for protecting his interest by his vote.

“There are many reasons why magistrates should form a portion of every board of guardians. The elected guardians will for the most part consist of occupiers, or renters, not the owners of property; and their interest will be temporary, whilst the interest of the owner is permanent. Some union of these two interests seems necessary towards the complete organization of a board of guardians; and as the magistrates collectively may be regarded as the chief landed proprietors of the country, the bill proposes to effect this union by creating them ex-officio members of the board. The elected guardians are moreover subject to be changed every year, and their proceedings might be changeable, and perhaps contradictory, and confusion might arise through the opposite views of successive boards. The ex-officio guardians will serve as a corrective in this respect. Their position as magistrates, their information and general character, and their large stake as owners of property, will necessarily give them much weight; whilst the proposed limitation of their number to one-third of the elected guardians, will prevent their having an undue preponderance. The elected and the ex officio members may be expected each to improve the other, and important social benefits may arise from their frequent mingling, and from the necessity for mutual concession and forbearance which such mingling cannot fail to teach. Each individual member will feel that his influence depends upon the opinion which his colleagues entertain of him, or upon the respect or regard which they feel towards him; and hence will arise an interchange of good offices, and a cultivation of mutual good-will, beginning with the board of guardians, and extending throughout the union, and eventually it may be hoped throughout the country; and thus the union system may become the means of healing dissensions, and reconciling jarring interests in Ireland. On these grounds, I consider that the establishment of ex-officio guardians, voting by proxy, and cumulative voting, as provided in the bill, should be adhered to.

“Many measures, local as well as general, have been suggested, either for removing restrictions to the application of capital, or for giving direct encouragement to its application in Ireland; and some of these measures, I understand government intend taking into early consideration. In the survey which I have been able to take of the state of Ireland, and of the condition of the Irish people, it has appeared to me that quiet, and the absence of excitement, is the object chiefly to be desired. With repose would come security, and the investment of capital, and thence would arise employment, and the development of the productive powers of the country. The proposed Poor Law will not of itself accomplish these objects, but it will be found a valuable accessory; and with the progress of education, and that orderly submission to lawful authority which is at once the cause and the consequence of peace and prosperity, all those other objects will, we may hope, be eventually secured for Ireland.”^[78]

My Report was considered by the Cabinet,^[79] and the whole subject was again very fully discussed, and several minor alterations in the bill were decided upon. It was also determined to bring it forward as the first measure of the session. The subject continued to occupy a good deal of public attention, as well in England as in Ireland. It was discussed in the papers, and pamphlets were written upon it. In this instance however, as in most others, the opponents were the most active, and much ingenuity was displayed in animadverting on the asserted incongruities of the proposed Irish Poor Law. The inquiry commissioners also had their advocates, and in Ireland especially their recommendations were, as might be expected, more popular than the government bill. However, on the whole, the measure may be said to have held its ground, and to be regarded as a matter of first-rate importance.