Chapter III · (continued 2)

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; 193and 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, 194cost 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.

The bill read a second time and committed.

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 195considering 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.

Death of William IV. June 20, 1837.

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 196inquiries 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—

Second Report.—Nov. 3, 1837.

“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.

197“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 198view 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.

199“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, 200at 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 201in 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 202suitable 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 203depress 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 204entails 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 205pay 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 206in 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 207for 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.

208“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, 209and 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 210a 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.

The bill reintroduced, December 1, 1837.

Parliament assembled on the 10th of November, and on 1st of December Lord John Russell reintroduced the bill, in an argumentative speech of considerable length. After going through and commenting on the several recommendations of the inquiry commissioners,^[80] and noticing the objections to which they were all more or less open, he explained by way of contrast the principle on which the present bill was founded, much in the same manner that he had done on the first introduction of the measure. The statement was generally well received, although there were some marked exceptions in this respect, and the bill was read a first time without a division. It was in like manner read a second time on the 5th of February 1838. But on the motion for going into committee on the 9th, Mr. O'Connell strongly opposed the bill, and moved that it be committed that day six months. The amendment was however negatived by 277 to 25, a majority which made the passing of the measure in some form pretty certain. On the 23rd of February the question of settlement was again very fully discussed, and its introduction decided against by 103 to 31, the latter number comprising all who could be 211brought to vote for a settlement law of any kind. The vagrancy clauses were now also withdrawn from the bill, on the understanding that there would hereafter be a separate measure for the suppression of |The bill passed the commons and read a first time in the lords.| mendicancymendicancy. The bill continued to be considered in successive committees until the 23rd of March, when all the clauses having been gone through and settled, it was ordered to be reported, which was done on the 9th of April. On the 30th of April the bill was read a third time and passed by the commons, and on the day following was introduced and read a first time in the lords.

It had been thought desirable that during the Easter vacation I should visit Holland and Belgium, with the view of ascertaining whether there was anything in the institutions of those countries, or in the management of their poor, that could be made available in the present measure of Irish Poor Law; and it was arranged that Dr. Kay, one of our assistant-commissioners should accompany me. The time at our disposal was short, and our investigations were necessarily hurried; but the letters with which we were furnished procured for us ready access everywhere, and enabled us to obtain information which would not otherwise have been accessible. On our return, I reported to government the result of our inquiries.^[81] The first portion of the Report was chiefly furnished by my companion, and had reference to the subject of education, in which Dr. Kay^[82] felt a deep interest, and in the promotion of which he afterwards took a distinguished part. The latter portions of the Report applied more immediately to our present subject, and from these portions I will now abstract so much as seemed calculated to be useful with regard to the question of Irish Poor Law, or to bear in any way upon the state of Ireland—

212Third Report.—May 5, 1838.

“The institutions for the relief of indigence are numerous in Holland, and consist of hospices for the aged and infirm, orphan-houses, workhouses of towns, depôts de mendicité, or district workhouses, the poor colonies, and private charitable institutions. The funds for the support of these establishments are to a great extent derived from endowments and voluntary contributions, the direct tax not being more than about 1,800,000 guilders, or 150,000l. per annum. Among the classes having ability to labour, a state of even temporary dependence is considered disgraceful, and great exertions are made by the labouring population to avoid it. But no sense of degradation attaches to the orphan establishments, which are calculated to invite rather than to discourage dependence. The depôts de mendicité, or provincial workhouses bear so close a resemblance to the old English workhouses and those established under Gilbert’s and the various local Acts, as to warrant a belief that the English workhouses must have been formed upon a Dutch model; but however this may be, the result has certainly been the same in both countries, the evil of pauperism having been increased rather than diminished by these institutions, in which the profitable application of pauper labour has been sought for, rather than the repression of pauperism.

“The workhouse of Amsterdam is a vast building, capable of containing upwards of 1,500 inmates. The imposing character of its exterior, the elegance of its entrance-hall, and the decorations of the rooms appropriated to public business, were in marked contrast with the aspect of the several wards. The inmates chiefly consisted of the lowest and least moral part of the population of the great cities, who had sought refuge in the workhouse because they had forfeited their claim to regular employment, and the vigilance of the police did not permit them to subsist by mendicancy. The sexes were strictly separated at all times, but the children were in the same apartment with the adults of each sex. The males and females each occupied separate day-rooms, in which the dirt and disorder were very offensive. In these rooms the inmates ate their meals, without any attention to regularity or propriety. Here also they worked in the looms, or at other occupations. The first group of men to whom we advanced, were seated at a table playing at cards; we found another party playing at draughts, and a third at hazard. Others were idly sauntering up and down the room. The women’s day-room presented a scene of similar disorder. Both men and boys were clothed in a coarse kind of sacking. The chief article of their diet is rye-bread, almost black, and not 213over-abundant, with an indefinite quantity of boiled buttermilk; but they are permitted to work at certain rates of wages, and to spend a portion of their earnings at a canteen in the house, where coffee tobacco gin &c. may be obtained. On application for admission, the paupers undergo a strict examination as to their ability to maintain themselves; and while inmates they are not permitted to go abroad, ‘unless they give positive hopes that on re-entering society, they will render themselves worthy of their liberty, by diligently endeavouring to gain their own livelihood by honest means.’

“The establishment at La Cambré, near Brussels, was superior in its internal arrangements to the workhouse at Amsterdam, particularly in the separate classification of the aged, the children, and the adults, and also in the good arrangement and cleanliness of the sleeping-rooms. The sexes are strictly separated, as is invariably the case in all the other Dutch and Belgian institutions. By the penal code, a mendicant once condemned to a depôt de mendicité for begging, may be kept there during the remainder of his life; but in practice, he is allowed to leave the establishment whenever the commission of superintendence are satisfied that he is disposed to labour for his subsistence, without resorting to mendicancy.

“There are three great workhouses for the whole of Holland, which are situated, one at Amsterdam, another at Middleburgh, and a third in the commonalty Nieuve Pekel A, in the province of Groningen. Belgium has five great workhouses, situated respectively at La Cambré, near Brussels, for the province of Brabant; at Bruges, for the two Flanders; at Hoogstraeten, for the province of Antwerp; at Mons, for Hainault, Namur, and Luxembourg; and at Reickheim, for Liege and Limburgh. Under their present regulations, these provincial workhouses, or depôts de mendicité, both in Holland and Belgium, are I think, judging from what we could learn and what we saw, very defective institutions; and hence seems to have arisen the necessity for resorting to some stricter measures, which ended in the establishment of the poor colonies. In England, the defects of the old workhouses were remedied by the introduction of regulations calculated to render them efficient tests, by the aid of which we have succeeded in establishing the distinction between poverty and destitution: for the latter we have provided relief, but we have left the former to its own natural resources. In Holland and Belgium no such distinction has been made, or test established. Their workhouses remain as they were originally formed—nurseries for indolence, and stimulants to pauperism. But in order to correct this evil, the Dutch have 214had recourse to the establishment of penal colonies, to which all persons found begging (or committing vagabondage as it is termed) are sent, if able to work, and compelled to labour for their subsistence, under strict discipline and low diet. Had the workhouses been made efficient, there would have been no occasion for these establishments; but the workhouses not being efficient, recourse has been had to the penal colonies, where the test of strict discipline, hard labour, and scanty diet, is so applied as to be held in the greatest dread by the vagrant classes. All beggars are apprehended by the police; if able to work, they are sent to the penal colonies; if aged or infirm, or unable to perform out-door work, they are sent to the workhouses; and although the discipline of the workhouses is defective, and the management in many respects faulty, yet with the aid of the penal colonies they secure the repression of mendicancy.

“In the workhouses of the penal colonies to which the able-bodied mendicants are sent, one ward is used in common as a dormitory, refectory, and workshop. The inmates sleep in hammocks, and are very coarsely clad. They labour in the fields, or in making bricks, or at manufactures in the house, under the superintendence of an inspector. Each colonist is furnished with a book, in which is entered the work executed daily, the amount of food and clothes furnished, his share of the general expenses of the establishment, and whatever he has received in the paper-money of the colony. Guards on horseback to patrol the boundary of the colony, rewards given for bringing back any colonist who has attempted to escape, and an uniform dress, are the means adopted to prevent desertion from the colony. Mendicants when arrested, may choose whether they will be brought before the tribunals as vagabonds, or be sent to the coercive colony, where they must remain at least one year. These rigorous measures for the suppression of mendicancy, have been adopted in the absence of any acknowledgment of a right to relief, and notwithstanding that a large portion of the relief actually administered arises from endowments and voluntary contributions. This forms an important feature in the Dutch and Belgian system; and if, as I believe, the rigour of this part of their institutions has been caused by the imperfect organization of the others, the true remedy would have been, not in the establishment of penal colonies, but in such an improvement of those other institutions as would have rendered them efficient for the repression of mendicancy, as well as for the administration of relief. On comparing the modes of relief existing in Holland and Belgium, with the system of relief it is proposed 215to establish in Ireland, the latter will I think be found to be much more simple and complete, and consequently to promise greater efficiency. No right to relief exists in Holland or Belgium, yet mendicancy is suppressed in both those countries. It is proposed not to give a right to relief in Ireland, and it is intended to suppress mendicancy,—in this respect therefore the circumstances are similar. But in Ireland, it is proposed to divide the whole country into districts of convenient extent, with a workhouse to each, so that every destitute and infirm person will be within easy reach of adequate relief; and this arrangement is obviously preferable to the various, and in some respects conflicting modes of relief which exist in Holland and Belgium, and will be more effective in its operation. The example of Holland and Belgium may therefore be cited, in addition to that of England, in support of the proposed Irish Poor Law.

“Another matter of much interest, is the different condition of the smaller class of cultivators in the two countries. Small farms of from five to ten acres abound in many parts of Belgium, closely resembling the small holdings in Ireland; but the Irish cultivator is without the comforts and conveniences of civilised life, whilst the Belgian peasant-farmer enjoys a large portion of both. The houses of the small cultivators in Belgium are generally substantial, with a sleeping-room in the attic, and closets for beds connected with the lower apartment, a dairy, a store for the grain, an oven, a cattle-stall, piggery, and poultry-loft. There is generally decent furniture and sufficient bedding, and although the scrupulous cleanliness of the Dutch may not be everywhere observable, an air of comfort and propriety pervades the whole establishment. In the cowhouse the dung and urine are preserved in the tank; the ditches are scoured, the dry leaves potato-tops and offal of every kind are collected for manure, and heaps of compost are in course of preparation. The premises are kept in compact order, and a careful attention to economy is everywhere apparent. The family are decently clad, none are ragged or slovenly, although their dress may be of the coarsest material. The men universally wear the bleusebleuse, and wooden shoes are in common use by both sexes. Their diet consists chiefly of rye-bread milk and potatoes. The contrast of what is here described, with the state of the same class of persons in Ireland, is very marked. Yet the productive powers of the soil in Belgium are certainly inferior to the general soil of Ireland, and the climate does not appear to be superior. To the soil and the climate therefore, the Belgian does not owe his superiority in comfort and position over the Irish cultivator. 216The difference is rather owing to the greater industry economy and forethought of the people.

“A small occupier, whose farm we examined near Ghent, paid 225 francs per annum for about two bonniers, or six acres of land, with a comfortable house, stabling, and other offices attached, all very good of their kind; this makes the rent (reckoning the franc at 10d.) equal to 9l. 7s. 6d. sterling per annum; and, if we allow 3l. 7s. 6d. for the rent of the house, stabling, and other offices, there will be 6l., or 1l. per acre for the land, which accords with the information we obtained at other places. This farmer had a wife and five children, and appeared to live in much comfort. He owed little or nothing, he said, but he had no capital beyond that employed on his farm. We questioned him respecting his resources in case of sickness. He replied that if he were ill, and his illness was severe and of long duration, it would press heavily upon him, because it would interrupt the whole farm-work; and in order to provide for his family and pay the doctor he feared he should be obliged to sell part of his stock. If his wife and family were long ill, and he retained his strength, the doctor would give him credit, and he should be able to pay him by degrees in a year or two. We suggested that the Bureau de Bienfaisance, or charitable individuals, might afford him aid in such a difficulty, but he replied cheerfully that he must take care of himself If a sick club, or benefit society, were established among these people, to enable them by mutual assurance to provide for the casualty of sickness, the chief source of suffering to their families would be obviated, and there would be little left to wish for or amend in their social condition. The Belgian peasant farmer here described, is not very different from the small Irish occupier as respects his position in society, but how much better is his condition as regards the comforts and conveniences of life. The cause of this difference I believe to be, the more skilful system of culture pursued by the six-acre farmers of Belgium, the rigid economy which characterises them as a class, and the persevering industry and forethought with which they adjust their limited resources to their wants; and one of the first steps to the improvement of this important class in Ireland should be, to endeavour to assimilate their farming operations and domestic management, to that of the same class in Belgium.

“It is not necessary to discuss the comparative advantages of small and large farms, it being notorious that the former abound in all parts of Ireland, in some districts almost to the exclusion of the other; and that any attempt at a rapid consolidation of these small holdings would occasion great misery and suffering. 217Changes of this nature cannot be successful, without special regard to local circumstances; and the obstructions which arise from fixed habits and old social arrangements, generally render any great organic change impracticable, excepting in the lapse of years. An improved management of the small farms in Ireland, would however afford the means of increasing the comfort, and ameliorating the condition of the cottier tenantry, and at the same time facilitate the progress of other changes conducive to their general well-being. It would, in fact, be beginning at the lowest point of the scale—improved management would bring increase of capital and improved habits, and thence would arise an enlargement of occupancies, which the vast extent of now waste but reclaimable land in Ireland would greatly facilitate. The establishment of a poor-law, by removing the burthen of supporting mendicancy which now presses almost exclusively on the class of small cultivators, will afford them relief and encouragement, and facilitate the improvement of their condition: but the Poor Law alone will not effect the necessary ameliorations, which can only be accomplished by a combination of efforts, of which the establishment of a poor-law is one, possibly it is the chief; for a poor-law will unite the interests of the other classes with the well-being of the poorest, and thus secure for the least intelligent, and therefore the most dependent portion of the community, the sympathies and the assistance of the most competent and intelligent of the middle and higher classes. The Poor Law will in this way, I believe, become the means of combining the now discordant elements of society in Ireland, for the promotion of the common interest; but the first impulse in the career of amelioration must be given by the landed proprietors, who should unite in promoting improvements among their tenantry, as well as in carrying out the provisions of the law.”

Bill read a first time in the lords, May 1, 1838.

The feeling in the house of lords with regard to the bill, was decidedly more adverse than had been the case in the house of commons. Many of the Irish peers whose properties were deeply encumbered, were alarmed at the threatened position of a poor-rate, which they feared would swallow up a large portion of their incomes. These fears were appealed to, and the danger declaimed against and magnified, both by the economical opponents of any poor-law whatever, and by the opponents of the 218present measure. It was evident therefore from the first that the bill would encounter a strenuous opposition in the lords, and that its passing was far from certain. |Bill read a second time in the lords.| On the 21st of May the bill was read a second time, after a long and stormy debate, which lasted nine hours. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading in a judicious and temperate speech, touching skilfully on most of the leading points, and deprecating the intervention of party feeling. The bill was, he said, founded on the amended system of the English Poor Law. It was in fact an adaptation of the Act of 1834 to the circumstances of Ireland, with such alterations as were required by the peculiar condition of that country, and as the experience of its working suggested. He thought the establishment of the measure would be the beginning of a system of order, and that it would introduce order in a beneficial form. It would among other things form the foundation of a measure for the suppression of mendicancy; and one great advantage to which he looked as arising from it was, that the struggle for land, and the violent means the people took of enforcing what they conceived to be their right with regard to it, would be much lessened, if not extinguished. The writings of eminent political economists had, he said, led him at one time to doubt whether the evil effects attending a system of poor-laws, did not more than counterbalance any advantage to be derived from them; but a full and careful consideration of the subject had convinced him, that it was most beneficial for the landlords to be made to take an interest in the condition of the people on the land. The principle on which a poor-law should be established, was that of the general benefit of the country—we should relieve the destitute, but not do so in a way to paralyze the feeling of energy and enterprise which ought to be paramount in every man’s bosom; and for this purpose he thought the workhouse system was the 219one best adapted for testing the necessity and means of the applicant.

The Marquis of Londonderry spoke strongly against the bill, and moved that it be read that day six months. Many other peers joined in denouncing the measure, but none more violently than Lord Lyndhurst, who declared that it would lead to a dissolution of the Union. The Duke of Wellington supported the second reading, with a view to amending the bill in committee, and rendering it better fitted for its objects. The distress existing in Ireland was he said undoubted. There had been inquiry after inquiry on the subject, and on the outrages of every description to which it led. He expected from this bill that it would improve the social relations of the people of Ireland, and prevent the distress which now so often prevailed there. Another result he anticipated from the measure was, that it would induce the gentry of Ireland, whether resident or not, to look after their properties, and pay some attention to the state of the population on their estates. This, the duke observed, would improve the social relations between landlord and tenant—between the occupier and the labourer of the soil. If the Poor Laws had not been amended in England, he should have hesitated before consenting to the introduction of a poor-law into Ireland; but seeing the results the measure of 1834 had produced in this country—seeing the great advantage which had occurred from the working of that system—and seeing how it has improved the relations of landlord and tenant, he could not help desiring some such measure for Ireland, in order, if possible, to remedy in like manner the evils of that country. With regard to settlement, he was firmly convinced that its establishment in connexion with the bill, would be productive of unbounded litigation and expense, and lead to disputes of which no one could foresee the end. At the same time, he thought care should be taken that all parishes should 220be required to pay the expenses connected with the relief of their paupers, “that being one of the principles of the Poor Law in this country; and such an amendment should be introduced into the present bill.” The measure being thus supported by the duke, the second reading was carried by a majority of 149 to 20.

The bill in committee.

It was proposed that the bill should be committed on the 28th of May, but the debate was exceedingly violent and was continued by adjournment to the 31st. It is difficult to describe the scene which took place, on the motion for going into committee on the bill. The confusion then, and indeed during the whole night, surpassed anything one could have expected in such a deliberative assembly. The alarms of the Irish peers as to the effects of the measure exceeded all bounds, and they were joined by several English peers who are supporters of the English Poor Law. On the resumption of the debate on the 31st however, and after a further discussion for eight hours, the house resolved by 107 to 41 to support the principle of the bill, as embodied in the 41st clause. This clause provided that relief to the destitute might be administered in the workhouses, at the discretion of the boards of guardians, subject to the condition—in the first place of a preference being given to the aged and infirm poor, and to destitute children; and in the second place to persons residing in the union before those not so resident, when there is not sufficient accommodation for all the destitute.

These latter provisions were introduced at the instance of the Duke of Wellington, in order to meet the objections and mitigate the hostility of the opponents of the bill, as was also the provision in the 44th clause charging the cost of relief to the several electoral divisions, instead of to the unions at large, as it before stood. These changes were arranged between the duke and myself, with the approval of government, previous to 221the second reading. |The bill read a third time.| The bill was considered in committee on the 7th, 21st, 22nd, and 26th of June, and was read a third time on the 6th of July. On the 11th I find it recorded in my journal—“The bill is now clear of the lords, altered and in some respects improved, although the localisation of the charge upon the electoral divisions approximates too nearly to settlement to be quite satisfactory. I wish this had been left as it at first stood; but so long as no right to relief, and no power of removal are given, we shall I trust be able to avoid the infliction of actual settlement.”^[83]

Although so far “clear of the lords,” there nevertheless remained much to be done in reconciling differences between the two houses with regard to some of the amendments, and in particular with regard to the schedule of rating, which it was desired to make available for the purposes of the municipal franchise. Several conferences were held, and “reasons” pro and con were delivered in, and it was not until the 27th of July that the bill was ready for the royal assent—This was given on the 31st, and thus a law was at length established, making provision for the systematic and efficient relief of destitution in Ireland.

222