Xn4 
 
 Columbia ©trituTsitP 
 uUlifiCumifllrttiJH'rk 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
 THE SELIGMAN LIBRARY OF ECONOMICS 
 
 PURCHASED BY THE UNIVERSITY 
 1942 
 

 
 
 

 
CONSIDERATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 STATE OF IRELAND: 
 
 BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF 
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 Delivered before the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, at the 
 opening of its Seventeenth Session, on Wednesday, November 18, 1863. 
 
 Jpccontr Edition. 
 
 With an Appendix, containing a Comparison of the English and 
 Irish Poor Laws with respect to the conditions of relief. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN K. INGRAM, LL.D. 
 
 Fellow of Trinity College, and Professor of English Literature in the University 
 of Dublin; one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society. 
 
 ! , DUBLIN: 
 
 E. PONSONBY, 116, GRAFTON STREET, 
 
 1864. 
 
The following Address will be found, printed exactly as it was 
 delivered before the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ire¬ 
 land, in the Journal of that Society, Part XXVI. 
 
 The Author has introduced in this Second Edition some changes, 
 for the most part only verbal. He has omitted a brief enumeration 
 of the differences between the English and Irish Poor Laws, replacing 
 it by a precise and detailed statement, in the form of an Appendix. 
 
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE STATE OF IRELAND. 
 
 [Being the substance of an Address delivered before the Statistical and Social 
 Inquiry Society of Ireland, Wednesday, November 18th, 1863.] 
 
 The Statistical Society of Dublin commenced its career in that 
 most disastrous period of the recent history of Ireland—the famine 
 year of 1847. If was the pressure of the social problems then im¬ 
 peratively demanding attention, that led its youthful founder to 
 attempt the establishment of such an institution. He thought that 
 by bringing together earnest-minded Irishmen to discuss these 
 problems in a calm and scientific spirit, he should contribute some¬ 
 thing towards their satisfactory solution. The gravity of the cir¬ 
 cumstances which attended the birth and early history of our 
 Society, has given to its proceedings throughout its whole exist¬ 
 ence a peculiarly real and vital character. It has not occupied itself 
 with dilettante statistics, collected with no special purpose, and tend¬ 
 ing to no definite conclusion. It has from the first applied itself, in 
 the spirit of earnest inquiry, to the most important questions affect ¬ 
 ing the condition of the country ; and the increasing accession of 
 intelligent Irishmen to its ranks indicates their belief that it has not 
 laboured in vain. 
 
 Called by the desire of your Council to address you at the opening 
 of a new session, and thus led to consider more closely the condition 
 of Ireland, I could not but be impressed by the grave character of 
 the crisis. When the task was proposed to me, the country was 
 still labouring under the severest pressure she had experienced since 
 1847. The gloom has now, indeed, in a great measure dispersed, 
 and we see before us a brightening prospect. But the recollection 
 of those recent trials, and the idea of their possible recurrence, must 
 still deeply affect every thoughtful mind. I have felt that, at 
 such a time, I could not seek to engage your attention with any 
 mere generalities of social science. It has seemed to me that I should 
 best imitate the antecedents of the Society, and best reflect the ear¬ 
 nest character of its discussions, if I addressed myself to some of 
 the important questions arising out of the condition of the country. 
 I proceed, therefore, to lay before you a few plain and practical 
 considerations on the present economic circumstances of Ireland, 
 and on some measures which appear necessary to ensure the future 
 well-being of our population. 
 
 It is natural that we should first direct our view to the remarkable 
 
 1 * 
 
6 
 
 spectacle of the emigration which is removing so many of our fellow- 
 countrymen to other lands. 
 
 This great movement, though its dimensions cannot fail strongly 
 to impress the imagination, we can yet see to be a perfectly natu¬ 
 ral consequence of economic laws acting under the new conditions 
 of human societies. If in former times the Irish peasant squatted from 
 year to year on his poor little patch of land, or toiled on for miser¬ 
 able wages in a state of chronic semi-starvation, when in other coun¬ 
 tries he and his children might have earned, with no greater effort, a 
 comfortable livelihood, it'was not because he wished to remain, but 
 because he was unable to go. Often speaking only the Irish language, 
 and without any distinct notion either of the geographical situation, or 
 of the industrial condition of other countries, he was, in the strictest 
 sense of the words, adscriptus glebce. And, even if he had learned 
 English, and was otherwise fitted to take his place in a new social 
 medium, how was he from his scanty resources to pay the expense 
 of the passage, then no inconsiderable amount ? 
 
 The two agencies which have set him free are the diffusion of 
 knowledge by the National System of Education, and the reduction 
 of the passage money to America and Australia, by the immense 
 recent development of trade and intercourse between different coun¬ 
 tries. Eirst of all, in the national schools he learned English. The 
 number of Irishmen who could speak only Irish was estimated in 
 1822 at two millions ; in 1861 it was less than 164,000. Here was 
 one obstacle removed—the same that still, as we are told by Sir 
 John M J Neill, makes it difficult to apply the obvious remedy to 
 the over population of the island of Skye. The Irish farming and 
 labouring classes became generally better informed and more intel¬ 
 ligent ; they understood more distinctly the facilities for obtaining 
 land in the United States, and the high rate of wages that prevailed 
 there, and they were better able to avail themselves of those advan¬ 
 tages. The old narrowness of view, timidity, and want of enterprise 
 rapidly disappeared, and large numbers of the people desired to try 
 their chances in a new country. While their fitness for emigration 
 was thus increasing and their wish for it becoming strong, the won¬ 
 derful increase of trade and communication between different nations 
 stimulated the arts of shipbuilding and navigation ; and the cost of 
 the passage to America and Australia gradually fell. Then the 
 influence of the natural law—sure in its action as that under which 
 water finds its level—began to be felt; and the Irish labouring classes 
 began to pour in a continuous stream from a country -where wages 
 were low, and it was not easy to live, to countries where wages were 
 high and no one need want who was able and willing to work. 
 
 , . cheapness and abundance of the potato had alone enabled 
 
 the Irish working classes to exist on the wretched wages which 
 prevailed before 1846. Its failure, therefore, accelerated the emi¬ 
 gration which was already in progress. Liberal contributions were 
 sent over from America in the period of the greatest distress, and it 
 is worthy of observation that these contributions came in the form, 
 no o money but of food. Nothing could more strongly affect the 
 imagination of a starving people than the large supplies of wheat and 
 
7 
 
 Indian corn which then arrived from the United States. They placed 
 in the strongest contrast the abundance of America with the destitu¬ 
 tion of Ireland, and irresistibly attracted the labourer from a scene 
 of penury to a land of plenty. 
 
 Neither the emigration itself nor its remarkable increase is a phen¬ 
 omenon peculiar to Ireland. It appears from the interesting work 
 of M. Duval (“ Histoire de l'Emigration”), that almost all the coun¬ 
 tries of Western Europe have increasingly participated in the move¬ 
 ment since the peace of 1815. Thus, for example, the number of 
 emigrants from Germany, in the period between the years 1819 
 and 1826, did not exceed from 2,000 to 4,000 a-year. In 1851 the 
 the number had arisen to 112,547, in 1853 to 162,568, and in 1854 
 to 251,931. These numbers, indeed, have not been maintained since 
 then. But in 1855 there were 81,698 emigrants, and in 1856, 
 98,573 ; and now the average is from 50,000 to 60,000 per annum. 
 
 But it is still more important for us to bear in mind that from 
 England and Scotland, as well as Ireland, this movement is in pro¬ 
 gress. It appears from the report of the English Census Commis¬ 
 sioners of 1861 that 640,316 English, and 102,954 Scotch emigrated 
 from the United Kingdom in the ten years between 1851 and 1861, 
 which gives an annual average of more than 74,000 for Great Britain 
 during that period. 
 
 The same causes which brought about the emigration to America 
 and the British colonies had still earlier produced a large migration 
 to England and Scotland. About 230,000 went to reside there in 
 the ten years before 1841 ; from 1841 to 1851, about 400,000 ; and 
 from 1851 to 1861, about 300,000. The number of persons born 
 in Ireland and residing in England and Scotland was ascertained in 
 the census of 1861 to be upwards of 800,000. If we add to these 
 their children and the living descendants of all who had migrated 
 since 1841, the aggregate will not be less than 2,300,000 ; and we 
 shall arrive at the remarkable result that notwithstanding the emi¬ 
 gration that has been in progress in the interval, the total number of 
 persons of Irish descent in the United Kingdom, in 1 8(5 r, was as 
 great as it had been twenty years before. 
 
 It is plainly impossible to stop either the migration to England 
 and Scotland, or the emigration to America and Australia. With 
 wages in England and Scotland at two shillings a day, and the cost 
 of a deck passage to Liverpool or Glasgow from four to five shillings, 
 the migration will inevitably go on. With w r ages in New York at 
 four shillings and upwards, and the cost of the passage not more 
 than from five to six guineas, the emigration will inevitably go on. 
 
 Nothing can show more plainly how natural and spontaneous the 
 movement is, than the results of the starting of the Atlantic steamers 
 from Galway. The persons w’ho were zealous for the success of that 
 enterprise regarded it as likely to do something towards enriching 
 Ireland, and so improving the condition of the population at home. 
 But whenever the vent is opened, the people begin to stream out 
 through it, and the astonished Times complains that the most im¬ 
 portant branch of trade which the establishment of the packet station 
 has developed is the export of Irishmen. 
 
 
8 
 
 Every one that goes makes it easier for others to follow. The 
 members of a family who are left behind feel the difficulties of 
 emigration to he greatly diminished, when they have relations 
 already settled and thriving in the new country. In joining them, 
 they will more easily find the employment that suits them, and they 
 wdl sooner feel themselves at home in the new social element. 
 The cheerful letters they receive from those who have preceded 
 them rouse or strengthen the desire to go, and the warm-hearted 
 brother or sister sends home money to assist in paying the passage, 
 or in procuring the humble outfit necessary for the voyage. We are 
 all familiar with the story of the remittances which the Irish 
 emigrants, with a noble and touching self-forgetfulness, have sent 
 to their relations in the old country—remittances which, in the 
 single year 1853, amounted to nearly a million and a-half. These 
 gifts, arriving from time to time, have a double effect: they supply 
 the most convincing evidence of the prosperity of those who have 
 gone before, and they facilitate the movements of those who wish to 
 follow. 
 
 And here let me remark that, though I have stated the question 
 as one of wages alone, and though the simple difference of wages 
 would in the end produce the entire effects we observe and are des*- 
 tined yet to observe, there are other considerations which ought not to 
 be left out of sight. Besides the desire of material prosperity, there 
 is also in the hearts of many of our people a spirit of ambition, 
 which at home sometimes rather engenders discontent than stimu¬ 
 lates exertion. The aspiring Irishman must observe with interest, 
 that the absence of an aristocracy in America and the British 
 colonies leaves far more open than in our older community the 
 avenues to the highest distinctions of the State. In the great repub¬ 
 lic Irish blood did not prevent a Jackson from rising to the presi ¬ 
 dential chair ; and men on whom the ban of law r had been pronounced 
 at home, in Australia and Canada have been ministers of the 
 crown. 
 
 But it may be said, wages are rising, and this rise will put a 
 speedy end to the emigration. This opinion I cannot adopt. So 
 long as the rise does not approach very nearly to equalization with 
 the American rate, I think the effect of it will be rather to stimu¬ 
 late than to slacken the movement. It is true, the tempta¬ 
 tion will be less; but on the other hand, the facility will be 
 greater. As the earnings of the working classes are larger, the 
 cost of the passage will bear a smaller proportion to the resources 
 of the labourer, and it will therefore be easier for him to 
 accumulate the necessary sum. We cannot expect our harvests 
 to be uniformly good 3 and when the labourer is better off, as 
 America will be to him more accessible, he will be less patient of 
 any reverse. While wages are actually rising, he will perhaps be 
 disposed to remain3 but the first slight turn in the fortunes of the 
 country and the first temporary decline in wages thence arising will 
 set the emigration going more rapidly than now. 
 
 Consider, besides, if the terrible struggle now raging in the United 
 States were once at an end, how soon its material effects would be 
 
9 
 
 obliterated ; with what a hound those states would again rush for¬ 
 ward on the career of industry ! Look, too, at the magnificent future 
 of industrial progress which is opening before our Canadian and 
 Australian colonies. Is there not every prospect of a continued, nay, 
 an increasing demand for labour! And where, in the presence ot 
 these facts, is the probability of the emigration being speedily stayed! 
 
 One thing alone will stop the migration to England and Scot¬ 
 land—the equalisation of wages here with wages beyond the channel. 
 One thing alone will stop the emigration to America—the equali¬ 
 sation of wages here with wages beyond the Atlantic. 
 
 It is something gained towards a rational view of the emigration, 
 to understand that it is quite independent of the volitions of land¬ 
 lords or of governments—a natural effect of natural causes; and that, 
 therefore, to lament it will be no more effectual than to lament the 
 flowing of the tide. But I say further, that we cannot reasonably 
 regard it with anything but satisfaction. Eor those who go, it means 
 comparative ease and comfort, as is sufficiently proved by the cheer¬ 
 ful letters and the generous remittances of which I have already 
 spoken. For those who remain, it means higher wages and more 
 continuous employment. I think those persons who honestly 
 deplore the emigration do so under the influence of a very common 
 illusion, arising from the softening effect produced by distance in 
 social retrospect as in a physical landscape. While intensely alive 
 to the immediate material inconvenience and moral pain w'hich the 
 emigrants feel in leaving their homes, they forget the far worse 
 miseries which lie but a little way behind us in our national his¬ 
 tory. They forget the terrible picture of chronic destitution given 
 by the Commissioners of 1834, and repeated, without any alleviation 
 of its gloomy tints, by the Devon Commission of 1845. They forget 
 the 83 per cent, of our rural population who in 1841 were found 
 dwelling in wretched cabins unfit for human habitations.* Kay, 
 surely they forget the awful crisis of the famine itself, when they 
 cannot estimate the consequences which our three late disastrous 
 seasons would have produced had the emigration since 1847 not 
 taken place. 
 
 It is well ascertained that wages in Ireland have considerably risen. 
 From a paper by Mr. Frederick Purdy, Principal of the Statistical De¬ 
 partment of the Poor Law Board in England, communicated to the 
 .Statistical Society of London in April, 1862, it appears that the 
 advance in the wages of men for the whole of Ireland between 
 1843-4, and i860, was equal to more than 57 per cent.—the 
 highest rise, amounting to 87 per cent, having taken place in the pro¬ 
 vince of Connaught, where at the earlier date the rate had been 
 lowest. It seems highly probable that official figures do not exhibit 
 the full amount of the rise in wages, for they are necessarily taken 
 somewhat mechanically by the method of numerical average. But 
 
 * Viz. 43-5 per cent, “living in the lowest state, being possessed of accom¬ 
 modation equivalent to the cabin, consisting but of a single roomand an 
 additional 40 per cent. “ but little removed in comfort.” The houses of both 
 classes were generally “ built of mud .”—Report of Irish Census Commissioners 
 
 for 1841. 
 
10 
 
 experienced and sagacious persons in country districts tell us that 
 the time once was when the very best labour could in many localities 
 be obtained at from 6d. to 8d. a-day ; that since then great numbers 
 of the stalwart and active young men have left the country; that the 
 work is done by older and comparatively feeble hands; and that 
 the class now earning a shilling a-day really represents those who 
 used to obtain little or no employment. The advance in wages will 
 probably go on with accelerated rapidity, as the present old genera¬ 
 tion of labourers dies out in process of time. 
 
 Whilst I must dissent from those who deplore the emigration as 
 a national calamity, I am equally unable to agree with some who 
 imagine that if it proceed as it is doing, it will be sufficient, of itself, 
 and without any change in our social institutions, to secure the future 
 prosperity of Ireland. The persons who hold this language seem to 
 me to overlook certain other very important effects of the same causes 
 which have brought about the emigration. 
 
 The extraordinary increase of communication between different 
 parts of the world, which has made so large an emigration possible, 
 is leading to the further result of a far more intense competition be¬ 
 tween the agricultural products of different countries. The corn and 
 flax that are grown in our fields must compete with imported pro¬ 
 duce ; the stock that is reared on our farms, with the cattle of 
 continental Europe and the provision stores of America. In the 
 first six months of 1862, the number of sheep and lambs imported 
 from abroad into the United Kingdom was 49,332 ; in the corres¬ 
 ponding period of 1863, it was 110,636; being an increase of more 
 than 100 per cent. Again, of oxen, bulls, and cows the number 
 imported from abroad was in the first six months of 1862, 11,462; 
 whilst in those of 1863, it was 24,108; showing a similar increase. 
 In bacon and hams the increase was from 821,960 cwt. in 
 1862, to 1,308,199 in 1863.* One of the most interesting 
 incidents of the late meeting of the Social Science Asso¬ 
 ciation in Edinburgh was the working men’s supper, at which 
 Montevideo beef was for the first time introduced to the notice of 
 the public, and since then both at Limerick and in our own city at¬ 
 tention has been called to this article of food. Great numbers of 
 the. cattle of Uruguay have been hitherto slaughtered merely for 
 their hoofs, horns, and hides, the flesh going absolutely to waste ; 
 for the future the meat, slightly salted and dried, is to be sent to- 
 the United Kingdom, and can be sold inf'the English market for 
 3d. or 3-^d. per pound. In wool, flax, butter, 'and every other article 
 
 * From later returns it appears that in the nine months ending 30th Sep¬ 
 tember, 1862. there were imported of 
 
 Sheep and lambs T c o . 
 
 Oxen, bulls, and cows l AlV- 
 
 ,® a . c ™ und h am s ... cwt. 1,14/171 • 
 
 whilst m the corresponding months of 1863, there were imported— 
 
 Sheep and lambs ... 268,790; 
 
 Oxen, bulls, and cows 
 
 Bacon and hams /.l cwt. 1,671, 93V 
 
11 
 
 of agricultural produce, a far keener and more extended competi¬ 
 tion may for the future be looked for, than has hitherto existed. 
 Hence arises the following difficulty for the farming and landed in¬ 
 terests : There is a rising rate of wages in Ireland, which increases 
 the cost of production of home commodities; concurrently with this, 
 there is an intense and groAving competition on the part of foreign 
 producers, Avhich will more and more have the effect of limiting the 
 rise of prices. How are the agricultural classes to meet the grave 
 crisis arising out of these new economic conditions i 
 
 What resources they have, we shall best discover by considering, 
 successively, the three instruments of production. First, as to 
 labour: the rise of wages is sure to improve its application and pro¬ 
 mote its economy; the utmost that can be made of it will be made ; 
 and it will, when possible, be assisted by the use of machinery. 
 Secondly, as to capital: it has sometimes been supposed that the 
 farmers of Ireland do not possess the capital necessary to-be-ex¬ 
 pended on'the proper improvement of their holdings* But this 
 notion is completely dispelled by the statistics of the deposits in the 
 Irish joint-stock banks. It is not disputed that the greater part of 
 the sum thus deposited is the property of the farming classes. How 
 the aggregate of the deposits amounted at the close of the year 1859 
 to upAvards of sixteen millions sterling. It has, of course, since de¬ 
 clined, and is now probably less than fourteen millions. But the 
 country, under the influence of one bountiful harvest, is beginning 
 to recover from the effects of three bad seasons; and the amount of 
 the deposits will, no doubt, ere long increase to its former level. 
 This money is lent to the banks at an average of 2 per cent, to be 
 employed either in our large toAvns or in England ; and is available 
 to assist the improved system of Irish production, Avhich the groAv- 
 ing competition will imperatively demand. 
 
 Coming now to the third instrument of production, the land, it 
 is essential to consider whether the conditions under which the 
 capital and labour of the country can be applied to it are in a satis¬ 
 factory state. How, some of the leading members of our Society 
 have, ever since its foundation, devoted special study to this ques¬ 
 tion, and it is plainly the result of their researches, that notwithstand¬ 
 ing the important changes which have been made in the Iuavs re¬ 
 lating to land, they do not yet fulfil the requirements of economic 
 science. 
 
 The purpose of my present argument is to show that the emigra¬ 
 tion has not, as somo persons imagine, put an end to the land ques¬ 
 tion; but-that, on the contrary, the very same causes which have 
 led to.the “emigration will- force it on public attention with redoubled 
 urgency. P^ecollect the circumstances, under which the industry of 
 the country aauU. go on : intense competition, limiting a rise in prices, 
 and an increasing rate of wages, steadily raising the cost of produc¬ 
 tion. The burden of loss cannot now, as under the reign of mono¬ 
 poly, be transferred to the shoulders of the consumer. If agricul¬ 
 ture be unsuccessful, the farmer himself will first suffer, and next 
 the landlord. But the depression will not be confined to them; it 
 will ultimately be shared by all classes of the community, bound up 
 
12 
 
 as their interests are with those of the farmer in a country like ours, 
 almost entirely depending on agriculture. 
 
 All past experience proves that the climate of Ireland is in a 
 high degree variable ; we have had one good season, but who can 
 tell how many unfavorable ones are destined to recur ? Abundant 
 harvests may temporarily palliate the effects of the causes I have 
 described; but the next turn of the seasons will bring out the 
 latent forces, and will press upon the agricultural classes with an in¬ 
 tensity of which, up to the present, we have had no experience. 
 
 The prospects of Ireland must in the main depend upon the suc¬ 
 cess of her agricultural industry; and for this, an adaptation of the 
 laws affecting land to the new economic conditions of production is 
 absolutely necessary. Giving up tillage will not meet the difficulty; 
 for the competition affects the provision trade as well as the imme¬ 
 diate products of the soil; and English cattle farmers have dis¬ 
 covered that herds and flocks cannot take care of themselves, but 
 that for their proper tending and feeding a large amount of human 
 labour is necessary. In order that the Irish farmer may be able to 
 sustain himself amidst the increasing competition, all that social ar¬ 
 rangements can do to aid him must be done. As any nation that 
 wishes to maintain its position must provide against the possibility 
 of warfare by possessing the most improved military weapons—the 
 Minie rifle and the Armstrong gun; as, in the competition of manu¬ 
 facturing industry, the country that does not wish to lag behind its 
 fellows must adopt without delay all the latest improvements in ma¬ 
 chinery : so it will not do for Ireland, in the race of agricultural 
 competition, to be impeded by any imperfections in the security of 
 capital employed in agricultural improvement. The question is not 
 now whether a particular arrangement is tolerable or not, but 
 whether, for the future, successful competition will be possible, with 
 all the disadvantages of Irish climate, with any but the best arrange¬ 
 ments that social science can devise for the application of capital 
 to agriculture. It is vain to assert that the land question is settled; 
 the most thoughtful men in the country, and those who have most 
 deeply studied its economic condition insist, and are able to prove, 
 that it is not settled ; men, I will add, whose conclusions on other 
 questions relating to Ireland the public opinion of the empire has 
 decisively approved. 
 
 But, it may be asked, why should this question be peculiarly 
 Irish'? Must not the economic conditions, already adverted to, 
 affect the other portions of the United Kingdom ? Undoubtedly, I 
 reply, they are coming into operation there as well as here. The 
 influx of the English agricultural labourers into the large to\yns, is 
 a phenomenon quite similar to the Irish migration to England and 
 Scotland. There is, besides, a large emigration going on from the 
 rural districts of Great Britain. The rapid introduction of agricul¬ 
 tural machinery is an index of the rise of wages, and the consequent 
 growing necessity of economising labour. On the other hand, as we 
 have seen, the force of foreign competition is beginning to be felt— 
 ioreign products are flowing steadily into the markets, and prices 
 are effectually prevented from following the rise of wages. The 
 
13 
 
 action of these causes has been hitherto in a great degree obscured 
 by the abundance of other resources which are wanting in Ireland, 
 by the great mineral wealth of the country, and by the continual 
 demand for land for the purposes of manufacturing enterprise. But 
 various indications lead us to believe that before long the economic 
 crisis common, though in different degrees, to the two countries, will 
 bring up the land question there, as well as here, with irresistible 
 urgency. 
 
 The local customs favouring agriculture, and the good understand¬ 
 ing between landlord and tenant, which sufficed heretofore, are not 
 considered to afford a sufficient security under the new circumstances 
 of production. In the esteemed treatise on Modem Agricultural 
 Improvements, published as an appendix to the “ British Hus¬ 
 bandry” of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, you 
 will find forcible expression of the growing opinion of English 
 farmers, that a more positive and better defined security is necessary 
 for their success. The same feeling is strongly exhibited in let¬ 
 ters which have quite recently appeared in the Times. Within the 
 last few days, a Practical Farmer, writing in that journal, says: 
 “ The question of a tenant’s security for the outlay of his capital on 
 his landlord’s property, is second in importance to none ; landlord 
 and tenant are alike interested in its settlement on just terms; and 
 on it hinges all future improvement of the soil of England. * * * 
 
 The greatest portion of England always will be farmed by tenants ; 
 to farm badly at present prices is ruinous ; to farm well, which the 
 spirit of the times demands, is to run a risk. It is r unnin g a risk to 
 trust to any man’s honour not to turn you out, because the owner of 
 the land may die, and another Pharoah may reign who knew not 
 Joseph. To run a risk is not only foolish; but, where a man is 
 risking the money on which his family are dependent, it is wrong.” 
 When such words as these appear in the English journals, it is 
 plain enough that propositions like those already brought forward 
 by Mr. Pusey, will make their appearance again, and will not be 
 disposed of so easily as before. The land question ought to be 
 settled in Ireland first, because it is more pressing in a country 
 almost entirely agricultural; but, in any case, it cannot be long post¬ 
 poned ; for England also is feeling the necessity of improved 
 arrangements, and the requirements of both countries will have to 
 be met by comprehensive and impartial legislation. 
 
 Many Irish proprietors, desirous of assimilating the agricul¬ 
 tural economy of Ireland to that of England, have endeavoured 
 to effect a consolidation of the smaller holdings. A tendency in that 
 direction is, indeed, the inevitable result of the social circumstances 
 to which I have been calling your attention, namely, the diminution 
 of our population and the rise of wages. Great difficulty, however, 
 has been experienced in effecting the transition, and this difficulty 
 is commonly attributed to the perverse character of the Irish people. 
 “Why,” it is asked, “ do these small farmers cling with such desperate 
 tenacity to the holdings they cannot properly cultivate, instead of 
 peaceably resigning them, and becoming farm labourers like the cor¬ 
 responding class in England ?” 
 
14 
 
 Now, in these attempts to conform the Irish system of land 
 management to the English model, one essential circumstance has 
 been generally overlooked, namely, the intimate connexion between 
 the land system of England and the English Poor-law. 
 
 The English labourer is contented with his situation, not only 
 because his wages are good, and his employment in general constant, 
 but because he has reason to expect that if he should be overtaken by 
 calamity, he will be liberally assisted until the crisis has past away ; 
 that his home will not be broken up, and his aged parents, his wife 
 and his children forced to enter the workhouse, but that he and those 
 who depend on him will be relieved at his own dwelling. This is the 
 course which humanity recommends as due to those who suffer from 
 causes which are beyond their own control, and against which they 
 cannot be expected adequately to provide. It is peculiarly difficult 
 for agricultural labourers to make provision against industrial crises 
 or private calamity. From their dispersion over the country they 
 find it impossible to set on foot and maintain the provident societies 
 and other organisations for mutual assistance, which are more easily 
 established where labour is concentrated. Common sense dictates 
 that, if temporary relief is to be given, it should be given in such a 
 way as to be most effectual for its purpose, and to disturb as little as 
 possible the domestic life of the labourer. And this is precisely 
 what is effected by the outdoor relief, which protects the English 
 working classes in seasons of emergency from the bitterest conse¬ 
 quences of distress, and tranquillises their minds at all times by the 
 guarantees it affords them against the inevitable vicissitudes of their 
 condition.* 
 
 Now observe the difference between this state of things and that 
 which exists in Ireland. In this country it is contrary to law to 
 give outdoor relief to any able-bodied man, unless the workhouse be 
 full, or severe infectious disease prevail in it. And the Guardians of 
 the poor and the Central Board are deprived by statute of the power 
 of relaxing the prohibition, no matter what may be the hardship of 
 any individual case or class of cases. 
 
 Whilst this difference in the. law. of the two countries con¬ 
 tinues to exist, the English system of land management cannot 
 be introduced into Ireland without producing grave discontent, and 
 provoking determined resistance. The small farmer has clung to his 
 little holding, because when employment is not continuous, he is not 
 safe against the workhouse without the possession of a patch of 
 land. He cannot be induced peaceably to let go his hold of it, and 
 trust himself to the life of a labourer, unless, when he has thus altered 
 
 On the ist of January, 1863, there were relieved in England and Wales, 
 1,142,000, or 5 • 7 per cent of the population. In Ireland, on the same day, there 
 were relieved 66,000, or 11 per cent, of the population. The amount of relief 
 given in England was therefore relatively more than 5 times greater than that 
 given in Ireland. Next, as to the mode of administration—of the 1,142 000 
 persons relieved in England on the day above mentioned, 87 per cent, received 
 tuat relief out of the workhouse, and 13 per cent, within it. Of the 66,000 per¬ 
 sons relieved in Ireland, 9 per cent, were relieved out of the workhouse, and 
 91 per cent within. It is surely no wonder that M. de Beaumont is amazed at 
 the contrast between the two countries represented by such numbers. 
 
15 
 
 his - condition-, he be protected against what is to him--the worst 
 result of temporary distress. Even when wages are higher, and 
 work more regular than now, he will require to be secured against 
 bad seasons and the consequent fluctuations of employment, whether 
 general or local. If the Irish labourer be placed in the same posi¬ 
 tion as the Englishman, with respect to public relief, our peasant 
 farmers and cottiers will, with far less difficulty, be induced to resign 
 the holdings which they cannot cultivate properly ; and the inevi¬ 
 table process of consolidation will go on with less detriment to the 
 interests of the poor, and less danger to the peace of the community. 
 If the difference in the law be maintained, then, I say, either the 
 notion of introducing the English, system of land management will 
 have to be abandoned, and another, perhaps more conformable to 
 the Continental model, will have to be introduced in its stead; or, 
 should the effort to multiply the large farms be continued, it will 
 produce general popular discontent and social disorganisation. 
 
 One of the greatest evils of Ireland is the disaffection to the 
 government which undeniably exists, and it is our duty to do every 
 thing in our power to correct this state of feeling, by removing all just 
 causes of complaint. How I have no wish to depreciate the value to 
 the lower classes of what are properly called political reforms; in 
 their direct, and still more in their remote results, they often power¬ 
 fully affect the interests of the poor. But this at least cannot be 
 denied, that questions of a strictly social kind affect them far more 
 nearly, and come more home to their business and their bosoms. 
 And I cannot imagine anything possessing more real and vital inter¬ 
 est for a labouring man than the answer to the questions, What is 
 to befall him in case of temporary pressure from sickness in his 
 family, or from want of work ? What is to be the lot of his widow 
 in the event of his untimely death 1 What will be the condition 
 of his orphans ; what will be their prospects of material subsistence, 
 and to what moral and religious influences will their young minds 
 be exposed, when deprived at once of the means of support and of a 
 father’s control and guardianship ? 
 
 What, then, must be the feelings of the Irish working man, when 
 he ascertains that in relation to every one of these questions, the law 
 deals much more liberally with the English labourer than with 
 himself? Those of my hearers who have followed the discussions of 
 this Society do not need to be informed that such is in fact the case. 
 In the treatment of the able-bodied, of widows, of children, there 
 are broad and substantial differences between the English and Irish 
 systems of poor-relief; and these are, almost without exception, to 
 the disadvantage of the Irish. In the face of these facts, it cannot 
 be pretended that the Irish and English poor live under the same 
 laws; and it is the height of absurdity to expect from the former the 
 same loyal attachment to the government which may reasonably be 
 expected from the latter. 
 
 Some, indeed, may suppose that the Irish peasant is ignorant of 
 the differences to which I have referred. But such a notion, would, 
 I believe, be entirely mistaken. There is, as I showed you before, 
 a great and growing intercourse between the several parts of the 
 
1 C 
 
 United Kingdom. Few poor Irish families are without relatives 
 and friends settled in England. Many of our people spend part of 
 their lives in one country, and part in the other. An army of Irish 
 labourers goes over annually to assist in the work of the harvest. 
 They cannot be unaware of circumstances open to observation, and 
 deeply affecting the condition of the poor; and they must be struck by 
 the inferiority of their own position at home to that of the English 
 labourer. They naturally ascribe this difference to the government; 
 they are confirmed in the belief that the law is their enemy, and 
 they are thus made an easier prey to unprincipled agitators. 
 
 I say, then, that the Irish and English Poor-law ought to be per¬ 
 fectly assimilated. Some years ago this proposition could scarcely 
 have been made with any prospect of success. There was then a 
 general, and I will admit, a not unreasonable timidity about adopt¬ 
 ing the system of outdoor relief. After the terrible experience of 
 the period which immediately followed the famine, it was natural 
 that the effort should be to make the provisions of the Poor-law as 
 stringent as possible. But there has been since then an entire 
 change in the conditions of the case. The emigration has greatly 
 reduced the population, the poor rates have fallen to a very low 
 amount, wages are rising, and the time seems to have arrived when 
 the law in this country should be made identical with that of Eng¬ 
 land. The legislature will then be free from responsibility in the 
 matter, and it will remain for the Guardians in each district to admi¬ 
 nister, under the same regulations as in England, their own rates 
 according to their own discretion. 
 
 The conclusion at which I arrive is, that two measures are now 
 essential to the well-being of the country : first, a thorough adjust¬ 
 ment of the laws relating to land, to the new conditions of produc¬ 
 tion and competition, so as to afford perfect security for capital em¬ 
 ployed in agriculture ; and secondly, a complete assimilation of the 
 Poor-laws in the several parts of the United Kingdom. When it 
 appears that any necessary improvements require the action of the 
 legislature, some persons are apt to abandon all hope of their being 
 effected ; especially if the proposed measures are thought, however 
 erroneously, to conflict with the interests of powerful classes. And 
 this despair of legislative progress is likely to produce one or other 
 of two disastrous effects—either social inertia or political discon¬ 
 tent. Looking, however, at the history of the country during the 
 last forty years, I do not find that such hopelessness is in the 
 slightest degree justified by fact. 
 
 The modern policy in the government of Ireland dates from 
 the administration of the Marquess Wellesley, with Sir Robert 
 Peel for Home Secretary. The first fruits of the new order of 
 things then introduced were, the Commission of Inquiry into the 
 state of education m 1824, which brought to light the large Irish¬ 
 speaking element to which I alluded at the outset, and the cele- 
 brated committees of the Lords and Commons on the state of Ire- 
 fnrrm: Upon these in quiries followed practical re- 
 
 toXTipi f bee 5; 1 contl ^ed in unbroken succession down 
 to the present time. The political disabilities of Protestant Dis- 
 
17 
 
 senters were first removed ; next came the Emancipation of the 
 Roman Catholics. Ample provision was made for the education 
 of the poor. The police system was brought into full operation. 
 The smaller towns were enabled to govern themselves. Ireland 
 participated in Parliamentary Reform. The administration of 
 justice was improved by the appointment of stipendiary magis¬ 
 trates, and by the reform of the constitution of juries. The fiscal 
 powers of grand juries were regulated. Legal provision was made 
 for the relief of destitution. The municipal corporations were 
 placed on a broad and liberal basis. And finally, the improvement 
 of the laws relating to land was decisively commenced, by the in¬ 
 stitution of the Landed Estates Court. These are only the principal 
 elements in a series of measures which, taken in the aggregate, make 
 up the largest peaceful revolution in the history of the world. 
 
 Such a review of what has been done in our own time, and 
 almost within our own memory, is well fitted to remove all despond¬ 
 ency respecting the future course of legislation. That such great and 
 extensive reforms have been effected within so short a period by 
 the mere force of peaceful inquiry and discussion unanswerably 
 proves that the governing classes of the empire are perfectly acces¬ 
 sible to evidence and argument. In the constitution under which 
 we live, to carry any measure essential to the general welfare— 
 whatever special interests may be arrayed against it — it is only 
 necessary to appeal, by well established facts and sound reasoning, 
 to the intelligence and equity of our statesmen. The members of this 
 Society do not, as such, seek to intrude into the province of the poli¬ 
 tician. Our business is to discover and demonstrate, by the appli¬ 
 cation of scientific principles, the legislative action appropriate 
 to each phase of society and each group of economic conditions. At 
 what precise time, and in what particular form, our conclusions shall 
 be adopted in practice, is a question of political expediency, which 
 those who are acquainted with the varying exigencies of public life 
 can determine better than we. But it is encouraging to know that 
 in endeavouring, by our researches and discussions, to overthrow 
 error and to establish truth, we are labouring at no unpractical — no 
 hopeless—task ; that any wise suggestion developed here may one 
 day become a beneficent reality, a living agency for good ; and that 
 thus, without sitting in the councils of the State, or mingling in 
 the strife of parties, we may, each of us, do something towards the 
 improvement of the institutions of our country. 
 
18 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A Comparison between the English and Irish Poor Laws with respect 
 to the Conditions of Relief. 
 
 [Bead before the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Wednesday, 
 10th February, 1864.] 
 
 In the address which I had the honor of delivering before the 
 Society at the opening of the present session I pointed out certain 
 differences as existing between the English and Irish Poor Laws. 
 I expressed the opinion that these differences, being to the disad¬ 
 vantage of the Irish poor, were such as would naturally create or 
 foster discontent in this country. I contended that the restraints 
 on relief arising from the provisions of the Irish Poor Law tended 
 to impede the inevitable transformation of the lowest class of farmers 
 into labourers for wages, and to aggravate the inconveniences insepa¬ 
 rable from such a transition. And for these reasons I urged the pro¬ 
 priety of assimilating the laws relating to Poor Belief in the several 
 parts of the United Kingdom. 
 
 It was natural to expect some diversity of opinion on such a subject, 
 and I read with interest and respect whatever was written in a rational 
 and candid tone on the other side of the question. But I soon found 
 myself placed in a somewhat embarrassing position by the nature of 
 the replies which I received from different quarters. For, whilst 
 some persons, claiming for themselves an intimate acquaintance with 
 the subject, congratulated Ireland on having a sounder and safer 
 law than England, others, professing to be equally well informed, 
 asserted that no assimilation was necessary, the law in the two 
 countries being already in fact the same. The conversations and 
 correspondence I have since had with various persons have satisfied 
 me that there exists very general misapprehension, or at least vague¬ 
 ness and uncertainty, on the question of the identity or difference of 
 the two laws. 
 
 Now this question is considered by many of our fellow-countrymen 
 as one of great importance, and it is likely to occupy a good deal of 
 attention for some years to come. It is therefore highly desirable 
 that there should be no mistake or mystification about the exact 
 truth of the case. 
 
 One of the most useful functions of such a Society as this is that 
 °„ the public mind right about facts ; supplying the basis 
 
 ot statistics on which the reasonings of the practical Economist and 
 law Reformer ought to rest. Nor has the Society neglected its duty 
 m - r + a v 10n ^.° question before us. Several of its members have 
 
 R 01n ® ln P a pers read before you, particular differences between 
 \ an( ^, Irish P° or Law ; and these papers were my chief 
 authorities for the statements made in my address. But as they 
 regarded the subject from some special point of view, they did not 
 
19 
 
 enter on a general comparison of the conditions of relief prescribed 
 by the two laws. No accurate, and at the same time complete, com¬ 
 parison of this kind has yet, so far as I am aware, been brought 
 before either this Society or the Irish Public. Such an account of 
 the matter it is my present object to supply. In preparing it I have 
 relied only on original authorities—acts of Parliament, evidence before 
 Parliamentary committees, documents issued by the Poor Law Board, 
 Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, and the like. I have found the 
 subject a complex and difficult one, and the facts are in some respects 
 different from what I had anticipated. 
 
 You will observe that I do not propose in this paper to examine 
 the question, on which so much may be said, of the policy of a 
 more liberal outdoor relief in the present condition of Ireland. 
 My object is simply to state, as correctly as I can, the actual 
 facts—the provisions respecting Poor Relief now subsisting in Eng¬ 
 land and Ireland—and to exhibit the differences of the powers 
 vested in the English and Irish authorities, without discussing how 
 far it would be expedient that any such powers should be exercised. 
 I shall quote throughout, as far as possible, the exact words of 
 the several documents to which I appeal, and I shall furnish such 
 references to the sources of my information as will enable any one 
 who wishes to verify every statement I make. 
 
 When we speak of the English Poor Law, we must clearly distin¬ 
 guish between the statute law on the subject and the law as it is fixed 
 by the rules and orders of the Poor Law Board. The Amendment Act 
 of 1834, (4 & 5 William IV., c. 76) created for the first time a central 
 authority for the general control of the entire management of the poor 
 throughout England and Wales. Beyond condemning the then 
 prevalent abuse of the payment of wages in part out of the poor 
 rates, the Act scarcely at all interfered with the administration of 
 relief. But it gave to the Central Board very extensive powers ; 
 and they were authorized and required to make and issue all such 
 rules, orders, and regulations for the management of the poor and 
 the direction of matters connected therewith, as they should think 
 proper. In particular, it was provided in the Act above mentioned, 
 that “ from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for 
 the said Board, by such rules, orders, or regulations as they may 
 think fit, to declare to what extent and for what period the relief to 
 be given to ablebodied persons or to their families in any particular 
 parish or Union may be administered out of the workhouso of such 
 parish or Union, by payments in money, or with food or clothing in 
 kind, or partly in kind and partly in money, and in what proportions, 
 to what persons, or class of persons, at what times and places, on 
 what conditions, and in what manner such outdoor relief may be 
 afforded.” The orders of the Board framed in the exercise of these 
 powers can be issued to such Unions as they may think proper, and 
 can be suspended, altered, or revoked at their discretion. 
 
 What, then, is the nature of the English Law, with respect to the 
 conditions of relief, as laid down by the Orders of the Poor Law 
 Board ? I answer, there are in force two totally different codes for 
 different parts of England. One part of the country is governed by 
 
20 
 
 what is sometimes called the Prohibitory Order, dated the 21st of 
 December, 1844. The rest of the country is governed by what is 
 called the Out-relief Regulation Order, dated the 14th of December, 
 18^2. 
 
 Let me explain first the latter of these two, the Order of 1852. 
 Its essential provisions are contained in the articles which I am 
 about to quote :— 
 
 “Art. 1 . Whenever the guardians allow relief to any ablebodied 
 male person out of the workhouse, one-half at least of the relief so 
 allowed shall be given in articles of food and fuel, or in other articles 
 of absolute necessity. 
 
 “Art. 2. In any case in which the guardians allow relief for a longer 
 period than one week to an indigent poor person resident within 
 their union or parish respectively, without requiring that such person 
 shall be received into the workhouse, such relief shall be given or 
 administered weekly, or at such more frequent periods as they may 
 deem expedient. 
 
 “ Art. 5. No relief shall be given to any ablebodied male person 
 while he is employed for wages or other hire or remuneration by 
 any person. 
 
 “ Art. 6. Every ablebodied male person, if relieved out of the work- 
 house, shall be set to work by the guardians, and be kept employed 
 under their direction and superintendence so long as he continues 
 to receive relief. 
 
 “ Art. 7. Provided that the regulations in Arts. 5 and 6 shall not 
 be imperative in the following cases. 
 
 “ 1st. The case of a person receiving relief on account of sudden 
 and urgent necessity. 
 
 “ 2nd. The case of a person receiving relief on account of any 
 sickness, accident, or bodily or mental infirmity affecting such 
 person or any of his family. 
 
 “3rd. The case of a person receiving relief for the purpose of 
 defraying the expenses of the burial of any of his family. 
 
 “ 4th. The case of the wife, child, or children, of a person confined 
 in any gaol or place of safe custody. 
 
 “ 5th. The case of the wife, child, or children resident within the 
 parish or union, of a person not residing therein.” 
 
 The regulations, which I have read, whilst they provide sufficient 
 securities against fraud or abuse, are eminently liberal and considerate 
 towards the poor. But even these are not absolutely imperative in 
 cases where it appears to the guardians inexpedient to enforce them. 
 It is provided by Art. 10, that “If the guardians shall, upon 
 consideration of the special circumstances of any particular case, 
 deem it expedient to depart from any of the regulations hereinbefore 
 contained, and within twenty-one days after such departure shall 
 report the same and the grounds thereof to the Poor Law Board, the 
 rehef which may have been so given in such case by such guardians 
 beiore an answer to such report shall have been returned by the said 
 Board shall not be deemed to be contrary to the provisions of this 
 ° r ? er , ; Po ° r Law Board shall approve of such departure, 
 
 and shall notify such approval to the guardians, all relief given hi 
 
21 
 
 such case after such notification, so far as the same shall be in 
 accordance with the terms and conditions of such approval, shall be 
 lawful, anything to the contrary in this order notwithstanding.” 
 
 By this Order, you will observe, the granting of out-door relief in 
 any case whatever is left at the discretion of the Board of Guardians; 
 and is only fenced round with such regulations as to manner, time, 
 and other circumstances, as are necessary to prevent fraud on the 
 part of those relieved, or abuse on the part of the local authorities. 
 
 Let us next inquire—to what proportion of the population of 
 England and Wales does this Order of 1852 apply 1 I have copied 
 from the report of the English Poor Law Board for 1853 a list of 
 the unions and separate parishes to which the Order was issued, and 
 I have annexed to the name of each union and parish its population 
 as stated in the Census Beport of 1861.* 
 
 To these I have added certain other parishes, most of which are 
 under Local Acts, and to none of which, as the well-known Poor 
 Law Inspector Mr. Farnall informs us, the Prohibitory Order (to 
 be hereafter explained), has ever been issued.* 
 
 The result thus arrived at is that the Order of 1852 represents 
 the Poor Belief Legislation which is in force among more than 
 seven millions of the inhabitants of England and Wales, or about 
 33 per cent, of the population. The localities to which it applies 
 are for the most part metropolitan, or manufacturing, or maritime 
 districts, including (besides London), Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, 
 Sheffield, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Southampton, Sunderland, Coven¬ 
 try, and Nottingham. 
 
 Bearing in mind the liberal character of the law by which 
 these seven millions are governed, you will be able to under¬ 
 stand the force of some statements, which, when they appeared in 
 the public journals, attracted a good deal of attention. 
 
 Mr. Farnall, whose name has become familiar to us in connexion 
 with the relief of the distress in Lancashire arising from the cotton 
 famine, was examined before the Select Committee of the House of 
 Commons on Poor Belief which sate in 186 r. To the question 
 whether the relief given in the metropolitan districts was limited 
 by the Poor Law Board, he replies :— 
 
 “ Not in any way, either in-doors or out-of-doors; the guardians 
 have full power and authority to give any amount of relief they 
 please, either in-doors or out-of-doors: the only check, as it were, 
 upon relief is, that if relief is granted out-of-doors to an able-bodied 
 man, it shall be partly in money and partly in kind, but the amount 
 is not limited at all.” And he adds:— 
 
 “ That is the direction of an Order of the Poor Law Board.” And 
 again, when asked to explain the Out Belief Eegulation Order (the 
 same to which I have been calling your attention), he replies :— 
 
 “ 3054. It is this, that if the guardians give out-door relief to an 
 able-bodied man (it does not include the women at all), they shall set 
 him to work in return for the relief which he gets; and then there are 
 a great number of exceptions. If he has a child ill, or if his wife is 
 
 * See note, p. 34. 
 
22 
 
 ill, or if there is anything the matter, then he is taken out of the 
 class of able-bodied men. I have the order before me, and there 
 are a great many exceptions; in fact, the only person that the guar¬ 
 dians by this order are obliged to set to work is a man who is really 
 and positively able-bodied, and in every respect able to work, and 
 whose family are also perfectly well.” 
 
 It is under the provisions of this order of 185 2 that liberal poor 
 law relief has been extended to the suffering operatives of the cotton 
 districts, during the crisis arising out of the American civil war. 
 Some persons seem to suppose that there was some change or relax 
 ation of the previously existing law in order to meet the crisis ; hut 
 such a notion is quite erroneous. The characteristic elasticity of 
 the Order of 185 a enabled it to satisfy all the demands of this great 
 emergency. 
 
 A remarkable statement in relation to this subject was made by 
 Mr. Villiers, President of the Poor Law Board, to a deputation 
 from Lancashire, and afterwards repeated by him in substance in 
 the House of Commons (May 9th, 1862). I extract a portion of it 
 from Hansard, vol. clxvi. p. 1500 :— 
 
 “ He was happy [he said] to receive from all those unions replies 
 which indicated a very great confidence in themselves, and a know¬ 
 ledge and experience of the working of the system of public aid in 
 this country, which relieved him very much from some apprehensions 
 he had previously felt that they would be taken by surprise, and 
 that their means would prove inadequate to cope with the emer¬ 
 gency. There was throughout these answers an expression of satis¬ 
 faction with the present state of things, and, with very few excep¬ 
 tions, there was in all of them the expression of the conviction 
 that, come what might, they would be able to meet the emergency 
 by the ordinary resources which they possessed.” “ Prom one 
 statement [he proceeds] made by the deputation, it appeared that 
 the people of Lancashire were under great uncertainty and doubt as 
 to what the powers of the local poor law authorities were. There 
 appeared to be some apprehension that these authorities were fet¬ 
 tered, more or less, by some stringent rules of the Poor Law Board 
 in London. He was surprised that any such doubt should have 
 prevailed, but he was glad to have the opportunity of removing any 
 
 misapprehension that existed upon the subject.”.“ There 
 
 was nothing so stern or so stringent in any order issued by the Poor 
 Law Board which might not be relaxed, and might not be adapted 
 to. circumstances. The whole system was elastic, and capable of 
 being adapted to extraordinary circumstances. In the time of the 
 hon. member for Lincolnshire, some ten or twelve years ago, an 
 order was issued for the guidance of the authorities with respect to 
 relieving able-bodied persons. [He refers to the Order of 1852]. 
 I fie Order required that when relief was given, such able-bodied 
 persons should give work in return ; but in that Order exceptions 
 \vere specified, and instructions conveyed to-the authorities, that if 
 tfiey thought it desirable under certain circumstances to give relief 
 without exacting labour, they should do so for a period of twenty- 
 one days, and communicate to the Central Board the special circum- 
 
23 
 
 stances under which they thought it expedient to deviate from the 
 order. It was not a stringent rule, but one which was adapted to 
 every degree of distress.” With respect to the question, Whether 
 there was any stringent rule that required people to sell up house 
 and furniture before receiving relief, he says :—“ With respect to 
 selling their furniture and household goods, it had been the law for 
 nearly three centuries that those who asked for relief should possess 
 no property, and no doubt provisions in acts of parliament to that 
 effect were to be found; but no practical operation was given to 
 those provisions, and in no instance were the people required to 
 make such great sacrifices before they received relief.” 
 
 You will have observed that the statements respecting the law 
 here made by Mr. Yilliers are very general; they are not limited to 
 any district, but are expressed as if they applied to the entire coun¬ 
 try. This has probably caused a good deal of misapprehension on 
 the subject. I myself, I confess, was at first led by these statements 
 to suppose that the whole of England was governed by the Order of 
 1852. But this is not so. Whilst, as we have seen, 7,000,000 of 
 the population are subject to this order, the remaining 13,000,000 
 are governed by the Prohibitory Order of 1844. 
 
 By this Order (Art. 1.) it is directed that “ every able-bodied per¬ 
 son, male or female, requiring relief from any parish within any of 
 the said Unions, shall be relieved wholly in the workhouse of the 
 Union, together with such of the family of every such able-bodied 
 person as may be resident with him or her and may not be in em¬ 
 ployment, and together with the wife of every such able-bodied 
 male person, if he be a married man, and if she be resident with 
 him, save and except in the following cases [To the eight excep¬ 
 tions which follow I request your particular attention :] 
 
 “ 1st. Where such person shall require relief on account of sudden 
 and urgent necessity. 
 
 “ 2nd. Where such person shall require relief on account of any 
 sickness, accident, or bodily or mental infirmity affecting such per¬ 
 son, or any of his or her family. 
 
 “ 3rd. Where such person shall require relief for the purpose of 
 defraying the expenses, either wholly or in part, of the burial of any 
 of his or her family; 
 
 “ 4th. Where such person, being a widow, shall be in the first six 
 months of her widowhood ; 
 
 “ 5th. Where such person shall be a widow, and having a legiti¬ 
 mate child or legitimate children dependent upon her, and incapable 
 of earning his, her, or their livelihood, and have no illegitimate 
 child born after the commencement of her widowhood ; 
 
 “ 6th. Where such person shall be confined in any gaol or place 
 of safe custody. . . . . ; 
 
 “ 7th. Where such person shall be the wife or child of any able- 
 bodied man who shall be in the service of her Majesty as a soldier, 
 sailor, or marine; 
 
 “ 8th. Where any able-bodied person, not being a soldier, sailor, 
 or marine, shall not reside within the Union, but the wife, child, or 
 children of such person shall reside within the same, the Board of 
 
24 
 
 Guardians of the Union according to their discretion may afford 
 relief in the workhouse to such wife, child, or children, or may allow 
 out-door relief for any such child or children, being within the age 
 of nurture, and resident with the mother within the same.” 
 
 The importance to the poor of these eight exceptions, and the 
 liberal interpretation some of them receive, are well brought out in 
 an answer of Mr. Farnall, when under examination by the Commons 
 Committee of 1861. 
 
 “ .3052. Will you shortly state what the Prohibitory Order is ?— 
 The Prohibitory Order, which has been issued to a great number of 
 parishes and Unions in England, obliges the guardians to relieve 
 indoors every able-bodied person; but then there are many excep¬ 
 tions even to that rule; for instance, if a man has a sick child, he is 
 no longer considered to be able-bodied himself, and the relief would 
 be given out of doors; the Prohibitory Order, in fact, obliges the 
 guardians to relieve in the workhouse men who are perfectly able to 
 work, and perfectly well in mind and body, and whose wives and 
 children, if they have any, are equally well with themselves.” If to 
 these remarks of Mr. Farnall we add the observations naturally sug¬ 
 gested by the exceptions relating to widows, to the families of soldiers 
 and sailors, and to those of prisoners, and to wives deserted by their 
 husbands, we shall conclude that this Order, though far inferior in 
 liberality to that of 1852, is yet not unduly harsh or wanting in 
 consideration to the poor. 
 
 Turning now to the case of Ireland, we shall find that the Poor 
 Law under which we live is different from both the systems which 
 are in force in England, and is less liberal than either of them. 
 
 The broadest contrast between the English and Irish laws consists 
 in this, that in Ireland the conditions and nature of the relief to be 
 afforded are prescribed not, as in England, by general orders of the 
 Poor Law Commissioners, but by Acts of Parliament. This pro¬ 
 duces, instead of the elasticity which is so much and so justly 
 praised in the English system,* a degree of rigidity which makes it 
 far inferior in adaptability to special temporary or local exigencies. 
 If a great agricultural crisis should occur in England from the 
 universal failure of a staple crop, or from any other cause now un¬ 
 foreseen, the Poor Law Board could at once extend the order of 
 1852 to the whole of the country. But no such change could be 
 made by the Commissioners in Ireland; the main restrictions being 
 statutable, the intervention of Parliament would be necessary for any 
 relaxation of them. 
 
 Even independently of the powers possessed by the English Poor 
 Law Board of issuing new orders or revoking or modifying old ones, 
 the system established by their Order of 1852 is in a very high 
 
 . v „ The advantage, to quote the words of Sir George Nicholls, [History of 
 P°or Law, voi. ii., p. 457], “of having a flexible power of this 
 ] fi dge J h th e Commissioners and ready for use as occasions arise, is 
 13 ob ™ u ;l- . Wlthou t lt > administration of relief under the varying 
 be ? f the tune ® 1 “uid not be well and efficiently conducted, but would 
 
 and suffering to the poor, or to become lax, 
 maiscnminatmg, and burthensome to the rate-payer.’’ 
 
25 
 
 degree elastic. It fully sufficed to meet the crisis at Coventry 
 produced by the treaty of commerce with France; and it has proved 
 equal to the emergency in Lancashire arising from the stoppage in 
 the supplies of cotton. But in Ireland we not only do not live under 
 this system of Poor Law, hut our Commissioners, even if they thought 
 it expedient, and desired it ever so much, could not bring similar 
 provisions into operation here. Let me suppose a case which 
 will illustrate the inferiority of our position as compared with those 
 English districts which are governed by the Order of 1852. Our 
 most important manufacture is that of linen. A considerable part 
 of the population of Ulster is occupied in it, and efforts are even now 
 being made to extend it to other provinces. We import a large part 
 of the raw material from foreign countries, particularly from Eussia 
 and Prussia. Suppose that by some European complication we 
 were engaged in hostilities with these two countries—a supposition 
 which, in the present state of foreign politics, is surely not an 
 extravagant one—our supplies of flax would thus be in a great 
 measure cut off, and the operatives of Antrim and Armagh thrown 
 out of employment. In fact, the linen trade of Ulster might be as 
 completely paralysed as the cotton trade of Lancashire. Now, under 
 such circumstances, we should not have anything like the same faci¬ 
 lities for dealing with the crisis as the English manufacturers possess 
 under the Order of 1852. The Poor Law Commissioners could not 
 reassure the sinking courage of the employers of labour in our 
 northern counties with the same words which Mr. Villiers addressed 
 to the Lancashire deputation. They could not say, “ Gentlemen, no 
 stringent rules fetter your action; you have full power to give indoor 
 or outdoor relief at your discretion; applicants need not sell their 
 furniture or break up their homes; the only condition imposed on 
 you is to require from the ablebodied men labour in return for the 
 relief they obtain.” But more than this. The Commissioners, if 
 they wished, could not confer on the guardians ampler powers. 
 Queeu, Lords, and Commons must be set in motion to do it. If the 
 difficulty occurred, as it would be most likely to occur, in the autumn; 
 if it was then found that the new crops from Eussia and Prussia 
 could not be brought to our shores, and the consequent distress set 
 in as the winter approached ; parliament would actually have to be 
 called together, before outdoor relief could be administered in the 
 same manner and on the same conditions as it is now daily given in 
 Lancashire without the necessity of any such cumbrous and dilatory 
 proceedings. 
 
 If we are to discover in England any parallel to the Irish Poor 
 Law, it must be in the Order of 1844. But when we come to com¬ 
 pare it even with this, we find that, though our system has a much 
 closer resemblance to it than to the state of things established by the 
 Order of 1852, the Irish law is yet inferior to the less liberal of the 
 English codes in many and important particulars. 
 
 Let me first explain the provisions of the Irish Poor Law now in 
 force. 
 
 By the Irish Poor Belief Act of 1838 (1 & 2 Vic. c. 56), it was 
 enacted (sect. 41) that when the Commissioners created by the Act 
 
26 
 
 should have declared any workhouse of any Union to be fit for the 
 reception of destitute poor, and not before, it should be lawful for the 
 guardians at their discretion, but subject in all cases to the orders of 
 the Commissioners, to take order for relieving and setting to work 
 therein, in the first place, such destitute poor persons as by reason 
 of old age, infirmity, or defect may be unable to support themselves, 
 and destitute children ; and in the next place such other persons as 
 the said guardians should deem to be destitute poor, and unable to 
 support themselves by their own industry or by other lawful means. 
 
 The only kind of relief authorized by this Act was that given 
 within the workhouse, and no other was permitted by law until the 
 enactment of io & 11 Vic. c. 31 (1847), commonly known as the Irish 
 Poor Eelief Extension Act. The first and second sections of this 
 Act contain the provisions relating to the conditions of relief. 
 
 The first enacts that “the Guardians of the poor of every Union in 
 Ireland shall make provision for the due relief of all such destitute 
 poor persons as are permanently disabled from labour by reason of 
 old age, infirmity, or bodily or mental defect—and of such destitute 
 poor persons as, being disabled from labour by reason of severe 
 sickness or serious accident, are thereby deprived of the means of 
 earning a subsistence for themselves and their families whom they 
 are liable by law to maintain—and of destitute poor widows having 
 two or more legitimate children dependent upon them ; and it shall 
 be lawful for the said guardians to relieve such poor persons, being 
 destitute as aforesaid, either in the workhouse or out of the work- 
 house, as to them shall appear fitting and expedient in each indi¬ 
 vidual case ; and the said Guardians shall take order for relieving 
 and setting to work in the workhouse of the Union, at all times 
 when there shall be sufficient room in the workhouse of the Union 
 to enable them so to do, such other persons as the said Guardians 
 shall deem to be destitute poor and unable to support themselves 
 by their own industry or by other lawful means.” 
 
 In the second section the circumstances are described under which 
 the Irish Commissioners are permitted to authorize outdoor relief to 
 other classes than those named in the first section. 
 
 “ And be it enacted that, if at any time it shall be shown to the 
 satisfaction of the Poor Law Commissioners, that, by reason of the 
 want of room in the workhouse of any Union, or in such additional 
 workhouse or workhouses as may have been or may be provided for 
 the reception and maintenance of the poor of such Union, adequate 
 relief cannot be afforded therein to destitute poor persons not being 
 persons permanently disabled, or destitute poor persons disabled by 
 sickness or accident as aforesaid, or such destitute poor widows as 
 aforesaid or that the workhouse or workhouses of any Union, as 
 the case may be, by reason of fever or infectious disease, is or are 
 unfit for the reception of poor persons—it shall be lawful for the 
 said Commissioners from time to time, by order under their seal, 
 to authorize and empower the Guardians of such Union to admi- 
 raster relief out of the workhouse to such destitute poor persons for 
 oXr™f exceeding two calendar months from the date of such 
 an a any time after the making of such order to revoke 
 
27 
 
 the same by an order under their seal for that purpose ; and on the 
 receipt by the Guardians of any Union of any such order authorizing 
 relief out of the workhouse as aforesaid, they shall make provision 
 for the relief of the destitute poor persons of the said Union accord¬ 
 ingly, for such time as shall be specified in the said order, or until 
 the said order shall be revoked : provided always that all relief 
 given out of the workhouse to able-bodied persons under the 
 authority of any such order shall be given in food only, save as 
 hereinafter provided in any case of sudden and urgent necessity.” 
 [This saving clause has reference to the powers here, as in England, 
 given to relieving officers of affording relief in pressing cases until 
 the next succeeding meeting of the Board of Guardians.] 
 
 The conditions of relief in Ireland are at present in the main 
 fixed by these two sections. Now if we compare the provisions 
 thus enacted with even those regulations which prevail in the less 
 favoured English districts governed by the Order of 1844, we shall 
 find the following differences to exist:— 
 
 1. In England the Guardians can grant outdoor relief to able- 
 
 bodied persons in any case of sudden and urgent necessity. 
 [This power is additional to that given in both countries to 
 the relieving officer.] 
 
 In Ireland the only case of this kind provided for is that of 
 persons evicted from their dwellings, to whom, by 11 & 12 
 Yic. c. 47, (1848), the Guardians can give outdoor relief 
 for a period not exceeding one month. 
 
 2 . In England the Guardians can grant outdoor relief to able- 
 
 bodied persons in case of any sickness, accident, or bodily 
 or mental infirmity affecting either themselves or any 
 of their family. 
 
 In Ireland the Guardians are not permitted to grant it (sup¬ 
 posing the workhouse not full or infected) except in case 
 of the head of the family himself being disabled by severe 
 sickness or serious accident.* 
 
 3. In England an able-bodied person may obtain outdoor relief 
 
 for the purpose of defraying, wholly or partially, the ex¬ 
 penses of the burial of any member of his family. 
 
 In Ireland no such power exists. 
 
 4. To all widows the Guardians may in England grant outdoor 
 
 relief during the first six months of their widowhood. 
 
 In Ireland the Guardians cannot do so. 
 
 5. In England outdoor relief may be granted at any time to a 
 
 widow having one legitimate child depending on her. 
 
 In Ireland the Guardians cannot grant it to a widow, unless 
 she have at least two legitimate children depending on her. 
 
 6. In England outdoor relief may be granted to the family of 
 
 any person confined in a gaol or other place of safe custody 
 (which latter phrase will include lunatics). 
 
 In Ireland there is no such power. 
 
 * The epithets “ severe ” and “ serious ” are not without significance in the 
 present comparison. In the English Order the words used are simply “sick¬ 
 ness” and “ accident.” 
 
28 
 
 •j. In England outdoor relief may be granted to the wife and 
 children of any soldier, sailor, or marine in Her Majesty’s 
 service. 
 
 In Ireland (which furnishes no small proportion of such 
 servants of the crown) such relief cannot be given. 
 
 8. In England outdoor relief may be allowed for the children 
 of non-resident persons, when those children reside with 
 their mothers within the union ; and thus provision is 
 made for families deserted by their natural heads. 
 
 In Ireland the Guardians have no such power. 
 
 Thus, the detailed comparison which 1 have instituted establishes 
 beyond doubt or cavil this important conclusion, that the inhabitants 
 of Ireland are governed by a system of Poor Law which is marked 
 by broad and substantial differences from either of the two systems 
 in force in England. It will be observed, also, that all the differ¬ 
 ences I have mentioned are to the disadvantage of the Irish as 
 compared with the English poor. 
 
 There is a further general difference between the English and 
 Irish Poor Laws, in relation to the legal right of destitute persons to 
 relief out of the rates. The existence of the right in England I 
 need not take pains to establish ; it is admitted by every one. But 
 it is sometimes alleged that the same right exists in Ireland. Such 
 a statement I believe to be incorrect. It cannot be maintained, 
 and indeed, I think, is never asserted that the Irish Poor Law Act of 
 1838 created the right. It was certainly not intended by its fra¬ 
 mers that it should have that effect. Sir George (then Mr.) Mcholls 
 6ays distinctly in his First Eeport (dated 22nd August, 1836):— “I 
 do not propose to impart a right to relief, even to the destitute.” 
 And he quotes in his History of the Irish Poor Law (p. 221) the fol¬ 
 lowing note entered in his Journal after the third reading of the Bill: 
 —“ The bill is now clear of the Lords, altered and in some respects 
 improved, although the localization of the charge upon the Electoral 
 divisions approximates too nearly to settlement to be quite satisfac¬ 
 tory. I wish this had been left as it 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.” 
 
 But, it may be said, a right to relief was established by the Irish 
 Extension Act (ro & 11 Vie. c. 31). So far as relates to the classes 
 named in the first section of that act, viz. 1, persons disabled by old 
 age or infirmity ; 2. persons disabled by sickness or serious accident, 
 and 3. widows having two or more legitimate children dependent 
 on them, such a right does seem to be conferred by this Act. “ The 
 guardians, it is enacted, “ shall make provision for the due relief of 
 all such destitute poor persons.” But, with respect to the other classes 
 « tu C ^ eS j^ U ^ e ’ ^ * s remar kable that different words are used :— 
 ine guardians shall take order for relieving such other persons as 
 they shall deem to be destitute poor.” Why the change in the form 
 o words, if no change in their effect was intended 1 Such a change 
 was, 1 believe, intended, and is produced, by the alteration of the 
 
29 
 
 words. With respect to persons not aged, infirm, or widows, the 
 opinion of the guardians is made the ultimate legal criterion of 
 destitution. The guardians are bound to examine into the case of 
 any applicant, and if they refuse to hear it, a mandamus would 
 issue to compel them to do so. But it would be a complete bar to 
 legal proceedings against them, if they could reply that they had 
 heard the case, and did not deem the applicant to be destitute. 
 Whereas, under the English law, where this form of words is no¬ 
 where used, they would have to plead not merely that they had 
 heard and judged the case, but that the person who had applied for 
 relief was not, in point of fact, in such circumstances as would 
 entitle him to relief. 
 
 That this is the legal effect of the words cannot of course be as¬ 
 certained beyond doubt, otherwise than by a judicial decision as to 
 their meaning. But, in the absence of such a decision, I may be 
 permitted to refer to some remarks which were made in Parliament 
 during the debate on the Act we are considering, -which show that 
 it was not then understood as conferring a right to relief on all 
 classes of the destitute. 
 
 On the 26th January, 1847, Mr. Poulett Scrope, member for 
 Stroud, said, “ he wished to know distinctly whether any security 
 would be introduced into the Bill that the relief might in all cases 
 be effectually afforded ] . . Was a right of relief to be introduced in 
 any practical way 1 ” Earl (then Lord John) Russell, who had charge 
 of the Bill, replied that, “ according to the provisions of the Bill 
 introduced last night, those paupers who were unable to work, from 
 age, from permanent infirmity, or bodily defect, would be entitled 
 to relief from Boards of Guardians. For other classes of paupers 
 provision was made for particular cases.” 
 
 On the 1st. March, 1847, Mr. Poulett Scrope said, “there was 
 one alteration which he thought of very material importance, viz. 
 that there should be a right of relief, in some shape or other, in the 
 workhouse or out of it; so that in Ireland, as in England, no one 
 should be allowed to starve.” On the 19th of the same month Mr. 
 Wakley, member for Finsbury, said “they were giving to the Irish 
 poor at present a right to relief in another country which they were 
 not to have in their own; which, in his opinion, was a departure 
 from the highest principles of justice and humanity, and alike 
 unworthy of, and disgraceful to, a British Legislature.” 
 
 These observations show very plainly what was at the time 
 believed to be the effect of the Act. Upon the whole, the weight of 
 evidence seems to me decidedly to preponderate in favour of the 
 opinion that the general right to relief possessed by the destitute in 
 England does not exist in this country. 
 
 I have as yet spoken only of such differences between the English 
 and Irish Poor Laws as are of a broad and prominent kind, having 
 relation to large classes and not to special or exceptional cases. But 
 when we come to examine the latter, we find a great mass of these 
 minor differences, in which the superiority, as it regards humanity 
 and liberality, is almost always on the side of the English system. 
 
 Thus, it is provided by the 27 th section of the English Poor Law 
 
30 
 
 Amendment Act, that “ it shall he lawful for any two justices of the 
 peace, at their just and proper discretion, to direct by order under 
 their hands and seals that relief shall he given to any adult person 
 who shall from old age or infirmity of body he wholly unable to 
 work, without requiring that such persons shall reside in any work- 
 house ; provided always that one of such justices shall certify in 
 such order, of his own knowledge, that such person is wholly unable 
 to work/’ This power, it is to be observed, is distinct from, and 
 additional to, the powers of the Guardians for granting relief. No 
 such power is vested in magistrates in Ireland: the decision whether 
 outdoor relief shall be given to any aged and infirm person belongs 
 altogether to the Guardians, and from their judgment in the matter 
 there is no appeal. 
 
 Again, it is humanely enacted by 7 & 8 Yict. c. 101, s. 25, that 
 “ so long as it may appear that the husband of any woman is beyond 
 the seas, or in custody of the law, or in confinement in a licensed 
 house or asylum as a lunatic or idiot, all relief given to such woman, 
 or to her child or children, shall, notwithstanding her coverture, be 
 given to such woman in the same manner and subject to the same 
 conditions as if she was a widow.” By this enactment, which over¬ 
 rules any order of the Poor Law Board, guardians are enabled to 
 grant out-door relief to such women in the same cases as they could 
 give it to widows. No such provision exists in Ireland; and 
 guardians are not permitted to extend to women in the circum¬ 
 stances above mentioned the privilege accorded to them by the 
 English law. 
 
 Thirdly, it is provided by 10 & 11 Viet. c. 109, sec. 23, that 
 “ when any two persons, being husband and wife, both of whom 
 shall be above the age of sixty years, shall be received into any 
 workhouse, such two persons shall not be compelled to live separate 
 and apart in such workhouse.” The Consolidated Order of the Poor 
 Law Board accordingly directs “ that the guardians shall set apart, 
 for the exclusive use of every such couple, a sleeping apartment 
 separate from that of the other paupers.” No such provision as the 
 above exists in the Irish law; and the rules respecting the classifi¬ 
 cation of the inmates of Irish workhouses make no arrangement to 
 prevent the separation of aged married persons. 
 
 The fourth special difference which I shall mention has relation 
 to what is called the Quarter Acre Clause. It was enacted by the 
 Irish Poor Belief Extension Act, sect. 10, that “no person who 
 should be in the occupation of any land of greater extent than the 
 quarter of a statute acre should be deemed and taken to be a destitute 
 poor person .... and that, if any person so occupying more 
 than the quarter of a statute acre should apply for relief, or if any 
 person on his behalf should apply for relief, it should not be lawful 
 for any board of guardians to grant such relief, within or without 
 the workhouse, to such person.” This clause was ere long condemned 
 by public opinion, and it became necessary to repeal it. Accordingly, 
 m introducing the Poor Belief (Ireland) Bill of 1862, Sir Bobert 
 Peel said “ The first and most important clause in the Bill pro¬ 
 posed the repeal of the Quarter Acre Clause. In neither England 
 
31 
 
 nor Scotland did any similar restriction exist." And the Duke of 
 Newcastle, in moving the second reading of the same Bill in the 
 House of Lords, “ apprehended their Lordships would agree with 
 him that the clause ought to be repealed, and the law in that respect 
 placed on the same footing as it now stood in England and Scotland.” 
 But an Irish peer, I regret to say, interfered to prevent the assimila¬ 
 tion. The Earl of Donoughmore proposed an amendment that 
 though the holder of more than a quarter acre might he relieved in 
 the workhouse, he should be incapable of obtaining out-door relief. 
 This amendment was incorporated in the Bill; and the consequence 
 is that the law respecting this class of persons in Ireland has not 
 yet been placed on the same footing on which it stands in the sister 
 country. 
 
 The fifth and sixth special differences which I shall mention were 
 brought under our notice in this Society since my address was 
 delivered. At the last meeting two of our members, without any 
 reference to the comparison I have been instituting between the 
 English and Irish Poor Laws, advocated, the one the removal of 
 young girls from workhouses to training schools, the other the 
 removal of imbecile and idiotic persons from workhouses to institu¬ 
 tions in which they could be properly tended, and the feeble germs 
 of intelligence within them be, as far as possible, developed. Strange 
 to say, it appeared—though the writers were, I believe, unaware of 
 the fact—that the English law made provision for both of these 
 cases, while in the Irish law both were overlooked. The 25 & 2 6 
 Yict. (1862) c. 43, after stating in its preamble that it is expedient 
 that facilities should be given to Guardians of the poor to provide 
 education and maintenance for poor children in certain cases where 
 they are not empowered to do so by the laws now in force,” goes on 
 to enact (sect. 1) that “the guardians of any parish or Union may 
 send any poor child to any school certified as hereinafter mentioned, 
 and supported wholly or partially by voluntary subscriptions, the 
 managers of which shall be willing to receive such child ; and may 
 pay out of the funds in their possession the expenses incurred in 
 the maintenance, clothing, and education of such child therein, during 
 the time such child shall remain at such school (not exceeding the 
 total sum which would have been charged for the maintenance of 
 such child, if relieved in the workhouse during the same period), 
 &c.” 
 
 And in the 10th section it is provided that the word “school” 
 shall extend to any institution established for the instruction of 
 blind, deaf, dumb, lame, deformed, or idiotic persons. 
 
 But the 1 ith section, unhappily, runs as follows :—“ This Act 
 shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland;” and thus the benefits 
 conferred on our English fellow-subjects by this enlightened enact¬ 
 ment are withheld from us. 
 
 Two years ago we were in advance of England with respect to 
 legislation on behalf of the unhappy classes enumerated in the 10th 
 section. Eor by the 6 & 7 Yic. (1843), c. 92, Guardians had been 
 empowered to send destitute poor deaf and dumb or blind children, 
 under the age of eighteen, to any institution for their maintenance 
 
32 
 
 which might be approved of by the Commissioners, and might pay 
 the expenses of such maintenance out of the rates. When this Act 
 was passed, the powers it bestowed on Irish guardians did not exist 
 in England; but we have again been outstripped in the race of im¬ 
 provement by the more comprehensive provisions of the Act of 1862, 
 which, as we have seen, does not extend to Ireland. 
 
 I am glad to be able to state that there is one piece of legislation 
 which places us still somewhat in advance of England. I mean 
 the provision in the Act of 1862, enabling Irish Guardians to 
 send orphan or deserted children out of the workhouse to be reared 
 in families in the country. No such provision appears to exist in 
 England, the system of district schools having there been adopted 
 instead. But here again the rigid genius of the Irish Poor Law 
 has intervened, and has restricted the age up to which this can 
 be done to five years, except when the Guardians shall think it neces¬ 
 sary, after inquiry, to keep the child out of the workhouse for its 
 health’s sake. A yearly examination of the state of the child’s health 
 must in this case take Iplace, and the out-maintenance of the child 
 cannot under any circumstances be continued beyond the age of 
 eight years. These restrictions defeat the principal objects which 
 the advocates of this mode of rearing the children had in view in 
 proposing it. 
 
 The waste of social power produced by the system of separate 
 legislation for the different portions of the United Kingdom is well 
 illustrated by the Act respecting certified institutions of which I 
 spoke just now. A valuable reform is, by the influence of Miss 
 Twining and others, pressed on the attention of our legislators, and 
 they are induced to provide the legal sanction necessary for its 
 practical working in England. But Ireland and Scotland are excluded 
 frem the operation of the Act, and accordingly, when the same social 
 needs arise in those countries, as they inevitably must in states of 
 society so closely resembling that of England, the whole operation 
 of inquiry, argument, solicitation, legislation must be gone through 
 over again in both, before the same facilities can be obtained for 
 introducing changes admittedly beneficial to the public. Such a 
 mode of proceeding is too clearly opposed to the spirit of our time 
 to be much longer tolerated. 
 
 The best safeguard for a poorer and less cultivated community, 
 bound by a legislative union to a richer and more advanced one, 
 lies in identity of legislation as far as possible for both. When 
 that is the practice, the stronger nation, in taking care of itself, 
 takes care of its weaker partner. Every improvement which 
 a powerful and enlightened public opinion effects in the one becomes, 
 without separate effort, the property of the other. If this rule be 
 carried out with relation to England and Ireland, the latter will be 
 continually gaining the benefit of the larger experience and riper 
 reflection of the former; and the union will be productive of real and 
 undeniable blessmgs. 
 
 Princ l? le , 0p identical legislation might doubtless be carried 
 nfrr°,T le ^ en S^s. All practical rules,—as the common sense 
 ot mankind has recognised—admit of exceptions. In some cases the 
 

 33 
 
 particular historical antecedents or social condition of Ireland may 
 recommend, or even necessitate, special legislation adapted to her 
 circumstances. But identity ought to he the rule; and in every 
 instance the onus of proving the necessity or advantage of diversity 
 should he thrown on those who seek to introduce or maintain it. 
 
 The regulations of a poor law ought to he founded either on the facts 
 of individual human nature, or on the relations and mutual duties of tho 
 members of a human family. Those facts are the same in Ireland as in 
 England; these relations are alike sacred on both sides of the channel. 
 Whether aged couples should he separated in a workhouse—whether 
 widows with one child, or widows with two, ought to have outdoor 
 relief—whether deserted wives should he placed in the same position 
 as widows—whether the wives of soldiers and sailors in Her Majesty’s 
 service are entitled to any special consideration—whether the occu¬ 
 pation of a quarter acre of land should exclude from outdoor relief 
 —these are questions which, if decided by reason, and not either by 
 prejudice or by haphazard, must, I think, be answered alike, whether 
 proposed in the one country or in the other. 
 
 What is now, above all things, to be desired with respect to the 
 Poor Laws, is that the same discretionary powers vested in the Eng¬ 
 lish Poor Law Board should be confided to the Irish Commissioners. 
 Whatever may be our opinions as to the extent to which outdoor 
 relief ought now to be given in Ireland, the same power of authori¬ 
 zing it, whenever and wherever circumstances may require it, ought 
 to belong to the central authorities in both countries. The joint 
 action of the Poor Law Board and the Guardians of each Union is in 
 England almost absolutely unrestricted; I do not see why in Ireland 
 it should be hampered and fettered as it is. Our Poor Law authorities 
 ought, like those in England, to be armed with all the power necessary 
 for dealing in the most complete and satisfactory manner with indus¬ 
 trial crises ; and for preventing and mitigating, as effectually as in 
 England, the unmerited sufferings of the working classes arising 
 from circumstances beyond their control. That temporary or local 
 pressure produced by irresistible physical or social causes acting on 
 a great scale can be effectually met by human intervention is one 
 of the best results of modern civilization ; and this advantage 
 ought, in my opinion, to be enjoyed by Ireland in no less ample a 
 measure than by the sister country. 
 
34 
 
 NOTE referred to in page 21. 
 
 Unions to which the order of 1852 was issued :— 
 
 A nglesey 
 
 17,840 
 
 Ashton-under-Lyne 
 
 134,753 
 
 Barnsley 
 
 45,797 
 
 Barton-upon-Ir well 
 
 39, 0 38 
 
 Bierley, North ... 
 
 85,775 
 
 Blackburn 
 
 119,942 
 
 Bolton ... 
 
 130,269 
 
 Boughton, Great 
 
 18,800 
 
 Bradford (in the West 
 Riding of Yorkshire),.. 
 
 106,218 
 
 Brentford 
 
 50,516 
 
 Builth 
 
 8,305 
 
 Burnley ... 
 
 75,595 
 
 Bury 
 
 101,135 
 
 44,780 
 
 Carlisle ... 
 
 Chichester 
 
 8,687 
 
 City of London. 
 
 45,555 
 
 Chorley ... 
 
 41,678 
 
 Chorlton... 
 
 i 69,579 
 
 Clitheroe... 
 
 20,476 
 
 Conway ... 
 
 13,896 
 
 Coventry 
 
 41,647 
 
 Dewsbury 
 
 92,883 
 
 Dolgelly ... 
 
 12,482 
 
 Dulverton 
 
 6,051 
 
 East London 
 
 40,687 
 
 Ecclesall Bierlow 
 
 63,618 
 
 Edmonton 
 
 59,312 
 
 Fulham ... 
 
 40,058 
 
 Fylde, The 
 
 25,682 
 
 Garstang... 
 
 12,425 
 
 Gateshead 
 
 59,409 
 
 Greenwich 
 
 127,670 
 
 Hackney 
 
 83,295 
 
 Halifax ... 
 
 128,673 
 
 Haslingden 
 
 69,781 
 
 Hems worth 
 
 7,793 
 
 Hendon ... 
 
 19,220 
 
 Holborn ... 
 
 44,299 
 
 Huddersfield 
 
 13 L 336 
 
 Keighley... 
 
 43,122 
 
 Kendal ... 
 
 37,463 
 
 King’s Lynn 
 
 16,701 
 
 Kingston-upon-Hull 
 
 56,888 
 
 Lampeter 
 
 9,994 
 
 Lancaster . 
 
 24,004 
 
 Leicester... 
 
 68,190 
 
 Leigh 
 
 37 , 7 oo 
 
 Lewisham 
 
 65,757 
 
 Machynlleth 
 
 12,395 
 
 Merthyr Tydvil ... 
 
 107,105 
 
 Mutford and Lothingland 
 
 24,050 
 
 Newcastle-upon-Tyne ... 
 
 110,968 
 
 Northallerton 
 
 12,174 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 74,693 
 
 Norwich ... 
 
 74,329 
 
 Oldham ... 
 
 111,276 
 
 Pately Bridge ... 
 
 9,534 
 
 Penistone 
 
 14,419 
 
 Poplar 
 
 79,196 
 
 Prescot ... 
 
 73,127 
 
 Presteigne 
 
 3 , 74 i 
 
 Preston ... 
 
 110,523 
 
 Prestwich 
 
 58,578 
 
 Radford ... 
 
 30,479 
 
 Rhayader 
 
 6,316 
 
 Stepney ... 
 
 56,572 
 
 Stockport . 
 
 94,335 
 
 Strand 
 
 42,898 
 
 Sunderland 
 
 90,704 
 
 Todmorden 
 
 3 i,n 3 
 
 Tregaron 
 
 io ,737 
 
 Ulverstone 
 
 35,738 
 
 Wakefield . 
 
 53,126 
 
 W andsworth and Clapham 
 
 70,403 
 
 W arrington 
 
 43,875 
 
 West Derby 
 
 156,561 
 
 West London 
 
 26,997 
 
 Whitechapel 
 
 78 , 9/0 
 
 Wigan 
 
 94 , 56 i 
 
 Wight, Isle of ... 
 
 55,362 
 
 Wortley ... 
 
 24,092 
 
 Total, 
 
 4 , 583,721 
 
 Parishes to which the order 0/1852 was issued :— 
 
 Leeds 
 
 Liverpool 
 
 Manchester 
 
 Paddington 
 
 St. George in the East ... 
 St. George the Martyr, 
 Southwark 
 
 St. Giles, Camberwell ... 
 St. John, Hampstead ... 
 St. Luke, Chelsea 
 St. Martin in the Fields 
 
 * 17,566 
 
 269,742 
 
 185,410 
 
 75,784 
 
 48,891 
 
 55,5 'o 
 71,488 
 19,106 
 63,439 
 22,689 
 
 St. Mary Abbots, Ken¬ 
 sington 
 
 St. Mary, Lambeth 
 St. Mary Magdalen, Ber¬ 
 mondsey 
 
 St. Mary, Rotherhithe ... 
 St. Matthew, Bethnal 
 Green ... 
 
 Total, 
 
 70,108 
 
 162,044 
 
 58,355 
 
 24,5 02 
 
 105,101 
 
 1 , 349,735 
 
35 
 
 Additional Parishes to which the Order of 1844 has never leen issued :— 
 
 Clerkenwell ... ... 65,681 
 
 St. George, Hanover Sq. 87,771 
 
 St. Giles and St. George, 
 
 Bloomsbury. 54,076 
 
 St. Mary, Islington ... 155,341 
 
 St. James, Westminster 35,326 
 
 St. Luke, Middlesex ... 57,073 
 
 St. Marylebone ... ... 161,680 
 
 Aggregate T 
 
 St. Margaret and St. Jokn, 
 
 —cry ~ w ~ w 
 
 Westminster ... 
 
 68.213 
 
 St. Pancras 
 
 108,788 
 
 St. Mary, Newington ... 
 
 82,220 
 
 Shoreditch 
 
 129,364 
 
 Total, 
 
 1 , 095,533 
 
 l, 7,028,989 
 
 
:»!f 
 
 V.‘ 
 
 • • • 
 
 • l 
 
 • i 
 
 •;i! 
 
 • . 
 
 • • 
 
 vv: 
 
 
 }•. 
 
 mn 
 
 • w * • 
 
 ' *• • 1 • a 
 
 • ' , * * • 
 
 • i X* 
 ;• $