Evils of the state of Ireland : their causes, and their remedy--a poor law

Introduction

Having held the office of Secretary to the Poor Law Inquiry for England and Wales, which led to the Amendment of the Laws in 1834, and subsequently that of Secretary to the Poor Inquiry Commission in Ireland, I have had peculiar opportunities for contrasting a state of society in which the most extensive public provision for the destitute has long been established, with one in which there is as little public provision as in any country in Europe. No other person has enjoyed equal opportunities, for no other person was engaged on both inquiries. The power of making the contrast is thus almost peculiarly mine. It becomes therefore my duty, as a public servant, to lay the knowledge which favourable circumstances have enabled me to acquire before the country, in order that it may come to a correct judgment respecting the important subject in the inquiry about which I was appointed to assist. I would hope that by thus attempting to be useful I take the best means of showing myself worthy of the two important trusts which his Majesty's Government thought fit to confer upon me.

Few, perhaps, will be able to conceive, that the mode in which the destitute in society shall be subsisted can afford matter for very grave consideration. The mass of mankind consider it purely a question of benevolence to the poor, or of convenience to the wealthy. They are not aware that it is intimately connected with wages, with capital, with rent, with crime, with population, and even with education ; and that it vitally affects the interests of every member of society, although apparently only concerning a very insignificant portion of a single class.

From the investigation which 1 was enabled to make in the four years during which 1 was engaged upon the two inquiries, I am convinced that the advantages of a public provision for the destitute able-bodied greatly preponderate over the evils ; and that to the absence of Poor Laws in Ireland, and to the

B existence of them in England, the present difference between those countries, both for centuries under the same Government, and with nearly the same laws, is mainly attributable. With Poor Laws the people of England have become the most comfortable, whilst, without them, the people of Ireland have remained the most wretched community in Europe. In Ireland, famine is almost of annual recurrence ; crime is there frightful, both from its atrocity and its extent ; agriculture in the rudest state ; manufactures scarcely in existence ; and the country overrun with hordes of wandering mendicants. In England famine is now only matter of history ; crime less perhaps than in any other country ; agriculture in the highest perfection ; and manufactures, both in extent and in perfection, are unrivalled. Yet the people of Ireland are clever, industrious, and kind-hearted; the soil superior to that of England, and the climate equal.

On the one hand, the political disqualification, during centuries, of the great majority of the population, and the compulsory payments to a Church, to the tenets of which they did not subscribe, have been assigned as the causes of the present state of Ireland. But granting to these their fullest powers, they are incapable of producing such a state of society. A very considerable body of the people of England were similarly circumstanced during nearly an equal period. The Protestant Dissenters of England bore the same relation to the State Church as did the Catholics of Ireland, both as to political disqualification and as to forcible payments in support of the Ministers of that Church. Yet the Dissenters of England throve and were peaceable, whilst the Catholics of Ireland were wretched and turbulent. The Dissenters of England long paid tithes and church dues without a murmur, wThilst the Catholics of Ireland were constantly in rebellion.

On the other hand, the wretchedness of Ireland is attributed to the influence of the prevailing faith. It is certainly remarkable that the Catholic communities both of Europe and of America are generally inferior in civilization to the Protestant. In the north of Scotland, however the people of which are Protestant, a state of society exists nearly approximating to that in Ireland ; whilst the Catholic peasantry of Prussia, of France, and of Belgium, are equal in condition to those of the Protestant countries in the north of Europe. Spain, Portugal, Italy, and the Venetian States, have each held a higher position in power, in wealth, and in commerce, though Catholic, than either of the Protestant countries of Europe, excepting Holland and England. And it is a singular circumstance that England is indebted for her principal manufactures to Catholic communities ;

to Flanders for her woollen manufacture, to France and Italy for her cotton ; to Italy for the the introduction, and to France for the improvement of her silk manufacture.

I think it may be said, that states of civilization and particular creeds are co-existing effects, rather than the cause or the consequence of each other. The cause of both being a particular state of mind, or degree of knowledge. It could hardly be said that the worship of external objects, or of a plurality of Deities, are the causes of a savage not cultivating the arts of civilization.

The wretchedness of the Irish peasantry in sometimes attributed to the excess of their number compared with the extent of the land. I find, however, upon comparing purely agricultural countries in Ireland with those which are purely agricultural in England, that there is no foundation for the assertion. Galway, the population of which is one of the most wretched in Ireland, contains as many acres to each individual as Berks, Bucks, Devon, Essex, Monmouth, Norfolk, Hampshire, and Suffolk; half an acre to each individual more than Bedford and Sussex; and an acre to each individual more than Hertford, Kent, and Wiltshire. Meath, which is purely a grazing county, contains three acres to each individual, whilst Hertfordshire, also a grazing county, has only two acres to each individual. Yet there is scarcely a more wretched peasantry in Ireland than that of Meath, and scarcely a better conditioned peasantry in England than that of Hertfordshire. Kildare, the population of which is as wretched as that of any county in Leinster, has a larger proportion of land to its population than any county in England, with the exceptions of Dorset, Hereford, Lincoln, and Oxford. There are but four counties in the whole of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught; viz: Cork, Louth, Longford, and Sligo, which have a smaller comparative acreage than Kent, Wilts, and Hertford. This comparison is peculiarly favourable to the assertion, as it claims no allowance for the acknowledged superior fertility of the soil of Ireland. Those who attribute the wretchedness of Ireland to the excess of its population, will of course admit that the agricultural populations will be in a good or a bad state, as each county may have a large or a small proportional acreage. Kerry and Kildare have 31 acres to each individual, whilst Louth has only 1^, yet assuredly the condition of the peasantry of Louth is superior to that of Kerry or Kildare. Again, Waterford, in which the peasantry are fully as comfortable as in any county in the south of Ireland, has an acre and a half less to each person than Kerry and Kildare, and an acre less than Galway and Meath. In making these calculations I have deducted the unprofitable land.

The non-residence of a large number of the proprietors has also been stated to be the cause of the present condition of Ireland. It will, however, be seen, on reference to the subject of " Landlord and Tenant," in the Appendix F. to the Report of the Irish Poor Commissioners, that the people on the estates of absentee, are frequently in a better condition than those on the estates of resident proprietors. Many properties in England are rarely visited by those to whom they belong; the proprietors of others chiefly reside in France or in Italy ; and on some estates there is not even a residence. Yet I never heard it remarked that the absence of the proprietor was an evil, and I do not believe that the people care whether he is present or absent.

The state of Belgium is a remarkable refutation of two of the theories relative to Ireland. The population of that country is Catholic, and the lands are much subdivided, yet the people are prosperous and orderly, the cultivation of the land is of the highest description, and manufactures flourish. But a provision for the destitute has existed in Belgium longer than in any country excepting England.

Although I do not consider it to be a conclusive argument in favour of a public provision for the destitute, that in the most prosperous countries of Europe and America an extensive provision has long existed ; still I do think the fact perfectly refutes the assertion, that poor laws are destructive to the wealth and morals of society. In England, the South of Scotland, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Prussia, Denmark, the Hanstowns, most of the German States, and parts of Switzerland, there has long been a most extensive provision for the poor — whilst in Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Sardinia, Greece, and Turkey, there is not any. Again, the United States of North America have poor laws, but the countries of South America have not. — (Foreign Communications, Appendix F, fi Poor Law Inquiry in England/)

In order to exhibit the advantages to be derived from a provision for the destitute, I shall first show how the peculiar evils which afflict Ireland arise, and how a Poor Law would prevent them ; I shall then show to what extent similar evils have been avoided in England by the adoption of a Poor Law ; and shall conclude with the extent and causes of the evils which have arisen from a public provision in England and in other countries.

I

NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE EVILS OF

IRELAND.

As the population of Ireland is almost entirely agricultural, and as no information, which can be relied upon, was obtained by the Poor Inquiry Commission relative to the population of the few large towns, 1 shall confine my remarks to the rural population.

The circumstances under which the rural population of Ireland earn their subsistence are quite different from those which obtain in England. The rural population of Ireland for the most part can neither be designated petty farmers nor labourers, in the sense in which those terms are applied in Great Britain. Scarcely with an exception, the whole of the peasantry hold land, and also hire themselves for wages. Some hold more land than others — some work more for hire than others.* Their holdings vary from one to ten or twelve acres. Those who hold above five acres of land are called " small farmers, "+ and give the principal part of the produce as rent: those who hold land not exceeding two acres generally receive the land in lieu of wages from those by whom they are permanently employed. They are termed 4t*cottiers,"I and form a small class; they are far more numerous in some districts than in others; and are the labourers of the gentry and of farmers who hold more than 20 acres. Both classes are equally destitute of capital, and might be designated labourers paid in land. One class till ten or twelve acres each, and are allowed to retain a subsistence for themselves and their families out of the produce. The other class give their labour for as much land as in fair seasons will yield sufficient food for themselves and their families. Between those who pay their rents entirely by labouring for their landlords, and those who wholly depend upon the produce of their holdings for the payment of their rents, there is every possible gradation; some being more dependant upon their farms than upon hire, whilst others depend more upon hire than upon their farms for the means of making such payments.

Between the cottier and his landlord and employer a rate of wages and a rate of rent are always fixed. From the double connection which exists between them as tenant and labourer on the one hand, and landlord and employer on the other, little can be learned of the condition of the peasant by knowing the rate of wages for which he contracts. High wages may be named and

* The term " landholder does not mean, as in England, the proprietor or holder in fee : in Ireland it means the occupying tenant.

f For the circumstances of this class see " Small Tenantry," App. F. % For the circumstances of this class see " Cottier Tenants," App. D.

be passed to the credit of the peasant, but a rent high in comparison with the wages may be placed to his debit; and thus he mayonly be enabled to pay the rent of a piece of ground sufficient for the production of potatoes for the subsistence of his family. One peasant working at sixpence a day may be as well paid as another who receives a shilling a day for his labour, if the employer, in his capacity of landlord, charges a rent for the land proportionate to the rate of wages which he allows. It will generally prove to be the case, that the rent charged to the cottier is in proportion to the rate of his wages, — the rent, like the wages, being nominal. The real or actual gain of the peasant in all cases, is about as much land as will yield food barely sufficient for his family. The rent of a cabin is always one of the charges which the employer has to make against the wages of his cottier. The cabin is generally a hovel 16 or 20 feet square, the walls of which are made of mud, and its roof of a bad thatch. This hovel rarely contains more than one apartment : the thatch, black from smoke, forms the ceiling ; and the earth on which it stands constitutes the floor. It is frequently without any chimney, or with one so badly constructed as to be of but little use. The door is a few boards roughly put together, or perhaps a hurdle ; and a hole in the wall, a foot or eighteen inches square, occasionally containing a few pieces of glass, constitute the window. The cost of erecting these cabins averages 61. or 71. The annual rent charged to the cottier is 30s. or 21., which is the same sum as the labourers in most parts of England pay for their cottages, which cost 80/. or 100/. to erect, consist of four rooms, two on the ground floor and two above, are roofed with tiles or slates, are boarded, plastered, have brick chimneys and iron grates, and have out-houses attached to them which cover more ground, and cost more to erect, than the Irish cottier's hovel. The charge made to the cottier for his cabin will give an idea of the manner in which his wages are absorbed. If the cottier refused to accept the cabin at such a rent, his employer would dismiss him. The cottier approximates in the nature of his engagements to the " hind " of Northumberland or Durham. But that such payment in kind is not necessarily disadvantageous to the labourer is clearly proved by the condition of the Northumbrian hinds, who, under that system, are far more comfortable and prosperous than the agricultural labourers in any other part of England.

Wages in the rural districts of Ireland may almost be said not to exist, though from the infinite variety of rates which are cited in the answers to the questions issued by the Poor Commissioners, agricultural employment, as conducted in England, might be supposed to be very extensive. The inconsistency amongst the various answers is, however, a proof of wages being nominal, and shows the absence of any regular or market rate for labour.

Besides the " small farmers " and the 66 cottiers," there is a further class of peasantry — the most wretched class in Ireland — those who hold barely sufficient land to produce the food of their families, and who are not employed by the persons under whom they occupy. The situation of this class is extremely painful, as they depend for the means of paying their rents upon casual employment, and upon the extra demand for labour which arises at seed time, turf cutting, at harvest, and during other busy seasons. They migrate to England annually, for the purpose of making, during the harvest, something towards the rent of their con-acre; and their wives and children in the meantime beg about the country. This class, who may be called " casual labourers" are sometimes termed " labourers," and sometimes " con-acre-men." *

Con-acre, or as it is in some parts of Ireland termed, score, quarter, rood and mock ground, is ground hired by the crop, and not by the year; usually for one crop, but occasionally for two or more. The tenant receives the land just in time to prepare it for the seed, and surrenders it as soon as the crop has been secured. It is principally hired for growing potatoes, but occasionally for oats ; and in the north of Ireland sometimes, though very rarely, for flax. The terms of the contract vary greatly. Sometimes the person from whom the con-acre is taken engages to manure, to plough, and to cart the crop ; frequently he does not undertake to afford any assistance. The price charged for the land of course depends upon the aid which the tenant requires, f This practice is by no means peculiar to Ireland ; it is exceedingly common in Cornwall, Devonshire, Somersetshire, and in some of the midland counties of England.

The answers to the questions in the supplement to Appendix D, concerning the average earnings of " cottiers " and " labourers,'* are calculated greatly to mislead those who are not well acquainted with the system prevalent in Ireland. Most of those answers state the sum which an ordinary labourer will earn during the year, and allude to his holding a piece of land as if it were in addition to his wages ; whilst the land is the supposed value, and is given in lieu of the nominal money wages, or at least in lieu of and absorbing a large portion of them. At first sight

* For the circumstances of this class see " Lahourers out of employment," App. A. ; also, " Earnings of Labourers," App. D. to Report of Irish Poor Commissioners.

f See " Con-acre/' App. F.

there appears to be an inconsistency in the evidence. It states that there is a great surplus of labour, and yet that the labourers seldom hire themselves without receiving some money in addition to diet, though sometimes they accept Id. or 2d. It may seem extraordinary that competition does not reduce wages to the mere subsistence of the labourer. Of course, the small farmer would not work for food alone, and the cottier has a regular engagement. The third class of peasantry, " the casual labourers," are the only class who could be expected to work merely for food; but they will not, because their sole object in seeking employment is to obtain the means of paying for their con-acre. If the produce of their con -acre be exhausted, and their earnings are not sufficient to support their wives and children, they must subsist wholly, or in part, by begging. The labourer naturally feels, that if his wife and children must beg, he may as well partake of their collection, as work hard for no better fare. It would be strange if he were willing to work hard for food, which he could obtain without work. He is not driven to the painful degradation of begging his food : his appearance wTould be rather prejudicial to the success of his wife and children, who usually beg as widows and orphans. His pride is not more wounded by their begging for his food than for their own : if he accept a sum less than sufficient to support his family, he is quite as much degraded as if he reject employment. Vagrancy, in fact, has put a minimum to wages. The reason usually assigned for wages not falling to the mere subsistence of the labourer himself is, that farmers will not consent to give less than the ordinary wages, or at all events, will not accept labour for mere food. It is far more probable that the farmers, knowing the labourers have no motive to work under a certain sum, do not offer less, than that men who are themselves but little above destitution, should be so thoughtful of the interests of others ! Whatever may be the mode in which the rent of the peasantry is paid, or their means of subsistence obtained, in one thing they are all equal — none has more than a bare subsistence for himself and his family. If one state be better than another, it is that of the peasant who receives a portion of land sufficient to yield food for his family, as the payment for permanent employment. The farmer of ten acres has apparently the best means, because he has the most land; but then he holds it under a rent which does not entitle him to retain even so much of its produce as is required for his subsistence, and he is therefore constantly in debt to, and under the power of the person of whom he holds.

It must not be supposed that the whole of Ireland is divided into petty holdings of ten or twelve acres. In some districts there are farms containing many hundred acres each. One farm in the county Meath contains 1,700 Irish, or 2,500 English, acres ; another, in King's County, contains 500 Irish, or 800 English, acres; a third, in Galway, contains 1,000 Irish, or 1,700 English, acres. But farms in Ireland above 50 acres are almost always appropriated to grazing, and therefore require scarcely any labour; one or two persons upon each farm being sufficient to look after the herds and flocks. Mayo may be instanced to prove that Ireland is not completely divided into small holdings. In that county there is perhaps a larger body of petty holders than in any other in Ireland, and yet the population and acreage of that county bear the same proportion to each other as do those of Hertfordshire. The same proportions hold between Connaught and Suffolk. The counties in Connaught, and Suffolk, and Hertfordshire, have been selected for comparison, because they are peculiarly free from manufactures.

As it may fairly be said of the Irish peasantry, that every family which has not sufficient land to yield its food has one or more of its members supported by begging, it will easily be conceived that every endeavour is made by the peasantry to obtain small holdings, and that they are not influenced in their biddings by the fertility of the land, or by their ability to pay the rent, but solely by the offer which is the most likely to gain them possession. — The rents which they promise, they are almost invariably incapable of paying; consequently they become indebted to those under whom they hold, almost as soon as they take possession. They give up in the shape of rent the whole produce of the land with the exception of a sufficiency of potatoes for a subsistence ; but as this is rarely equal to the promised rent, they constantly have against them an increasing balance. In some cases, the largest quantity of produce which their holdings ever yielded, or which, under their system of tillage, they could in the most favourable seasons be made to yield, would not be equal to the rent bid; consequently, if the peasant fulfilled his engagement with his landlord, which he is rarely able to accomplish, he would till the ground for nothing, and give his landlord a premium for being allowed to till it. On the sea-coast, fishermen, and in the northern counties, those who have looms, frequently pay more in rent than the market value of the whole produce of the land they hold. It might be supposed, that they would be better without land under such circumstances. But fishing might fail during a week or two, and so might the demand for the produce of the loom, when, did they not possess the land upon which their food is grown, they might starve. The full amount of the rent bid, however, is rarely paid. The peasant remains constantly in debt to his landlord ; his miserable possessions — the wretched clothing of himself and of his family, the two or three stools, and the few pieces of crockery, which his wretched hovel contains, would not, if sold, liquidate the standing and generally accumulating debt. The peasantry are mostly a year in arrear, and their excuse for not paying more is destitution. Should the produce of the holding, in any year, be more than usually abundant, or should the peasant by any accident become possessed of any property, his comforts cannot be increased — he cannot indulge in better food, nor in a greater quantity of it. His furniture cannot be increased, neither can his wife or children be better clothed. The acquisition must go to the person under whom he holds. The accidental addition will enable him to reduce his arrear of rent, and thus to defer what must sooner or later happen — ejectment. But this must be the bound of his expectation.

Galway. F 35. — <( If I now let it be known that I had a farm of five acres to let, I should have fifty bidders in four-and-twenty hours, and all of them would be ready to promise any rent that might be asked." — (Mr Birmingham.) — The landlord takes on account, whatever portion of the rent the tenant may be able to offer; the remainder he does not remit, but allows to remain over. A remission of a portion of the rent in either plenty or scarce seasons

never made as a matter of course; when it does take place it is looked upon as a favour.

The labourer is, from the absence of any other means of subsisting himself and family, thrown upon the hire of land, and the land he must hire at any rate : the payment of the promised rent is an after consideration ; he always offers such a rent as leaves him nothing of the produce for his own use but potatoes ; his corn being entirely for his landlord's claim. — (Rev. Mr Hughes, p. p. and Parker.).

Leitrim. F. 36 & 37. — So grqat is the competition for small holdings, that if a farm of five acres were vacant, I really believe that nine out of every ten men in the neighbourhood would bid for it if they thought they had the least chance of getting it ; they would be prepared to outbid each other, ad infinitum, in order to get possession of the land ; the rent which the people themselves would deem moderate, would not in any case admit of their making use of any other food than potatoes ; there are even many instances in this barony where the occupier cannot feed himself and family off the land he holds. In bis anxiety to grow as much oats (his only marketable produce) as will meet the various claims upon him, he devotes so small a space to the cultivation of potatoes that he is obliged to take a portion of con-acre and to pay for it by wages earned at a time when he would have been better employed on his own

account. — (Rev. T. Maguire, p. p.) "Where no man," says Mr Armstrong,

" can calculate on a sufficiency of employment to procure him even a diet of potatoes, the possessor of land alone is certain that he can raise enough of that article for his consumption, and he will promise anything to obtain it." — " He must starve or agree to any terms that will procure him a portion of ground, unless he be willing to beg." — (Nixon.)

The labourer has neither a good stitch to his back, nor a good bit in his belly. — (Rev. T. Maguire, r. p.)