WORKHOUSES IN IRELAND.

HL Deb 27 June 1844 vol 76 cc1-15

The Marquess of Clanricarde

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for "Copies of any Declarations in Ejectments or Notices to quit, that have been served upon the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland or upon the Guardians of any Union." Perhaps it might seem extraordinary to their Lordships, considering the very short time the guardians of unions and the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland had been in possession of premises that they should so soon have been served with ejectments for non-payment of rent: but he begged to assure their Lordships the Return to the Order would not be nil, while it would be of such a nature as to illustrate in a remarkable manner, the working of the Poor Law in that country. In fact, his object in bringing forward the subject, was chiefly to elicit from the Government their opinion as to the steps which it would be advisable for Parliament or the Government to take relative to the Irish Poor Law, and particularly with regard to that portion of the subject which was included in the Report of Mr. Pennethorne. It was a most important Report, and fully sustained the objections which had been made at different times against the Poor Law in Ireland, when passing through Parliament, and since it had come into operation, and also against the manner in which the Commissioners were carrying it out. Mr. Pennethorne divides the matter of his inquiry into different heads, the chief of them being the mode in which the workhouses had been executed, the supply of water to them, their drainage and sewerage, and the immense amount of the extra charges which had been made in reference to them. Regarding the execution of the works, Mr. Pennethorne showed that the complaints of the guardians upon that subject were well founded—in a word that the execution of the works was extremely bad. Mr. Pennethorne visited fifty-eight workhouses, and these he classed according to their relative degrees of goodness, or rather badness in this way;—that thirteen were substantial buildings, that nine were excessively bad, and that the remaining thirty-six might be regarded as substantial buildings, but yet could not be considered as stanch or waterproof. That would give their Lordships a fair general notice of the way in which the works had been executed in Ireland. Respecting drainage, sewerage, and a sufficient supply of water, it was scarcely possible to suppose, what Mr. Pennethorne, however, clearly showed in his Report, that any man of common sense and understanding in his business should have commenced buildings of the magnitude and importance of workhouses, and yet have overlooked these very important points. He had heard of an amateur who in building a house omitted the staircase: but how a professional man in the construction of a workhouse could have forgotten such essential points as drainage, sewerage, and a supply of water, he was really at a loss to know. Mr. Pennethorne told them that in the specification for each building there was a Clause requiring the contractor to give a sufficient supply of water, but that was, to use his own words, "of course inoperative from its vagueness." Respecting drainage he said, that "it was in August, 1840, when upwards of 100 workhouses had been contracted for, and many were advancing towards completion, the plan for the drainage of workhouses was first issued from the Poor Law Office, No drains were shown in the contract plans or working drawings." He did not believe that those drains had been forgotten; but if they had, it only showed the impropriety of the Commissioners in employing a person as architect who could be so ignorant of his profession as to omit, or so neglectful of his duty as to forget, such important points. Then, as regarded the complaints of the guardians about extra expenses caused by making up for the omissions in the original plans, Mr. Pennethorne stated that those complaints were almost universal, and that the guardians making them considered themselves to have been deceived by the Poor Law Commissioners. Their Lordships might think, perhaps, that the question of drainage, for instance, was not very important in connexion with these complaints, and that the expense of making a drain must be very trifling; but if they would turn to page 14 of Mr. Pennethorne's Report, they would there find that where the amount provided by the original contract was only 82l., the extra charge was 651l., the total cost for drainage in connexion with one workhouse, being, therefore, 733l. Mr. Pennethorne well remarked, that works of this expensive nature ought to have been well considered and determined on in the original plan, and should have been included in every contract; that it appeared to him extraordinary they did not at least form a part of the contracts signed after August 1840; that it was not until August 1840, any order on the subject had been issued from the Poor Law Office, and, what he thought more extraordinary, that when the order was issued, it should not have been in a manner to prevent a recurrence of the evil, and prevent those extra charges subsequent to the period when nearly 100 workhouses were completed. To give their Lordships an idea of this extra expenditure, he would stale the case of the Armagh workhouse. The amount of the original contract was 7,200l.; bill for extra works, 2,315l.; bill for fixtures fittings, &c., 1,005l., making a total of 10,521l., which the Guardians were ultimately called on to pay, although the extra expenses were, in this as in other cases, in direct contradiction to their recommendations. Mr. Pennethorne calculated that the total cost of the 130 workhouses, including sites, fixtures, fittings, and contingencies, would probably be about 1,170,000l., that the total amount of extra bills was 225,000l., and that of this sum 50,000l. had been wrongfully expended and wrongfully charged against the unions. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not know how Mr. Pennethorne had arrived at this calculation, having only visited fifty-eight of the workhouses; but this he knew, that in several which Mr. Pennethorne did not visit the extra charges were just as great as those mentioned in his Report. The Irish Poor Law was grounded on the calculations made by Mr. Nicholls; but those who impugned the justness and the principle of the measure also impugned those calculations. They said it was absurd to suppose, as Mr. Nicholls had alleged, that an expenditure of 800,000l. would be sufficient to establish it, and he could not help thinking, whether it was found out to be absurd or not, that a desire had been evinced to conceal the real extent of the expenditure, and keep the Irish public as much as possible in the dark on the subject. They said, moreover, that it would not be possible to bring the measure into operation under an expense of 1,000,000l. Mr. Pennethorne, in his Report, stated that Mr. Nicholls was perfectly free from the remotest suspicion of anything like peculation or dishonesty, and in that statement he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) fully concurred, because he believed that a more honourable or upright man could not be found; but it often happened that a man of excellent character in private life, and of excellent judgment generally, was sometimes so carried away upon a particular subject as to be no longer trustworthy as an authority in reference to it. However sound and sober Mr. Nicholls' judgment was on other subjects, he was the last person whose judgment they ought to follow upon this question. That was his (Lord Clanricarde's) impression ever since he had read that Gentleman's Report. But such had been the anxiety to impose the Poor Law upon Ireland, that in defiance of all sound calculations it was persisted in and followed up by keeping the people in the dark respecting the real effects of it. Mr. Pennethorne said that the staff for carrying the Bill into operation was quite inadequate, and as an evidence of this he observed, that but one single architect had been engaged to erect the whole of the workhouses—130. When it was said that it was impossible for one man to do justice to the undertaking, the objection was answered by stating that it was done through the desire of economising; but there was no economy as Mr. Pennethorne told them, in erecting buildings in a way that would require them to undergo repairs in a few years. The attempt to conceal the real amount of the charges from the public mind was part of the same system. The difficulty, whatever it was, ought to have been boldly encountered, and the law carried properly into effect. He would now call their Lordships' attention to the Appendix attached to Mr. Pennethorne's Report, and signed by Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Wilkinson, the architect. This he did not consider a fair proceeding towards Mr. Pennethorne, because an Appendix to a Report was generally considered to be a document which the Commissioner himself considered necessary to explain the details which he submitted in the body of his Report. But there it was the very reverse; here, instead of being a guide, it established a controversy. What did Mr. Nicholls say in that Appendix? What was his argument, or rather his appeal ad misericordiam, for such it, was at best? Mr. Nicholls said:— I certainly never supposed that our proceedings in Ireland would be exposed to the kind of ordeal to which they have been subjected by the inquiry which Mr. Pennethorne was commissioned to institute, and by the Report which he had made. If I could have anticipated such a result, even all my earnest wishes to serve and benefit the Irish people would hardly have induced me to enter upon the task, which was, moreover, not of my own seeking, but was imposed upon me by the too partial opinion formed of my own fitness for the duty by a Secretary of State, at whose request I consented to undertake it. What did this mean? Why, that there was to be no inquiry? And yet they had been told twenty times over, that the Commissioners were responsible to the Government, and the Government to Parliament. But what signified responsibility if there was to be no inquiry? Surely Mr. Nicholls ought not to shrink from inquiry. But what was his real complaint? I do not, (he said), complain of Mr. Pennethorne's appointment to inquire professionally into the execution of the workhouse buildings, but I do complain that he was sent on this mission without being assisted by some one acquainted with building operations in Ireland; and, above all, I complain and lament that he did not communicate with Mr. Wilkinson before committing himself, as he has done, on various points respecting which no one but Mr. Wilkinson could have afforded him full and necessary information. What was the meaning of appointing Mr. Pennethorne if he was to go to Mr. Wilkinson for information which their Lordships already had before them? Mr. Pennethorne did much better; he collected his information on the spot; he executed his work with zeal, and, as his Report showed, with great judgment. Mr. Nicholls, speaking of the beneficial results of the measure, ended his letter by saying, that These results may be hastened or retarded according as the measure is worked, and as it is more or less exposed to the assailment of party or conflicting influences; And in the commencement of the Report of this year (the 10th Annual Report) he attributed the resistance which the Poor Law met with in Ireland to political agitation. The administration of relief to the poor (he said) was attended with difficulties which arose in a great measure from the political agitation going on in the country. Now, there never was a more unfounded charge. It was his (Lord Clanricarde's) firm belief that if it had not been for the existence of that agitation and those political differences which distracted the country that they should have been by this time rid of all the objectionable parts of the Poor Law, for the whole of the Irish people would have united against them. He therefore called upon their Lordships not to give too full a credence to the statements in these Reports. He did not mean to say that they were in all instances incorrect, but there was a great deal of important matter omitted, so as to prevent their Lordships from arriving at the real truth of the case. It was stated, for instance, that the violent resistance which had been made to the rates had been overcome, and the law vindicated. But what was the fact? Why, that in many parts of Ireland, in consequence of the agitation and the state of the country, great forces had been placed at the disposal of the authorities, but for which the poor-rates could not have been collected in those places. A very great force was employed; and the Commissioners talked of disturbed districts, and made a mighty boast of the rates they had recovered. But there was not one word about the means they used. On one day no fewer than 430 men were employed in a part of the Ballinasloe union. They were out two days, and they collected only 141l. The cavalry came forty miles to that collection. And in the case of Galway, besides the troops, there were also cars brought to carry away whatever could be got upon the ground; and those cars came sixty miles, from Athlone, and cost 7s. 3d. per day. He would venture to say that the rates they collected did not pay one-half nor one quarter of the expenses. Then the Commissioners talked of having put down resistance. Why, the amount due in the Autumn of 1843 was 5,211 l., and there remained uncollected upwards of 1,000l. Was that a proof of the resistance being put down? What was the case with respect to Tuam? The guardians of that union did not enforce the payment of the rate. Why? Because they could get no collectors. No man durst venture to act as collector. Was there no resistance there? Was it no sign of resistance when a man lost his life in the collection of the poor-rate? But the case of Tuam was so ridiculous that he must say a little more about it. The guardians were the envy or wonder of all the unions around them, because they would not open their workhouse. A master, a matron, a medical officer, and a porter had been appointed, and some of those persons lived in the workhouse, but there was not a single pauper in it. The guardians would not open the workhouse because they could not collect the rate. The Commissioners had in vain sent down their imperative orders that the workhouse should be opened; the guardians persisted in their refusal to do so. At a meeting of the guardians, one of the body proposed that in future the public should be admitted; but the rest immediately rose en masse and protested against it. What was the reason? A tradesman in the town had an execution against the furniture of the house, and if the public were admitted, of course the sheriff's officers would get in, and the goods would be seized. These were matters to which Mr. Pennethorne's inquiry did not go entirely, for those workhouses were not visited by him. But his Report, as far as it went, confirmed the complaints which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) and others made, and afforded good reason for believing that other complaints rested on good grounds. No doubt he should be told that the complaints came from a particular part of Ireland, and that in other places the law worked well. Suppose that to be true, still his accusation was against the law and against the Commissioners; for, according to the power which had been given them, he had a right to blame them. He had a right to come to the House and the Government, and to ask them to go into an inquiry into this law, with a view to make alterations in it. They ought to insist upon inquiry, because when the law was proposed, and the Report of Mr. Nicholls was before their Lordships, their attention was not directed to the rich districts of Ireland, but to those very parts where poverty and destitution prevailed. That was the way in which their Lordships were induced to agree to pass the law. His observations applied to the whole of Connaught; not excepting Ballinasloe, Westport, Ballinrobe, where the workhouse has been opened and closed again, and other places. He did not deny that some good had been done; undoubtedly a great many persons had been relieved; but that was not the way to look at a great system like this. They were bound to see whether all the effects intended were produced. No doubt many acts of charity had been performed. The Commissioners had put forth a selection of some twenty or thirty cases, very bad cases; indeed, none could be more pitiable; but if their Lordships would refer to them, they would find that every one of those cases was a case for the hospital, and not for the workhouse. There was not a single person of them all in health; in not one of them was an able-bodied pauper requiring relief. It was a great charity, certainly, to receive those persons into the infirmary; but when they made the law, they understood they were making a law to relieve the able-bodied poor in time of necessity. Practically, then, this law was not a Poor Law. If an enquiry were established, he could show that for one quarter of the expense they might have hospitals erected for the sick and diseased, quite as useful as the workhouse hospitals. Of the adult men who applied for relief, hardly one of them was in good health. As to the women, they were mostly of that class to be found in the neighbourhood of towns, who were diseased and wanted to be cured; and certainly an unfortunate creature in such a state, having no home or place of refuge whatever, in the lowest state of destitution, could not be refused. Such were the persons who went into the workhouses, got cured, and left them. He did not mean to say that was not a great Charity; but that was not a Poor Law. No man but Mr. Nicholls could ever believe that such a law as that could afford relief to the poor and ameliorate the condition of the labouring population of Ireland. But there was another point respecting which Lord Glengall had moved for certain Returns—he meant the children in the workhouses; and when those Returns should come before their Lordships he hoped they would seriously consider them, and he entreated the Government to give the subject their most anxious attention. He had never heard any man say that this system worked well in any part of Ireland. Often as he had asked "what do you mean to do with the children?" he had never heard even an attempt at an answer. But it was a most important question. They were raising up a large pauper population in Ireland, for which they had never thought of making the slightest provision. This had been found a difficult matter in England, where the parishes had been in the habit of putting the children out as apprentices to trades, and where labour was much dearer and better paid than in Ireland. There was no comparison between the two cases. Who would think of taking a child out of an Irish workhouse, considering the rate at which labour was there valued, and that there were hundreds and thousands of persons much more competent and able, anxious to be employed? Who would take a person so totally unfit for any service as a creature must be who was brought up in a workhouse, knowing nothing whatever of life and the business of the world? A few of the stronger ones might join the troops; but their Lordships never intended to found military colleges when they established workhouses in Ireland. But the mode in which they were reared would render them for the most part unfit for labour and hardship. They were kept in dry and warm lodgings, and brought up carefully. An Irish peasant was frequently compelled to work for hours in the rain, which a person brought up in a workhouse would not be able to endure, or, if he did, he must drag on a life burthened with a pulmonary or a rheumatic complaint. What, then, would these children do when they arrived at maturity? They must fall into had practices, when they would be sent to gaol, and those who survived would in the end perhaps be transported, at an expense of hundreds of pounds, after having been brought up in a sort of boarding-school at the cost of the industrious ratepayer. So much for the men. But what would become of the women? That really was an important question—a question of morality. For these reasons, then, he begged their Lordships and the Government seriously to consider what was to be done in reference to the Poor Law in Ireland. He had said that he blamed the Commissioners: and so he did. They might have carried out the law in a very different manner; they might have conciliated the feelings of the people, and have obtained the assistance and co-operation of the gentry. Their power had been so great that they might have prevented many of the evils now existing. To those Commissioners even greater powers had been given than to the English Poor Law Commissioners; they had an unlimited power of taxation. They had, he might say, absolute rule. It was said that in consequence of the different circumstances of Ireland from those of England stringent rules could not be laid down; but the Commissioners should be at liberty to make the rules and regulations according to the varied circumstances of the several districts of Ireland. But had they done so? They ought to have exercised their power in a more mild, temperate, and rational manner. It was perfectly absurd to lay down a general rule to bring the whole country under a uniform system which was not fitted for it. Mr. Pennethorne said—"It would have been advantageous to the whole system had the Commissioners treated the guardians in a different tone." He was certain that on that point, as well as on others, Mr. Pennethorne was right. How had the guardians of Edenderry been treated? A paper had actually been printed by authority of Parliament, containing an accusation of perjury against Mr. Wolstenholme, their Vice Chairman. An affidavit and memorial had been sent to the Home Office by the guardians, and also Petitions to both Houses of Parliament, and on the 24th of August last a letter was written by the gentlemen calling themselves the representatives of the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland. A very grand title! It seemed, that as Her Majesty had her representatives at foreign Courts, so the three kings at Somerset-house had their representatives in Ireland. That letter was printed and circulated among the Members of the House of Commons, stating that this gentleman had committed perjury. If there was any foundation for that charge, why was it not dealt with in a proper mariner? But it was a charge wholly without foundation; The whole of the statement was a calumny. He had not the pleasure of knowing the Gentleman; but he knew that he was connected with more than one noble Peer in that House, and he had every reason to believe that he was entirely incapable of uttering that which was false wilfully. Upon what was the charge against him founded? The sum of 82l. had been charged for certain work. The Commissioners sent down their architect to examine the work, and he estimated the remuneration at 73l, only. Mr. Wolstenholme was asked his opinion, and he swore in the affidavit, "to the best of his belief, he could get the same work done at or for 10l., and that having had the same sort of work done for himself, he was competent to give an opinion." It appeared that a Committee of the Board of Guardians proceeded to inquire into this case; and their opinion was, that the price which was originally charged, 82l., and was then cut down to 73l., by the architect of the Poor Law Commissioners, ought to be no more than 26l. for the work done. Mr. Wolstenholme, being a Member of the Committee, concurred in the adoption of that Report, though still retaining his opinion that a smaller sum would suffice, and therefore he was accused of perjury, because he had previously valued the work at 10l., not having in the slightest manner retracted his original opinion. But what was the case? The Committee made an allowance of profit to the contractor, and they said also that public bodies paid more for work than private individuals. He believed, that since that time they had found out their mistake, and held a different opinion now. But if Mr. Wolstenholme, for those reasons, agreed to pay the 26l., though he thought the work to be worth not more than 10l., what was the honesty of the persons who decided upon paying 73l.? What title should be given to those who kept a man in their employment alter such an act as that? He did not impute dishonesty to Mr. Wilkinson, who had valued the work at 73l.; but there was just as much ground for charging him with dishonesty as for accusing the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Guardians of perjury. If he had made out a case of grievance, and if Her Majesty's Government were convinced that different Boards of Guardians in Ireland had been improperly treated, he trusted that they would institute an inquiry. It was not the 50,000l. spoken of by Mr. Pennethorne that called for investigation; but if it could be shown that through the improper manner in which the Commissioners had carried out the work the unions had been put to great additional expense, then that charge should be considered. But the question of money was not the main question. The system ought to be examined, to see if it really would or could improve the condition of the people; and, if not, they should not be afraid to meddle with it boldly and fairly. The condition of the people of Ireland had not been essentially altered by the Poor Law. Upon the Report of 1833, their Lordships proceeded to enact a Poor Law; but that law had produced no alteration. No man; not even Mr. Nicholls, would venture to say that it had. Any favourable appearances which had been discernible must be attributed to good harvests, to a very great emigration from various parts of Ireland two years ago, to a great outlay of money, 1,100,000l., chiefly in the works connected with the introduction of this very law, and at the same time the progress of other public works, as the Shannon improvement, employing several thousands of men. He hoped the Government would do justice to the matter, and look at the points he had mentioned and at the whole subject.

The Duke of Wellington

said, he had no objection to the production of the documents to which the noble Marquess alluded. The noble Marquess, however, in moving for them, had thought it proper to enter into the consideration of the working of the Poor Law in Ireland; but it was impossible for him to follow the noble Marquess into the details which he had stated, and, above all, into some topics which were founded on papers not before the House. He agreed with the noble Marquess as to the importance of the Report of Mr. Pennethorne on the execution of works for poor-houses in different parts of Ireland, and the Report certainly showed that the complaints which had been made were justified to a very great extent. The noble Marquess objected to printing with the Report of Mr. Pennethorne some letters of the Poor Law Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners in Ireland, in contradiction and explanation of certain statements made in Mr. Pennethorne's Report. Now the Government, on reflection, thought that it was inexpedient to lay the Report on the Table alone, when they had the opportunity of putting statements on the Table with it, which would, in some respect, contradict, and in other respects explain, some passages in this document. On this ground the Government thought that it was only right and proper that Parliament should be informed of all the facts of the case, and not merely of a part of them, so as the better to enable it to come to a sound conclusion on the subject. In consequence of the publication of this Report, and the explanations of the Commissioners, a Committee had been appointed in the other House to inquire into the whole subject, and when that Committee had completed its inquiries and had made its Report, the Government would take up the subject, and would bring forward such measures as it deemed necessary, founded on the recommendations of the Commissioners. He believed that pretty much of the case urged by the noble Marquess would come under the consideration of the Committee and the Government, with the view to the adoption of some remedial measure. With respect to the other parts of the statement of the noble Marquess, he should have thought that the Act of last Session would have put an end to some of the difficulties in collecting the rates, as well as other parts which had been adverted to. But with respect to the whole subject of the Poor Laws, he expected that shortly a Bill would be laid before the House, and their Lordships would be able to deal with the whole subject. If it appeared to the noble Marquess that the provisions of that Bill required alterations, it would be competent for him to propose them, and he need hardly say that they would meet with every attention, as there must be every desire, on all sides, to adopt every step that would improve the working of the law. If the noble Marquess, when the Bill was before the House, thought that further inquiry was necessary, as far as he was concerned he should have no objection to such a proposition. The noble Marquess truly said, that the measure for the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland was brought forward by the former Government; but still he (the Duke of Wellington) had given it his support, as he believed that it would be productive of good to Ireland, and he still entertained sanguine hopes that this would be the case with respect to children in workhouses: no doubt the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord demanded every consideration, and he trusted that some proper provision on the subject would be found in the Bill to be submitted to Parliament.

The Earl of Mountcashel

pointed out several passages in the Report, showing the bad manner in which the workhouses were constructed, being damp and made of bad materials. The rates were unequally levied, and the Poor Law Commissioners went upon no fixed principle. It was highly objectionable that the military should be employed to enforce the payment of the rate, yet the 72nd Regiment (Highlanders) had gone from house to house to enforce the payment of the rates, by seizing upon articles. The measure itself was a most improper one, and never would have a beneficial effect. All classes, high and low, equally disapproved of it, and the law must become a dead letter.

The Marquess of Clanricarde

said, he had heard with satisfaction the expression of the readiness of the noble Duke to grant an inquiry; but he (the noble Marquess) could not undertake to move for a Committee on the whole subject this Session. It was, indeed, a question of so much magnitude that it was difficult for any one but the Government to conduct an inquiry into it. He hoped that a Commission from the Crown might issue in the course of the vacation, so that early next Session they might be able to alter the law. If not, the House might then appoint a Committee.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned.