MEDICAL CHARITIES IN IRELAND. (Hansard, 8 July 1845)

The Earl of Clancarty

said: My Lords, I beg to present to your Lordships, from the Board of Guardians of the Poor Law Union of Ballinasloe, a petition of which I lately gave notice, upon the subject of Medical Charities in Ireland. The petitioners pray for the speedy establishment of a sound system of relief for the sick poor of Ireland. The subject is one of great and urgent importance, and in reference to which it has been admitted by Parliament and by the Government that the laws require great alteration and amendment. If, my Lords, an improved and enlarged system of medical charities would involve (which I do not think it would, at least to any sensible extent) an increased taxation, it is those who now approach your Lordships as petitioners that will have to pay the tax; nor are they singular as poor law guardians in their desire to see the medical charities of the country placed upon a proper and efficient footing. I hold in my hand a copy of an address of the Ballina board of guardians, unanimously agreed to at a meeting with twenty-six guardians present, praying the attention of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to that important subject. Those whose petition I have now the honour of presenting to your Lordships, did also address the Irish Government in the first instance: I regret to say, however, without any effect—that no prospect whatever was held out that Her Majesty's Government would take any steps whatever in the matter. It is, therefore, that they now approach your Lordships; and I cannot do better than read to your Lordships a portion of their petition, as placing the subject clearly and in a few words before you:— Petitioners represent that the present system of medical charities is most unsatisfactory, and inadequate to the wants of the country, and oppressive to a numerous portion of the ratepayers, who can derive no advantage whatever from the medical institutions for which they are taxed. That, under the existing law, a want of due economy prevails, and many and great abuses are practised, as must necessarily be the case in the absence of uniformity of system and of efficient inspection. That the present county infirmaries, though most useful in their several vicinities, are, from their inadequacy in point of number, necessarily too far apart to be of any benefit to the great majority of the population, who are equally taxed for their support. That the same objection applies to the fever hospitals. That the law only authorizing the establishment of dispensaries, where private subscriptions can be obtained, it follows that the poorer 125 the district, and, consequently, the more needy the population, the more unattainable is medical aid, although such district is taxed in common with all others for the support of medical charities. That Her Majesty's Government, to whom, in the opinion of your petitioners, it properly belongs to bring subjects of this nature before Parliament, did, above two years ago, fully recognise the inadequacy of the existing law, by introducing into the House of Commons a Bill for putting the whole system of medical charities upon an entirely new footing; but, nevertheless, now refuses all assistance upon this very important matter, not because there is less necessity for it, but because a Committee of that hon. House did not then agree as to the details of the Bill before them. Your petitioners further submit, that the whole case loudly calls for immediate attention, and requires to be met by such a comprehensive measure as shall bring medical and surgical aid within a moderate distance of every poor man's dwelling, relieving distress the most revolting to humanity. It is not, I think, necessary that I should add anything to what is here stated, to give the subject a stronger claim to your Lordships' attention. I only regret that, your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government being in general little acquainted with the circumstances of those on whose behalf this petition is presented, precedence should have been given to any other acts of legislation in reference to Ireland. You have lately evinced an anxious interest in the comforts of the inmates of Maynooth College, and in upholding the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland: I would pray your Lordships and the Government now to give some attention to the physical wants of the more humble professors of that faith. The long-neglected consideration of the interests of the sick poor ought to have had precedence of the endowment of Maynooth, that has occupied so much of your attention. In this observation I mean no direspect to the Roman Catholic priests, many of whom, I am sure, would agree with me in opinion upon this subject; for, as far as I have had opportunity of observing, I am happy to bear my testimony to the fact, that the Roman Catholic clergy, as well as the clergy of the Established Church, have been always forward as contributors, according to their means, to the medical relief of the poor. Before I put any question to Her Majesty's Government with reference to this subject, I will present to your Lordships another petition, of which I likewise gave notice, from the same board of guardians, on the subject of the Poor Law. The petitioners express 126 great dissatisfaction at the powers conferred by the Act upon the Commissioners, and at the manner in which those powers have been exercised; and pray for an inquiry into the conduct of the Commissioners, and into the whole system and working of the Poor Law. At this late period of the Session, I, of course, could not support the prayer for a Committee; and I may observe, that I should feel at any time very reluctant to press upon Parliament to undertake the duty and responsibility that I think properly belongs to the Government—I mean, that of originating inquiry, now, certainly, become very necessary, for the purpose of amending and duly carrying out the principle and objects of the Poor Law. The Government, I think, is, and ought to be, held responsible not only for the proper administration of the law, but also for the duty of proposing to Parliament such amendments as may be necessary to promote its success. And whether such amendments result from the suggestions of evidence taken before a Parliamentary Committee, or before a Commission specially appointed for the purpose, or from the unaided judgment of the Members themselves of the Government, I trust that another Session will not be allowed to pass over without the Poor Law being amended, improved, and carried out to its legitimate extent. I the more anxiously press this upon Her Majesty's Government; as I think that much of the ill success that has hitherto attended the measure, has arisen from their refusal, in 1842, to comply with the general desire of the people of Ireland, of the gentry of all parties and denominations, for an inquiry into the working of the law—not proposed for the purpose of repealing the Act, but for the purpose of placing it upon a satisfactory and effective footing. Had that inquiry been granted, its present unpopularity would have been obviated. I also press the subject upon the attention of Government, because the dissatisfaction of the public has been of late much aggravated by the responsibility of the measure having been in a manner disowned by two of Her Majesty's Ministers, whose positions render their opinions upon the subject of the Irish Poor Law of the greatest weight. I allude to the speech of Sir Robert Peel in the debate on the state of Ireland last Session, when he is reported to have taunted Lord John Russell with having supported and perfected the Poor Law Act, which he described as having in its opera- 127 tion occasioned great dissatisfaction, and been among the causes of the Repeal agitation. I allude also to expressions of a like tendency that have more recently fallen from the Secretary for the Home Department. The Times newspaper of April 3, reports Sir James Graham to have said, in answer to Mr. French, that the Government, although they did not intend themselves to institute an inquiry into the Poor Law, would not oppose such a Motion if it had the general concurrence of the House; that "he must observe, however, that Her Majesty's present Government were not responsible for the application of the Poor Law to Ireland, and he had himself expressed great doubts when it was introduced, whether it would be found to answer." I do not suppose that those Ministers feel themselves, or intended to convey an opinion, that they really were exempt from a responsibility with which they are peculiarly invested by the offices they respectively have accepted; indeed, the fact that they have since their accession to office introduced an amendment of the Poor Law, shows that they do not; but unpopular as the Poor Law has been in Ireland from the very commencement, the poor rates requiring even now, notwithstanding the exemption of the poorer classes from payment of the tax, to be collected in many instances with the military aid—anything said by those in authority at all reflecting upon the soundness or good policy of the measure, is calculated to compromise its success by increasing and sanctioning its unpopularity. An experiment such as the Poor Law, involving of necessity a compulsory assessment, could not but be unpopular, unless compensated by some corresponding advantage to those upon whom the tax falls. These advantages were originally promised to the great body of the ratepayers, and great reliance was placed by the framers of the measure upon the benefit it would be to the shopkeepers and to the farmers, as well as to the peace of the country, and the general interests of society, by the relief of the country from mendicants and vagrants. This was put forward as one of the chief objects of the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland. I will, with your Lordships' permission, read, in reference to this subject, an extract I have made from the speech of Lord John Russell, on proposing the law:— It appears, from the testimony both of theory and experience, that when a country 128 is in such a state that it is overrun by numbers both of marauders and of mendicants, having no proper means of subsistence, a prey on the industry of the country, and relying on the indulgent charity of others, the introduction of Poor Laws serves several important objects. In the first place, a Poor Law acts as a measure of peace, enabling the country to prohibit vagrancy, and to prohibit those vagrant occupations which are so often connected with outrage. It is an injustice to the common sense of mankind, when a single person or family are unable to obtain the means of subsistence—when they are altogether without the means of livelihood from day to day—to say they shall not go about the country to endeavour to obtain, from the charity of those who are affluent, that which circumstances have denied to them. But when once you can say to such persons, here are the means of subsistence, as far as subsistence is concerned—that is offered to you—when you can say this on the one hand, you can say on the other hand, you are not entitled to demand charity—you shall no longer infest the country in a manner injurious to its peace, and which is favourable to imposition and outrage. Lord John Russell then lays much stress upon the fact, that outrage and disturbance are the common results of able-bodied vagrants and mendicants being permitted to infest the country, and gives it as his opinion that these results have been exemplified; and, I think I may add, they are daily exemplified in Ireland; and then proceeds, with respect to the relief of the ratepayers, to observe— There is no doubt whatever of this, that a large portion of the people of Ireland, especially those not having land, do practise mendicancy for a great portion of the year. I have made inquiry with respect to the amount and extent of the relief afforded to that mendicancy; for it is to be remembered that a very considerable tax is now raised on the farmers of that country by mendicants, and which, I may say, is now raised as a compulsory rate. With this view, I asked of my noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, to obtain as accurate an account as possible of the amount paid in this way from two or three farmers, in ten or twelve districts, the amount that was paid for rent—the amount paid for tithes—the amount paid to the Roman Catholic priests, and the amount paid to mendicants. The result is, I should say, that in most cases a shilling an acre is paid in the course of a year by the farmers for the support of mendicants. In some cases it has been 6d. an acre, in others 9d.; but in one case, where a person had a farm, not very considerable in extent, it was more than 2s. an acre. That person paid 10l., not in money, certainly, but in food. There was more than 129 2s. an acre paid for mendicity. Now, this in itself is a very heavy tax, and which cannot be assumed, upon the whole, to amount to less than between 700,000l. and 800,000l., perhaps a million in the year; and, let it be observed, that this practice of mendicancy, which raises so vast a sum in the country, is not like a well-constituted Poor Law, which affords relief to the really indigent. It is the practice in Ireland for the farmer to give relief to the mendicant who asks for it: the potatoes are there ready for him; there is no inquiry into the circumstances of the mendicant—he begs at a distance from home, where he is not known. Now, my Lords, what is the state of things after a lapse of seven years since this Poor Law, so pregnant, as it was supposed, with great benefits to the peace and welfare of the Irish people, has been enacted? The workhouses, good, substantial and salubrious buildings, have been erected at considerable expense, and prepared for the reception of three times the number that now occupy them, and the staffs requisite for their entire complement are paid for; but Ireland still presents the same disgraceful exhibition of vagrancy and beggary, with the superadded evil of general dissatisfaction with a law which was intended, but has hitherto failed, to remove it. The promise implied in Lord John Russell's speech to the middle and lower classes of occupiers not having been fulfilled, they feel that they have been deceived, and only recognise in the poor rates a new grievance—in the enactment of the Poor Law a new ground of objection to legislation by the Imperial Parliament—a new argument for the Repeal of the Union; and thus a law, conceived in a spirit of charity and benevolence, intended for the relief of the industrious poor, as well as to provide a refuge for the helpless and destitute, and calculated in its operation to cement the bonds of society, by uniting all classes in the interest and endeavour to promote the general improvement and development of the industrial resources of the country, has only added to the embarrassments of the country, and to the feelings of discontent that pervade it. It is often objected that a law of settlement would be necessary for a Vagrancy Act, and that this difficulty would be a bar against its enactment; I think this is a mistake in speaking of Ireland. There already exists a law partially of settlement; for which, I think, the country is much indebted to the noble Duke (Wellington)—I mean the clause 130 in the Poor Law for charging to electoral divisions or parishes those paupers respectively belonging to them, and thereby creating a local interest in the diminution of pauperism. The effect of this clause, since more exactly defined by the Irish Poor Law Amendment Act of 1842, would probably be found quite a sufficient law of settlement for carrying out the principle of a good and effective Poor Law. If uniformity of poor law administration be duly maintained—and it should be one of the first duties of the Commissioners to preserve uniformity as far as practicable in every workhouse—if efficient workhouse inspection be provided for, the regulations for the government and discipline of every workhouse being the same, and the dietary in all upon the same scale of economy, a pauper would not find any temptation to resort to one workhouse more than to another. Except, however, in very peculiar cases it would be necessary that the application for relief should be taken as the test of destitution; and, from my experience, as a member for some years of a board of guardians, I do not think it would be often an untrue view to take of such applications. The existing workhouse accommodation, it might, in the absence of more exact information, be assumed, would be sufficient to do what it was originally designed to do; and I think there is the more probability of the original calculation being correct, from the fact that less than one-third, in some Unions less than a fourth, is the amount of accommodation actually in use. The present occupants are, certainly, the first objects of compassion, namely, the aged, the helpless, and the orphan; and, rather than that the law should be repealed, I would, upon the ground of humanity alone, continue it even in its present very imperfect state. It is no trifling consideration that those really destitute and helpless objects, who now alone seek admission, should feel that they are cared for by the State, which they formerly were not—that a refuge should be afforded to them where they can receive, with the necessaries of life, that medical aid and religious consolation which is scarcely enjoyed, and could certainly not be imparted, by those upon whose kind sympathies and charity they before for the most part relied for subsistence; and it is in the highest degree important to the interests of the community, that orphan and otherwise destitute children, in place of being, as formerly, brought up in ignore- 131 ance, vice, and habitual vagrancy, and often prematurely cut off by want and disease, the consequence of neglect, should be trained to early habits of dlscipline and industry, and receive such an education as may fit them to become afterwards useful and good members of society. Such an education, I am happy to say, they now do receive in every well-regulated workhouse in Ireland. But, great as these advantages must be viewed by every friend to humanity, equal consideration is also due to the interests of the industrious poor—to those who seek not to be relieved in the workhouse, but who look to the Poor Law to relieve them from the sturdy beggar and the idle vagrant—but who are still compelled, although subject to a poor rate, to give them food and shelter in their own dwellings, and from their scanty earnings. The addition to the poor rate, by the enactment of a law against vagrancy, would be as nothing compared with the benefit to these ratepayers and to the community. It would, indeed, be a gratifying circumstance if the absence of the able-bodied, in general, from the workhouses, were owing to their earning their bread by honest industry; but this cannot be said to be the case where mendicancy prevails to so great an extent, and where outrages, for which non-employment and consequent destitution are pleaded as the excuse, are almost of daily occurrence, and systematically perpetrated. So generally have the able-bodied mendicant, unless in sickness, abstained from applying for workhouse relief, that in many establishments it is scarcely possible to have even the necessary work performed without hired assistance, in consequence of the present pauper inmates consisting almost entirely of the bedridden, the feeble, the crippled, the blind, the sick, and children of tender years. There would, therefore, be little difficulty in finding work as well as workhouse accommodation for such as are really destitute of any other resource, thus ridding the country of the continued exhibition of a state of destitution that cannot be said to be real, where such a provision has been made for it. It is very observable that there is a reluctance in some Unions to bring the Poor Law at all into operation. I would say, my Lords, that in such Unions as have not their union houses open for the reception of the destitute, the law against vagrancy should not be enforced; or rather it should be proclaimed and enforced only where the guardians perform 132 the duty of carrying out the objects of the Poor Law. Such a measure, the details of which are perfectly practicable, but would of course require much attention, would, I am convinced, bring the Poor Law into speedy and beneficial operation all over the country; and for statistical purposes, and to arrive at an exact knowledge of the real surplus or unemployed population of Ireland, would be of the greatest importance, especially at the present time, when a disposition to review the laws relating to the occupation and management of land is manifested by the Legislature, and a desire for the improvement of the circumstances and prospects of the population has become so general. Some addition to the workhouse classification would, indeed, be rendered necessary, in order to let in persons of either sex of doubtful or blemished characters: this, however, would be easily provided for by some slight alterations in the idiot and lunatic wards, which, both on the male and female sides of the poor houses, are at present almost invariably vacant, and, I may add, an act suitable for their original purposes. It would not be fair by the destitute poor of unblemished character to be, upon their admission to the workhouse, necessarily associated with persons whose destitution may have resulted from their very habits of vice and profligacy; and, on the other hand, it is practically driving such persons to desperation and crime, and denying them a locus pœnitentiæ, if, while you afford them no out-door relief, you, at the same time, refuse them admission to the workhouses. Relief given in classes thus separate from the other inmates of the workhouses, there would be an incentive to good behaviour, as a new character might be earned by good conduct, and the paupers, from time to time, promoted to those classes in which they would have been at once placed had their characters before admission justified it. I have observed, in reference to the introduction of a Vagrancy Act, that an efficient system of workhouse inspection would be necessary to maintain that uniformity of discipline and general management which should place the workhouses all upon a footing of equality in respect to the comforts of the inmates. If your Lordships were to require returns of the inspections given to those institutions, either by the Commissioners or by the Poor Law Guardians, you might be surprised to find that in many houses weeks, and in others whole months, pass over without any inspection having taken place. I 133 do not, in saying this, mean to cast any reflection either upon the Poor Law Commissioners or upon the guardians of the poor—the duties of both are sufficiently onerous. I cannot join with those who think the Poor Law Commissioners are sinecurists, although I have not been slow to find fault with acts of their administration: it would, however, be impossible to charge upon them the duty of regular workhouse inspection; and, as to the guardians, they are in general persons whose avocations leave them little time to give up more than the duty of ordinary attendance at the meetings of the board. It is, therefore, necessary to look elsewhere for the machinery of inspection. When my noble Friend (Lord St. Germans) was Secretary for Ireland, I took the liberty of urging upon the Government, through him, the propriety of imposing the same duties of inspection upon the workhouse chaplains as are performed by chaplains of gaols. In doing so, I was certainly animated by the desire of also having them placed, Protestant and Roman Catholic, upon the same footing of equality in respect of salary as under the Gaol Act, which had been so generally satisfactory; for I felt, and still feel, that it was a most impolitic act, as well as an injustice, and an uncalled for insult to the clergy of the Established Church, to place them upon a footing of inferiority, in any respect, to the ministers of any other denomination. I am sensible that in the present disposition of Her Majesty's Government, no alteration could be made in this respect; and I, therefore, do not press it, but simply suggest, that as the chaplains do visit, and certainly ought to visit the workhouses with regularity, whatever the amount of remuneration allowed to them, they should be required, Protestant and Roman Catholic, alternately to make reports of their observations upon the obedience given to the workhouse orders and discipline—upon the quality of the provisions, and of any complaint of any inmate of the House. This would involve little or no additional trouble, and need not be accompanied with any controlling power whatever, nor should it supersede the necessity of occasional inspection by visiting committees of the guardians. There are other improvements in the Poor Law much needed, and defects in it that call loudly for a remedy. I agree with the petitioners in thinking that the powers of the Commissioners ought to be reviewed, and that they ought not to have greater powers than are clearly 134 necessary for carrying the Act into execution. It would relieve the ratepayers from the vexation of frequent and minute collections, to have but one rate imposed in the year; and I think that rate should be collected simultaneously, and by the same officers as the grand jury rate. The advantage to the ratepayers of having but one call upon them in the course of the year, is noticed in the Report of the Land Commission. From that Report, it also appears, that the injustice has sometimes been done to tenants at will of not allowing them the portion of the poor rate they were intended to stop from their landlords' rent. Such cases are, I trust, of rare occurrence; but where they do occur, they are most unjust and illegal, and must necessarily impede the success of the Poor Law, as does also the practice, which is very general, of making valuations too low, by which means it often happens that the whole burden is shifted from the tenant upon the landlord, in place of both having an equal interest in the economical management of the Poor Law. I have adverted to these points, and more particularly to the want of a Vagrancy Act, as they appear to me to require the prompt and serious consideration of the Government, and because Members of Parliament are sometimes reproached for finding fault with the measures of Government, without pointing out how they should be amended. I do not think that any more important subject with reference to Ireland could engage the attention of the Government than the Poor Law; and I am satisfied that if it be properly carried out, it would tend more than any other measure to improve the social condition of the country, and possibly to hasten the development of its agricultural resources. Having stated so much, it only remains for me to ask, on behalf of the many who are interested in the subject, whether—as no inquiry is to take place, or Bill to be brought forward in this Session, for the amendment either of the laws relating to medical charities, or of the Poor Law—it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the subject into their consideration during the recess, with a view to amending or altering those laws in the ensuing Session of Parliament?