ON POOR LAWS, IRELAND.
21 liable, I shall venture to suggest a mode of dealing with the question which may tend to simplify the difficulties and diminish the risks of a measure necessarily both difficult and dangerous.
The following principle ought, as it appears to me, to be laid down as the basis The English Poor of Poor Law legislation for Ireland, viz.,
that the system of relief, as established Law ought to be by the Poor Law Amendment Act in England, should be taken as the model for
taken as amodel-the Irish system, and that no departure from it should be admitted, unless impera¬ tively required by the peculiar circumstances of Ireland.
The Commissioners have, to a certain extent, kept this principle in view; and they have evidently founded some of their main recommendations upon the English system; but they have destroyed the value of the rule by departing from it unne¬ cessarily.
The Commissioners, indeed, say:—" It has been suggested to us to recommend a Poor Law for Ireland, similar to that of England; but we are of opinion that the provision to be made for the poor in Ireland must vary essentially from that made in England.
The circumstances of the two countries differ widely; and legislation, we submit, should have reference to circumstances as well as to prin¬ ciples."
(s.
2.)
It is of no avail for the Commissioners to urge that legislation should have reference to circumstances, unless they could show that the circum¬ stances in which Ireland differs from England are those which affect the funda¬ mental principles of the English Poor Law; and this they have failed in doing, paitly, as it appears to me, from misapprehending the motives which influence the Irish peasantry, and partly from mistaking the character of the workhouse system in England, and the operation of the English Poor Law.
The importance of adopting the principle above laid down seems to me to be proved by the following considerations :— 1.
The English system, as administered under the Poor Law Amendment Act, Reasons for Mlow-has now been put to a severe trial, and has proved eminently successful.
Not only ingthe English lias it no tendency to encourage pauperism, but it has diminished pauperism where sysem# it already existed to a frightful extent.
A system which has stood its ground in the pauperised state of England must be considered as having passed through a much severer ordeal than any system could be subjected to in a country of which the working population was in a healthy and natural state.
The argument of practical success is therefore peculiarly applicable to it, and it is an argument which all the world can understand.
2.
All dissimilarity between the laws of different parts of the same kingdom is an evil in itself, and ought, if possible, to be avoided.
This principle has been acted upon with regard to Ireland, since the Union, in many important matters: the assimilation of the financial and commercial laws, by the abolition of separate revenue boards, union duties, &c, was a most important series of measures founded on this principle, which have been attended with very beneficial results.
It is therefore an evil in itself, not to be incurred except from necessity, to have one set of laws for the relief of the poor in England and another in Ireland.
3.
In case of a general agreement of the two systems, the experience of England is applicable to Ireland.
The working of the new English system has already proved the policy and the impolicy of many important regulations; and the persons em¬ ployed in administering it have accumulated a large store of practical knowledge, which would be available to the administrators of a system founded on the same principles.
This assistance would be the more valuable in Ireland, as it is one of the few countries of Europe in which no system whatever, for the relief of the poor, has existed.
(See Senior, on Foreign Poor Laios) It may be moreover remarked that, in the case of a connexion of any kind subsisting between the Irish and the English Boards, it is highly desirable that ^e laws administered by each should have a general affinity.
If this was not so, the connexion would be merely nominal, and would be rather a hinderance than an assistance or support.
4.
Lastly, it is a consideration for those who have to justify a measure for an Irish Poor Law to the public, and to carry it through Parliament, that the prin¬ ciple suggested is simple, definite, defensible, and intelligible, and that it furnishes a fixed point of reference.
Whereas, if reasoners on this subject treat the question as a res integra, without regard to existing legislation, they launch into a boundless °cean of debate, and difficulties, and rival plans, and speculation.
