course, without interest, and by instalments of five per cent., until all be returned. It is supposed that a sum of £700,000 would be sufficient to defray the building expenses, the repayment of which, in annual payments of five per cent. would be £35,000, for 20 years, being little more than £1000 a-year, during that period, upon each of the thirty-two counties, into which Ireland is divided.

With respect to the charge of maintaining them, the amount, of course, must depend on the number of poor persons who would apply for admission; and would vary considerably in different places, and at different times. There is, however, even in the present state of things, an average employment for the whole of the labourers in Ireland, of about twenty-two weeks, of six working days each.* During so much of the year, then, it is fair to suppose, that the workhouses will be universally untenanted by able-bodied poor; and Mr. Revans calculates, that, "if the food given in the houses of refuge be not far better than that which is ordinarily possessed by the peasantry, the whole of the houses, in the counties forming the east coast, from Antrim to Waterford, will, during the greater portion of the year, contain only widows, orphans, aged persons, and now and then a few ejected tenants, or labourers who cannot obtain employment."

The quality of the food, provided for the poor in the Houses of Refuge, need not be "far better than that ordinarily possessed" by persons in their rank of life. In England, the paupers are dieted on wheaten bread, with meat once or twice a week, and soup at other times. It would be absurd to introduce such fare into an Irish workhouse, which would be better, not only than their usual diet, but than the customary fare at the tables of those who are reputed "strong farmers." But we would not recommend a niggardly or mean dispensation of food, which would be alike injurious to the effect designed by the establishment of these institutions, and unjust towards the poor persons who were reduced to the misfortune of seeking relief within their walls. A popular aversion to the workhouse would be just as mischievous a sentiment, as too great a relish and enjoyment of its hospitality. For it is most essential to the effective working of a Poor Law, that the poor themselves shall feel assured that it was meant for their benefit; and they can hardly entertain such a confidence, if they are treated with unnecessary rigour or parsimony. Their situation, in the liberal custody of the Board of Guardians, should, therefore, be rendered as comfortable as might be found compatible with the great object of promoting a love of indepen

In Connaught, the average is short of sixteen weeks.

dence, and a willingness to exert themselves in order to obtain it. They should not be supplied with tea, or other things which are accounted luxuries among them; but of simple and wholesome food let them have enough.

The expense of maintaining a pauper in the Mendicity Institution of Dublin, is 24d. per day; and the Commissioners have made their calculations at the same rate, for the support of every pauper, who might require to be maintained in an asylum in any part of Ireland: so that the support of a labourer's family, at the low average of five persons, would stand the community in 78. 34d. per week. This is evidently a most exaggerated estimate. Mr. Revans is much nearer the mark when he says, that, where numbers were fed together, it might be done at sixpence a week for each person. In fact, he shows, that, in England, where provisions of every kind are so much dearer, and the quality of food supplied so far superior to any thing contemplated for Ireland, a shilling, and a fraction of a penny, is the average cost of maintaining a pauper in a workhouse. Assuming, then, that sixpence a-week will be sufficient for the same purpose in Ireland, and that the number of able-bodied claimants on the public bounty, including their families, will on no occasion exceed 400,000, he demonstrates, that £500,000 would be sufficient to support all these through the whole period of the year.

Our next question is, Where is this sum, this annual supply for the relief of the poor, to come from? If, as has been computed, the land now contributes upwards of a million annually for the relief of the poor, it seems no great hardship, to require from it about half that amount in a regular shape; and we would suggest, accordingly, that each district of a workhouse, containing, as we have proposed, 400 square miles, be assessed for the support of its own poor within that asylum.

Objections, we know, have been raised to local taxation, for such a purpose. The benefit proposed is general, the burden is partial or unequal. To suppress vagrancy, and to put down agrarian outrage, are not more the interest of the disorderly and impoverished districts, than of those which are peaceful and pros

perous:

"Nam tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet."

A general rate is therefore spoken of. But if it be one of the most important effects, expected to result from a compulsory Poor Law, that it shall stimulate the rich to find ways and means of employing the labouring class, so that they shall come as little as possible upon the public for relief, that end would be entirely frustrated by the imposition of a general rate.

For men

would feel as little disposed to spare a fund, raised by common assessment, as if it were paid from the Concordatum, or the Civil List. The weight of it, indeed, would press upon the owners of property, and it would still become heavier upon each individual, as universal abuse increased. But no man would find his own case the better for his individual attempts to lighten the pressure. The only effect of his doing so, would be to double the load upon himself; whereas, by making the rate local, the owners of property would have a direct interest in every guinea they could save; and this would dispose them not only to abstain from jobbing, for the gratification of private objects, but also to correct and control such practices in their neighbours.

How, then, is this local taxation to be apportioned? If, in any district, there be a landlord, whose tenants are all in comfort and independence, and who gives extensive and constant employment to the labouring class, is he to be assessed equally with the proprietor of the neighbouring estate, a spendthrift perhaps, or a miser, whose neglect of his people may have brought the whole district into distress and poverty? An estate, if it be of any considerable extent, so mismanaged as many estates in Ireland have been, not only breeds paupers to prey on its own vitals, but sends them forth in all directions, to infect and oppress its wholesome neighbours. Nay, it frequently happens, that the property of the improvident or hard-hearted landlord has fewer paupers residing upon it, than that of a benevolent and judicious proprietor in the same district. What is to be done in such a case? Is the man, who has starved them out, to escape, and the whole burden of maintaining them to light upon the good Samaritan, who has suffered them to take shelter within his confines?

Again:-Many estates have been "cleared" of the redundant population, without the slightest regard to the fate of the wretches who have been swept away. Are not those outcasts now swelling the ranks of the destitute; and shall they, who reduced them to that condition, profit by the cruelty they have practised, or escape from a share of the burden which they have laid upon the community? Mr. Bicheno, one of the Commissioners, who cannot be charged with forgetting the interests of the landlords, states, and we know it to be true in more instances than one, that"The prospect of a Poor Law has already been made a plea for dispossessing many of the poor." He makes this an argument against any Poor Law, "lest it should furnish an excuse for ejectment:" and it would furnish an excuse, and an inducement too, if such acts were allowed to constitute a plea for exemption from maintaining the poor. That would be at once to confer a reward upon bad landlords, for having deliberately added to the

L

prevailing poverty and distress, and to offer an encouragement to others to act in a similar manner.

It will doubtless be a grievous thing to force those proprietors, who have always done their duty towards their tenantry, to contribute in equal proportion to repair the mischief, which might have been avoided if others had followed their example. But when society has been reduced to an unsound condition through long mismanagement, and efforts are to be made to restore it, it is not often possible for legislation to discriminate between the evil and the good; and particularly so, when the consequences of the former are inseparably intermixed and wrought through its whole frame and texture. Legislation must, in this case, stand still and attempt nothing, or else comprehend all property alike in the obligations which it is about to impose. For no method of exactly apportioning the burthen to the deserts of those, who must bear it, can be contrived; and the injustice, that would be inflicted by the attempt, would far surpass that which must be tolerated, if the weight were laid equally upon all.

Nor is the hardship of this a new thing. The good landlords are now taxed, and oppressively taxed, for the misconduct of the bad. The heavy and expensive police establishment, which they must assess themselves to support, the large army which their contributions to the indirect taxes help to keep up, for the suppression of discontent in Ireland, and the amount of ill-regulated and misapplied benefactions lavished by the farmers upon the vagrant poor, which are so many drains from the wealth and substance of the land-all these are actual imposts laid upon good landlords, on account of the wasteful, thoughtless, and unfeeling habits of other proprietors. Should the operation of a Poor Law tend to remove or diminish these burthens-as it certainly will, if its provisions be framed on a sufficiently liberal and comprehensive plan—the necessity of supporting the improvidence of others will no longer exist in the same degree; and thus the assistance, which a good landlord may be now required to render for the relief of the unfortunate, will operate in the end, as a positive relief to himself.

Local taxation, we are told, necessarily implies Settlement. We cannot see the necessary connexion between them; and if we thought that one must follow the other, we would at once give up local taxation, and consent to a general rate, as a lesser evil than that of Settlement. The abuses and iniquities which flowed upon England out of the maladministration of the Poor Laws, before they were amended, arose from this principle, combined with that of out-door relief, and parochial employment. To it, as to the fabulous bed of the tyrant, the circumstances and ne

cessities of each parish were required to enlarge or contract themselves, with a rigour which was quite preposterous, and of which the disastrous effects are illustrated in the famous case, already alluded to, of Cholesbury. The constant struggle be tween the ratepayer and the pauper, in the efforts of one to prevent, and the other to obtain, a settlement, produced ill-will, fraud, and artifices, destructive to the moral character of the people. Endless litigation ensued between parishes; the spirit of provident industry was repressed and discountenanced; undeserved hardship and vexation were practised towards the poor, and all this through the operation of this unwise law. It has been retained, as a part of the amended Poor Law,-for what good reason we cannot exactly discern: although, by the abolition of out-door relief, it is deprived of much of its power to do harm. But it is a very different thing to retain an established usage in a community, where it has long existed, and become in some degree, perhaps, interwoven with the popular habits, and to adopt it, as a new principle, in a country where it would be alike repugnant to the tastes and customs, and incompatible with the productive pursuits and resources, of the people.

By interfering with the distribution of labour, according to the demand, Settlement has been found very injurious in various parts of England, and has produced many of those instances of discouragement to frugality and foresight, which we have latterly heard cited against the principle of any Poor Law. There are two instances, mentioned in Mr. Chadwick's Report, of good workmen having, from their wages and by other means, saved enough to give them a prospect of independence. One of them had put by £70, and had, besides, two cows and a number of pigs. The other had two cows, a well furnished house, a pig, and some fowls. Their employer, having no farther need of their services, discharged them; and, although they were both excellent workmen, they found it impossible to procure employment. Through a desire, on the part of the ratepayers, to keep down assessment, 66 paupers were preferred to these men, and they could only qualify themselves for employment by becoming paupers themselves." They would have sought work elsewhere, but were not allowed to go into any other parish, lest they should gain a settlement there. We mention these cases thus particularly, because similar ones have been brought forward for the purpose of exciting a popular opposition to a Poor Law, when, in truth, they only furnish arguments against the principle of Settlement, a principle which no person, at all acquainted with the customs and necessities of the people, could ever think of proposing in a system of Poor Relief for Ireland. Migration is