The second objection to the English Poor Law, is stated to be, the expense of erecting workhouses, which the Commissioners estimate at four millions sterling, and of afterwards maintaining them, which is computed at five millions annually. In forming these calculations, they suppose that provision should be made for the reception, and continual maintenance, of 2,385,000 persons, being the whole number of able-bodied labourers now out of work, including the families dependent on them. The extravagance of such a calculation is so glaring, that we only think it necessary to direct public attention to it.

Thirdly, they are of opinion, that the Irish peasantry would rebel against the system, and "rather endure any misery than make a workhouse their domicile;" that "it would be regarded, by the bulk of the population, as a stratagem for debarring them of that right to employment and support, with which the law professed to invest them;" and that, if any of them were induced to accept the shelter thus offered to them, the discipline of the place would produce resistance, tumults would ensue, and, after much trouble, expense, and mischief, the system would be abandoned altogether.' With these opinions, we marvel not that the Commissioners "consider it morally, indeed physically, impossible so to provide for such a multitude, or even to attempt it with safety."

We quite agree with them, that the habits, tastes, and affections of the Irish peasantry, are against a workhouse system. No people, under heaven, would feel more acutely the necessity which should part them from those who shared their troubles, and cheered and sustained their spirits, in the midst of adversity. Most irksome would it be to leave that circle, to which the Irishman's heart ever fondly turns, and seek the cold comfort of a parish workhouse. Few, we are assured, would take up their rest in such an abode, with its prison-like restrictions, for a lengthened term. But the same affectionate feeling towards his family, which would render such a sojourn intolerable to an Irish peasant, would also reconcile him to its occasional shelter, when he once became convinced that its establishment was conducive to the permanent security and support, both of himself and of his children. And a very short time, or we are greatly mistaken, would suffice to convince him of that. It is true, as the Commissioners state, that "the labouring class are eager for work, and that work there is not for them; and that they are, therefore, and not from any fault of their own, in permanent want." The dread of the workhouse, consequently, is unnecessary to put them on their own resources to procure employment. But are there not others, whom the dread of the same object

might put upon their resources, with better effect, in order to find work for the poor man? Would not the necessity, imposed upon the man of property, and upon the state, of maintaining such an asylum for the able-bodied out of work, give a spur to the benevolence of the rich, and ultimately cause employment to abound? If, as Mr. Revans argues, and we think unanswerably, "the workhouse provision constitutes a certain, as well as a safe, minimum to earnings," the Irish peasantry will not be long in discovering that fact; and the knowledge of such a circumstance will soon assist them to overcome their repugnance to a restraint, so salutary in its operation upon their future prospects. They are too well trained to habits of self-denial, even where no promise of advantage supports them, to kick against a trial of patience, so obviously intended and calculated for their good.

As to the idea of the Houses of Refuge becoming permanently occupied by the labouring class, a class so eager for work," we need scarcely attempt to show how vain is such an apprehension. For the Report itself, in the next paragraph to that in which the objection is started, and in which one half of the gross rental of the country is threatened with absorption, by the permanent pauper inmates of those asylums, very frankly acknowledges, that the Commissioners do not think that " such an amount of expense would, in point of fact, be incurred." We feel very happy that we can conscientiously subscribe to this opinion, and for the same reason, amongst others, with that alleged in the Report, namely, the general repugnance of the people to so disagreeable a residence. Our concurrence, too, is grounded on something beyond mere opinion. Experience of the system in England fully proves, that no superiority of fare, or entertainment, can induce the poor to rest content within the walls of a workhouse, while separated from their families, or debarred from that, which, in every state and stage of fortune, is as dear as life itself, an uncontrolled command of their own time and actions. Revans visited a workhouse in Nottinghamshire, where, to speak without a figure, the inmates "fared sumptuously every day," and were allowed to pass their time without labour, and in unrestrained intercourse with the female members of their families. Yet very rarely did able-bodied persons apply for admission into that house, a circumstance which the master explained, by saying,-"Oh, Sir, I keep the key of the door, and I very seldom allow the able-bodied people to go out, which they don't like; so, if they can possibly live out, they wont come in." The same

Mr.

sentiment undoubtedly prevails, with at least equal force, in the breasts of the Irish peasantry. They would endure much hardship, rather than submit to the restraint and discipline of a work

house. But, at the same time, extreme distress and hunger, which "makes all things sweet except itself," will often render such an asylum acceptable to them, as a temporary shelter; and this is precisely the sort of estimation in which it is desirable that those receptacles should be held. For thus they will be subservient to necessities, for which no other present help can be devised; at the same time, that there will be no danger of their becoming heavily burdensome to the country, as repressing a spirit of industry and independence among the poor, or affording an acceptable retreat to the profligate and the idle.

The Commissioners object also, and with good reason, to a provision for forcing the landholders to employ the poor, or giving what is called "parochial employment." Through that door entered all the abuse, waste, and immorality, which, before the enactment of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, constituted the crying evil and danger of the Poor Law system in England, and which, if suffered to go forward and accumulate, would have inevitably swept away the barriers of property, paralyzed and destroyed commercial enterprise, and involved the distinctions of society in inextricable confusion.

Of this truth, the remarkable case of Cholesbury, a parish in Berkshire, which is cited by the Commissioners, affords a striking illustration. There the rates went on with fearful progression, to meet the demand for out-of-door employment, until, at length, the "landlords gave up their rents, the farmers their tenancies, and the clergyman his glebe and his tithes!" All this, however, proved inadequate to the still encreasing distress; and the neighbouring parishes were actually obliged to help those paupers, who were already in possession of every inch of land, and of all that it produced, in their own parish!

This was an extreme case; but numerous others, not so levelling in degree, yet still intolerably exactive and ruinous, occurred in every part of England, to the oppression and discouragement of the gentry and middle classes, especially of the farmers; whilst the effect upon the moral habits of the peasantry were most deplorable. On the one side, an offer was made of labour, which those on the other side, little as they might want it, were not at liberty absolutely to refuse. Hence, a continual contest was kept up between the occupier of the land and the labourer, in which it was the endeavour of the former to evade the necessity of encumbering himself with more help than he required, and of the latter to oblige him, by representations of real or fictitious distress, and not unfrequently by violence, to take it. Under the operation of such a system, the feelings of mutual reliance and good-will were quickly obliterated, and a sentiment

of sullen hostility and mistrust was engendered in its room, most detrimental to the interests of both; inspiring the one with harshness and severity, and the other, with a secret resolution to render back as little service as possible, for the extorted support which he received. Nor was the condition of the labourer improved by the great sacrifices made to keep him from want. He was, and felt himself, a degraded man; and by the humiliating and fraudulent means, to which he was often compelled to resort, in order to extort parochial assistance, he soon lost the love of independence, which was once the boast of the sturdy British peasant. Its bread was no more sweet to him. He preferred the lazy, reckless life of the parish pauper, with all the squalid, improvident, and intemperate habits, which naturally grew out of that worst kind of villanage, to the hard-earned crust of honest, independent labour. Wherever the system of "outof-door relief, or parochial employment," was most prevalent, there drunkenness and other degrading vices flourished; and it is most gratifying to find, as we see it stated in the Report of the English Poor Law Commissioners, that the change, which has been introduced into the system, has already produced a visible improvement in the habits of the English peasant. "While the indolence, generated by the old system of parochial employment, has been thus superseded by habits of industry, the train of vices, generated by indolence, are found to be gradually diminishing. The increase of sobriety is frequently indicated to us, in the progress of the change, by the complaints of the beer-shop keepers, that the consumption of beer has been diminished, and by their activity in opposing the progress of a further change."

Looking to these facts, and to the character of our countrymen, unhappily too prone to habits of improvidence, the Commissioners cannot recommend parochial employment, or outdoor relief, for the labourers of Ireland:" and to the propriety and justice of this conclusion we find ourselves constrained to subscribe.

But what then do they recommend? It seems absurd to talk of a provision for the poor, and yet leave the unemployed able-bodied poor, who constitute so large a proportion of the whole, unprovided for. The Commissioners will not open the workhouse for them. They object, with equal vehemence, to finding parochial employment for them, or to giving them relief out of doors. Here, then, the difficulty, which met us at starting, is still in our way; and how is it to be got over?—The Commissioners propose a number of expedients for that purpose, some of which we shall now briefly consider.

The first thing they suggest is Emigration;-Emigration, as

a means of carrying off " the redundancy of labour, which now exists in Ireland." With this view they recommend the establishment of "Emigration Depôts," for such as may be "unable to find free and profitable employment in Ireland;" these depots to serve for their reception and intermediate support; such support to be afforded only, " as a preliminary to Emigration;" and a free passage to be provided, at the public expense, conjointly, in some instances, with that of the landlords, for those who cannot afford to pay for themselves. "It is thus, and thus only"-says the Report-" that the market of labour in Ireland can be relieved from the weight that is now upon it, or the labourer be raised from his present prostrate state." What the expense of all this might be, the Commissioners have omitted to state; but it may be deduced from several passages in their Report, without going further for proof, that it would be very considerable; for, according to their statements, the correctness of which we see no reason to question, vast numbers would avail themselves of the opportunity, thus afforded, of leaving their homes, and their country, for ever. Those who are able to work, and cannot now find free and profitable labour in Ireland, are said to amount, together with their families and dependents, to two millions three hundred and eighty five thousand persons. Now, if the Commissioners, to fortify their objection against workhouses, assumed that accommodations should necessarily be provided for all this number, are we not equally warranted in calculating, that they will all claim the refuge of the Emigration Depots, and demand a free passage to the Colonies? We appeal to the Report itself, which states, that "the feelings of the suffering labourers in Ireland are decidedly in favour of Emigration; they do not desire workhouses, but they do desire a free passage to a Colony, where they may have the means of living by their industry:" and we refer to the voluminous extracts, which it brings forward, from the evidence taken before the Assistant Commissioners, showing the universal prevalence of those feelings in the breasts of the Irish peasants. They do desire to abandon the shores of their native land, that land, which they love with a romantic affection. It is, to them, a land of misery and privation, though Providence has blessed it with fertility and beauty, scattered, amongst its hills and in its green vallies, sources of wealth as profuse as they are various, and continually offers, on all sides, abundant and remunerative occupation to the energies and productive industry of its people. Yet they are desirous to quit this, "their own, their native land,” for the aguish swamps of Canada!

Do we ask the reason of this strange passion? It is not to be