Produced by KD Weeks, Brownfox and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note:
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.
The original footnotes were sequenced using the alphabet, cycling
repeatedly from a to z. They have been resequenced numerically for
uniqueness. The notes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which
they are referenced.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.
Paragraph descriptors (marginal notes) appear either before the
paragraph which they introduce, or in-line for those in mid-paragraph,
and are enclosed here in square brackets.
A HISTORY
OF THE
IRISH POOR LAW,
IN CONNEXION WITH
THE CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE.
BY SIR GEORGE NICHOLLS, K.C.B.,
LATE POOR LAW COMMISSIONER, AND SECRETARY TO THE POOR LAW BOARD.
------------------
“Let every man be occupied, and occupied in the highest
employment of which his nature is capable, and die with the
consciousness that he has done his best.”—SYDNEY SMITH
------------------
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
KNIGHT & Co., 90, FLEET STREET.
1856.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON · PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AND CHARING CROSS.
DEDICATION.
To the Ex-officio and Elected Members of the Boards
of Guardians in Ireland, in the hope that it may be
of use to them in the performance of their important
Duties, this History of the Irish Poor Law is
dedicated,
By their faithful servant,
THE AUTHOR.
_November 1856._
PREFACE.
------------------
The Irish Poor Law was in its origin no more than a branch or offshoot
of the English law, but it is a measure of so much importance, and has
so close a bearing upon the social well-being of the Irish people, that
it seems to be entitled to a separate consideration. The severe trials
moreover to which the law has been exposed, and the changes that have
been made in its organization and executive, have given to it a new and
distinctive character, on which account also a separate description of
its progress and the incidents connected with it appears to be
necessary. Hence therefore the intention which I at first entertained of
combining the history of the Irish Poor Law with that of its English
parent has been abandoned, and it is now published as a separate and
independent work.
Notwithstanding the separate publication of the histories however, it
must always be remembered that the English and the Irish laws are
similar in principle, and identical in their objects. The end sought to
be attained by each is, to relieve the community from the demoralization
as well as from the danger consequent on the prevalence of extensive and
unmitigated destitution, and to do this in such a way as shall have the
least possible tendency to create the evil which it is sought to guard
against. This is the legitimate object of a Poor Law, and the facts and
reasonings on which such a law is founded, are not limited to Ireland or
England or Scotland, but are in their nature universal. I hardly need
say that this object is distinct from charity, in the ordinary sense of
the term, although it is undoubtedly charity in its largest acceptation,
embracing the whole community—It is in truth the charity of the
statesman and the philanthropist, seeking to secure the largest amount
of good for his fellow men, with the smallest amount of accompanying
evil.
The part that was assigned to me, first in the framing of the Irish Poor
Law, and then in its introduction, seems to render any apology for my
undertaking to write its history unnecessary. Although failing health
and advancing years had compelled me to retire from the public service,
I thought that I might still be usefully employed in recording the
circumstances under which the law was established, and the events
attending its administration; and I am most thankful for having been
enabled to undertake the task, and for being permitted to bring it to a
conclusion.
It is true that for the last nine years I have not been immediately
connected with the Irish Poor Law, but I have nevertheless continued to
watch its progress with the greatest solicitude, and have spared no
pains to obtain information as to its working. I could indeed hardly
have failed to do this, after the part I had taken in the framing of the
measure, even without reference to the heavy trials through which the
Irish people have passed, and which obtained for them universal sympathy
and commiseration. If such was the general feeling with regard to
Ireland in its season of trial, it will readily be believed that mine
could not have formed an exception; and in the authorship of the present
work, I may therefore I trust venture to claim credit, not only on
account of my connexion with the origin and introduction of the law, but
also for having attended to its subsequent progress, and acquired such a
knowledge of its operation and results as to warrant the undertaking.
A history of the Irish Poor Law, explaining its origin and the
principles on which it was founded, together with an account of its
progress and the effects of its application would, it might reasonably
be supposed, afford information that must be generally useful—that it
would be useful to the administrators of the law, can hardly admit of
doubt. Such a history would place before them in a complete and regular
series, all that it would be necessary for them to know, and all that
ought to be borne in mind, in order that the examples of the past may
prepare them for promptly dealing with the present, or for anticipating
the future. The following work has been framed chiefly with this view;
and I can only say that I have earnestly endeavoured to make it
sufficient for the purpose, without any other wish or object than that
it should prove useful in a cause to which during several years my best
energies were devoted, and to the furtherance of which I could no longer
contribute in any other way.
G. N.
_November 1856._
CONTENTS.
PREFACE Page v
CHAPTER I.
State of Ireland before the conquest—Its subjection by Henry
II.—Spenser’s account of the state of the country—Plantation
of Ulster—Progress of population—Legislation previous to the
accession of Anne—Dublin and Cork Workhouse Acts—Hiring and
wages—Apprenticeship—Provision for foundling and deserted
children—Licensed beggars—Arthur Young’s account of the state
of Ireland 1
CHAPTER II.
Rebellion of 1798—The Union—Acts of the Imperial Parliament:
respecting dispensaries, hospitals, and
infirmaries—Examination of bogs—Fever hospitals—Officers of
health—Lunatic asylums—Employment of the poor—Deserted
children—Report of 1804 respecting the poor—Dublin House of
Industry and Foundling Hospital—Reports of 1819 and 1823 on
the state of disease and condition of the labouring
poor—Report of 1830 on the state of the poorer classes—Report
of the Committee on Education—Mr. Secretary Stanley’s letter
to the Duke of Leinster—Board of National Education—First and
second Reports of commissioners for inquiring into the
condition of the poorer classes—The author’s ‘Suggestions’—The
commissioners’ third Report—Reasons for and against a
voluntary system of relief—Mr. Bicheno’s 'Remarks on the
Evidence'—Mr. G. C. Lewis’s ‘Remarks on the Third Report’ 67
CHAPTER III.
Recommendation in the king’s speech—Motions and other
proceedings in the House of Commons—Lord John Russell’s
instructions to the author—The author’s first Report—Lord John
Russell’s speech on introducing a bill founded on its
recommendations—Progress of the bill interrupted by the death
of the king—Author’s second Report—Bill reintroduced and
passed the Commons—Author’s third Report—Bill passes the
lords, and becomes law 153
CHAPTER IV.
Summary of the 'Act for the more effectual Relief of the Poor in
Ireland,' and of the ‘Amendment Act’—Arrangements for bringing
the Act into operation—First and second Reports of
proceedings—Dublin and Cork unions—Distress in the western
districts—Third, fourth, fifth, and sixth Reports—Summary of
the Act for the further amendment of the Law—Seventh
Report—Cost of relief, and numbers relieved—Issue of amended
orders 222
CHAPTER V.
Eighth Report of proceedings—Failure of the potato—A fourth
commissioner appointed—Ninth Report—Potato disease in
1846—Public Works Act—Distress in autumn 1846—Labour-rate
Act—Relief-works—Temporary Relief Act—Pressure upon
workhouses—Emigration—Financial state of unions—First Annual
Report of Poor-Law Commissioners for Ireland—Extension Act—Act
for Punishment of Vagrants—Act to provide for execution of
Poor Laws—General import of the new Acts—Change of the
commission—Dissolution of boards of guardians—Report of
Temporary Relief Act Commissioners—British Association—Second
Annual Report of Poor-Law Commissioners—Recurrence of potato
disease—Cholera—Rate-in-Aid Act—Further dissolution of boards
of guardians—Boundary Commission—Select committee on Irish
Poor Laws—Expenditure, and numbers relieved 303
CHAPTER VI.
Third Annual Report of Poor-Law Commissioners—Further Amendment
Act—Fourth Annual Report—New unions and electoral
divisions—Consolidated Debts Act—Rates in aid—Fifth Annual
Report—Annuities under Consolidated Debts Act—Treasury
minute—Act to amend Acts relating to payment of
advances—Medical charities—Medical Charities Act—First Report
of Medical Charity Commissioners—Census of
1851—Retrospection—Sixth Annual Report—Rate of
wages—Expenditure, and numbers relieved—Changes in Poor-Law
executive—New order of accounts—Author’s letter to Lord John
Russell, 1853—Present state and future prospects of Ireland 364
INDEX 405
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY
OF
THE IRISH POOR LAW,
IN CONNEXION WITH
THE CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE.
------------------------------------
CHAPTER I.
State of Ireland before the conquest—Its subjection by Henry
II.—Spenser’s account of the state of the country—Plantation of
Ulster—Progress of population—Legislation previous to the
accession of Anne—Dublin and Cork Workhouse Acts—Hiring and
wages—Apprenticeship—Provision for foundling and deserted
children—Licensed beggars—Arthur Young’s account of the state of
Ireland.
After Strongbow’s expedition to Ireland in the year 1170, which was
followed by that of Henry the Second and the general submission of the
chieftains of the several clans in 1172, the history of Ireland becomes
closely connected with and may be said to form a portion of that of
England. The accounts we have of the state of the country anterior to
Strongbow’s invasion are vague and uncertain, although there are grounds
for believing that some degree of civilization had prevailed, and that
intercourse with the East had been to some extent maintained, at a very
early period. It has been said that “The Gauls or Celtes from the
north-west parts of Britain, and certain tribes from the north-west
parts of Spain peopled Ireland, either originally or by subduing the
Phœnician colonies which had been established there;” and that the
Irish, and their kinsmen the Highlanders of Scotland, are supposed to be
“the remains of a people who in ancient times had occupied not only
Britain, but a considerable part of Gaul and Spain.”[1] The Irish were
no doubt commonly known by the name of Scots, and the proximity of the
two countries, irrespective of all other considerations, renders the
identity of origin highly probable.
-----
[1]
See the ‘Liber Munerum publicorum Hibernie,’ the first and following
chapters on the Establishments of Ireland, supplementary to the
History of England, by Rowley Lascelles, of the Middle Temple, printed
by authority in 1824. This work has been chiefly relied upon for
historical reference. It bears evidence of great research, and is on
every account entitled to much weight in the conflicting testimonies
with regard to the early events of Irish history.
-----
The Romans never extended their conquests to Ireland, and it was
protected by its insular position from the irruption of barbarians which
burst upon the Roman provinces in the fifth and sixth centuries, and
caused the dismemberment of the western empire. In that age, we are
told, “Irish missionaries taught the Anglo-Saxons of the north, who also
resorted to Ireland for instruction.” Lingard says that “when learning
was almost extinguished on the continent of Europe, a faint light was
emitted from the shores of Erin; and that strangers from Britain, from
Gaul, and from Germany, resorted to the Irish schools.” It is probable
however that the light was partial as well as faint, and that the
Christian monasteries with their learned men which constituted the
“schools,” existed in only a few places in Ireland, each establishment
forming as it were a speck of civilization, like an oasis in the desert
of barbarism. It is certain that the Irish of that day paid no Peter’s
pence, and acknowledged no supremacy in the see of Rome; and there is
reason to believe that the Irish Church was derived rather from the
Greek than the Latin hierarchy.[2] Whatever glimmering of civilization
prevailed in Ireland at this early period, must have been damped and
prevented from expanding “by the rude influence of the native
institutions, and it was nearly if not quite extinguished by the
irruptions of the Northmen, or Danes, who annually made incursions into
Ireland from the middle of the eighth to the end of the tenth century.”
The ancient division of the country into the four provinces of Munster,
Connaught, Leinster, and Ulster, which must be referred to this early
period, seems to have been for ecclesiastical purposes. The division
into counties, of which there are thirty-two, took place long after.
-----
[2]
See ‘The Handbook of Architecture,’ a recent publication in which the
ingenious author supports this conclusion by showing the similarity of
the religious buildings erected in the East and in Ireland, which in
both differ materially from what is seen in Italy and the other
countries of Europe.
-----
The Conqueror is said to have at one time entertained the project of
bringing Ireland under subjection, but notwithstanding its proximity to
England, and the obvious advantages that would result from uniting the
two islands under one government, neither he nor his three immediate
successors made any effort to accomplish this object. In the reign of
Henry the Second however, a circumstance occurred which drew the
attention of the English sovereign to the state of Ireland, and led to
consequences most important to both countries. In the year 1169 Dermod,
king of Leinster, who had been expelled by O'Connor, king of Connaught,
sought the protection of Henry, who accepted the tendered allegiance,
and permitted his subjects to assist the Irish chief. [Sidenote: 1172.
Subjection of Ireland by Henry II.]Earl Strigul (or Strongbow) took
advantage of this permission, and in 1170 embarked for Ireland with a
few armed retainers. He was followed two years afterwards by the king
himself, with a considerable force. Henry was everywhere received as a
conqueror, the Irish princes and chiefs submitting without opposition;
and at a council assembled at Lismore, the laws of England are said to
have been gratefully accepted by all, and established under the sanction
of a solemn oath.
The chieftains who had however, so readily submitted to become Henry’s
vassals, as readily withdrew their allegiance on his quitting Ireland,
which he was compelled to do at the end of little more than six months,
in consequence of Becket’s murder, and the rebellion of his own sons.
Thenceforward for the long period of 400 years, the country was
distracted by local dissensions and jealousies, and the conflicts of
contending chiefs. Treachery and murder everywhere prevailed. The
sovereigns of England were too much occupied with the crusades, and
their French wars, to attend to the state of Ireland; and although the
English race maintained itself in that country, it is said to have
become wilder and less civilized in each succeeding generation. “The
first adventurers (we are told) trampled down the original Irish; they
were themselves in their turn trampled down by the next adventurers;
these by subsequent ones; and so on in a continual series, as if each
race had forfeited all rights, or power of acquiring and retaining any
rights whatsoever, more than a common robber or pirate.”
Little was done towards establishing order and the supremacy of law in
Ireland, until Henry the Seventh, after having put an end to civil
strife in England, was enabled to direct his attention to the state of
that country, where he was alike successful. Henry the Eighth assumed
the title of king, instead of that of lord of Ireland as used by his
predecessors. His efforts to establish the Reformation in Ireland, were
not so successful as in England, where a great majority of the nobility
and the people were with him, but in Ireland he had neither. The power
of the government moreover was there less, and might be opposed or
disregarded with comparative impunity. On the accession of Mary in 1553,
“so little had been done in advancing the Reformation, that there was
little to undo.” In the reign of Elizabeth, however, the whole
ecclesiastical system was assimilated to that of England, and such of
the clergy as would not conform, were deprived of their cures.
Throughout great part of Elizabeth’s reign, Ireland was kept in a state
of disquiet by Spanish emissaries, the landing of Spanish troops, and
the intrigues of Tyrone and other Irish chieftains; but the Spaniards
were compelled to evacuate the country, Tyrone submitted, and before the
close of her reign in 1603, peace had been everywhere restored.[3]
-----
[3]
In ten years Ireland is said to have cost Elizabeth the immense sum of
3,400,000_l._ See ‘History of the English Poor Law,’ vol. i. p. 205.
-----
[Sidenote: 1596.
Spenser’s account of the state of Ireland.]
Our great poet Spenser has left us a description of the state of Ireland
in the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign. Both he and his friend Raleigh
had obtained grants of land there, and Spenser had resided in Ireland
for several years, and thus acquired a knowledge of the country, which
he describes with all the fancy of a poet and the fervour of a
patriot—“and sure (he says) it is a most beautiful and sweet country as
any under heaven, being stored thro’out with many goodly rivers,
replenished with all sorts of fish most abundantly, sprinkled with many
very sweet islands and goodly lakes, like little inland seas, that will
carry even shippes upon their waters; adorned with goodly woods even fit
for building houses and ships, so commodiously, as that if some princes
in the world had them, they would soon hope to be lords of all the seas,
and ere long of all the world; also full of very good ports and havens
opening upon England, as inviting us to come unto them, to see what
excellent commodities that country can afford, besides the soyle itself
most fertile, fit to yield all kinds of fruit that shall be committed
thereunto. And lastly, the heavens most mild and temperate, though
somewhat more moist in the parts towards the west.”
After thus eulogising the country as most sweet and beautiful, Spenser
describes the habits of the people, in less favourable colours
certainly, but no doubt with equal truth—
“All the Irish almost (he says) boast themselves to be gentlemen, no
less than the Welsh; for if he can derive himself from the head of any
sept (as most of them can, they are so expert by their bardes) then he
holdeth himself a gentleman, and thereupon scorneth to worke, or use any
hard labour, which he saith is the life of a peasant or churl; but
henceforth becometh either an horseboy or a stocah (attendant) to some
kerne, inuring himself to his weapon, and to the gentlemanly trade of
stealing, as they count it. So that if a gentleman, or any wealthy man
yeoman of them, have any children, the eldest of them perhaps shall be
kept in some order, but all the rest shall shift for themselves and fall
to this occupation. And moreover it is a common use among some of their
gentlemen’s sonnes, that so soon as they are able to use their weapons,
they straight gather to themselves three or four straglers, or kearnes,
with whom wandering up and down idly the country, taking only meate, he
at last falleth unto some bad occasion that shall be offered, which
being once made known, he is thenceforth counted a man of worth, in whom
there is courage; whereupon there draw to him many other like loose
young men, which stirring him up with encouragement, provoke him shortly
to flat rebellion; and this happens not only sometimes in the sonnes of
their gentlemen, but also of their noblemen, specially of them who have
base sonnes; for they are not only not ashamed to acknowledge them, but
also boast of them, and use them for such secret services as they
themselves will not be seen in, as to plague their enemies, to spoil
their neighbours, to oppress and crush some of their own too stubborn
freeholders, which are not tractable to their wills.”
Having thus given a general description of the country and the people,
Spenser next adverts to circumstances connected with the landlord and
tenant classes in particular, to the first of which classes it will be
remembered he himself belonged—
“There is (he says) one general inconvenience which reigneth almost
thro’out Ireland: that is, the lords of land and freeholders, doe not
there use to set out their land in farme, or for terme of years, to
their tenants, but only from year to year, and some during pleasure;
neither indeed will the Irish tenant or husbandman otherwise take his
land than so long as he list himself. The reason hereof in the tenant
is, for that the landlords there use most shamefully to racke their
tenants, laying upon them coigny and livery at pleasure, and exacting of
them (besides his covenants) what he pleaseth. So that the poor
husbandman either dare not binde himself to him for longer terme, or
thinketh by his continual liberty of change, to keep his landlord the
rather in awe from wronging of him”—“The evils which cometh hereby are
great, for by this means both the landlord thinketh that he hath his
tenant more at command, to follow him into what action soever he shall
enter, and also the tenant being left at his liberty, is fit for every
occasion of change that shall be offered by time, and so much the more
ready and willing is he to runne into the same, for that he hath no such
state in any his houlding, no such building upon any farme, no such
coste employed in fencing or husbanding the same, as might withhold him
from any such wilfull course as his lord's cause, or his own lewde
disposition may carry him unto”—“and this inconvenience may be reason
enough to ground any ordinance for the good of the common wealth,
against the private behoof or will of any landlord that shall refuse to
graunt any such terme of estate unto his tenant, as may tende to the
good of the whole realme.”
It appears that Tipperary was at that time distinguished from the other
counties, being the only county palatine in Ireland; and of it and its
peculiar privileges, and the consequences to which these gave rise,
Spenser thus complains—“A county palatine is, in effect, to have a
privilege to spoyle the enemy’s borders adjoining. And surely so it is
used at this day, as a privilege place of spoiles and stealthes; for the
county of Tipperary, which is now the only county palatine in Ireland,
is, by abuse of some bad ones, made a receptacle to rob the rest of the
counties about it, by means of whose privileges none will follow their
stealthes; so as it being situate in the very lap of all the land, is
made now a border, which how inconvenient it is, let every man judge.”
Spenser also describes several measures which he considered necessary
for the repression of disorder and the protection of life and property.
In this “enumeration of needful points to be attended to for the good of
the common wealth,” he first wishes “that order were taken for the
cutting and opening of all places through woods, so that a wide way of
the space of 100 yards might be laid open in every of them for the
safety of travellers, which use often in such perilous places to be
robbed and sometimes murdered. Next that bridges were built upon the
rivers, and all the fords marred and spilt, so as none might pass any
other way but by those bridges, and every bridge to have a gate and a
gatehouse set thereon, whereof this good will come, that no night
stealthes, which are commonly driven in by-ways, and by blind fordes
unused of any but such like, shall not be conveyed out of one country
into another, as they use, but they must pass by those bridges, where
they may be easily tracked, or not suffered to pass. Also that in all
straights and narrow passages, as between two boggs, or through any deep
ford, or under any mountain side, there should be some little fortilage
set, which should keep and command that straight. Moreover that all
highways should be fenced and shut up on both sides, having only forty
feet for passage, so as none shall be able to pass but through the
highways, whereby thieves and night robbers might be more easily pursued
and encountered where there shall be no other way to drive their stolen
cattle. And further, that there shall be in sundry convenient places by
the highways, towns appointed to be built, the which should be free
burgesses and incorporate under bailiffs, to be by their inhabitants
well and strongly intrenched, or otherwise fenced, with gates on each
side to be shut nightly, like as there is in many places in the English
pale, and all the ways about it to be strongly shut up, so as none
should pass but through the towne; and to some it were good that the
privilege of a market were given, for there is nothing that doth sooner
cause civility in any country than many market townes, by reason that
people repairing often thither for their needs, will daily see and learn
civil manners of the better sort.”[4]
-----
[4]
See Spenser’s View of the State of Ireland, written in 1596, vol.
viii. of his works, printed in octavo in 1805.
-----
These extracts throw much light upon the social condition of Ireland at
that time, and no apology can be necessary for giving them insertion
here. It is impossible to doubt the writer’s sincerity, or the
truthfulness of his descriptions; and it is no small advantage to have
such a testimony to the state of things then existing in Ireland, which
may be regarded as a kind of standard or starting-point for future
comparison.
Shortly after Elizabeth’s death, and the accession of James the First,
an insurrection again broke out in the north of Ireland. It was soon put
down however, but it led to upwards of 500,000 acres of land being
escheated to the crown. [Sidenote: The plantation of Ulster.] This vast
tract, situated in the six northern counties, on which, we are told,
“only robbers and rebels had found shelter,” now afforded James the
opportunity for carrying into effect his favourite scheme of a
plantation in Ireland. The natives were removed to other localities, and
settlers from England and Scotland introduced; and thus Ulster shortly
became the most civilized and best cultivated of the four provinces,
instead of being the most wild and disorderly, as had previously been
the case.
In the contest between Charles the First and the parliament, the Roman
Catholics of Ireland adhered to the cause of the king; but their
adherence to that cause was accompanied by the treacherous massacre of
the Protestant settlers in 1641—an atrocity that gave rise to the
bitterest feelings throughout England, and eventually led to the
exacting of a stern and ruthless retribution. In 1649, six months after
the death of Charles, Cromwell proceeded to Ireland, taking with him a
considerable body of his disciplined veterans. He landed at Dublin in
August, and shortly afterwards Drogheda and Wexford were stormed with
great slaughter, upon which Cork, Kinsale, and other towns opened their
gates; and in ten months the entire country was brought under
subjection, with the exception of Limerick and Waterford, the reduction
of which Cromwell left to his son-in-law Ireton, and re-embarked for
England where his presence had become necessary. If Cromwell had
remained longer in Ireland, it is probable that he would with his usual
vigour have crushed the seeds of many existing evils, and laid the
foundation for future quiet; but this was not permitted, and the
elements of disorder remained, repressed and weakened it is true, but
still ready to burst forth whenever circumstances should give vent to
the explosion.
At the Revolution in 1688, when England adopted William the Third, the
Irish Roman Catholics adhered to James; and it was not until after the
battle of the Boyne, and the surrender of Limerick, that Ireland can be
said to have been again entirely subject to the English crown. During
the insurrections which took place in favour of the exiled family in
1715 and 1745, Ireland remained quiet. But in 1798 the triumph of
democracy in France, together with the active interference of French
agents, and the promises of assistance held out by them, led to the
outbreak of a rebellion, in the progress of which great enormities were
perpetrated; and which was not put down until after a great loss of
life, and the destruction of much property. Although doubtless to be
lamented on these accounts, the rebellion of 1798 was not however
without its use, for it showed in the strongest light the defects of the
existing system in Ireland, and thus helped to establish the legislative
union of the two countries, which took place at the commencement of the
present century, when the whole of the British islands were included
under the designation of “_The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland_.” Since the passing of the Act of Union in 1800, there is
nothing distinctive requiring to be noticed with regard to Ireland, its
interests being thenceforward merged in the general interests of the
empire.
[Sidenote: Progress of population in Ireland.]
The following summary of the estimated population of Ireland at several
periods is abstracted from the memoir of Mr. Shaw Mason, the officer
appointed under the Act for taking the census of Ireland in 1821, as the
same is given in the Appendix to Selections from the Lords’ Journals, by
Mr. Rowley Lascelles—
1672 as estimated by Sir William Petty 1,320,000
1695 ” by Captain South (doubtful) 1,034,102
1712 ” by Thomas Dobbs Esq., founded on 2,099,094
returns of the hearth-money
collectors
1718 ” do. 2,169,048
1725 ” do. 2,317,374
1726 ” do. 2,309,106
1731 ” by the magistrates and clergy 2,010,221
1754 ” by returns from the hearth-money 2,372,634
collectors
1767 ” do. 2,544,276
1777 ” do. 2,690,556
1785 ” do. 2,845,932
1788 ” by Gervais Parker Bushe Esq., one 4,040,000
of the commissioners of revenue
1791 as estimated by returns from the hearth-money 4,206,612
collectors
1792 ” by the Rev. Dr. Beaufort 4,088,226
1805 ” by Major Thomas Newenham 5,395,456
1813 ” founded on the incomplete census 5,395,856
under the Act of 1812
1821 ascertained by the census of 1821 6,801,827
[5] 1831 do. 1831 7,767,401
[5] 1841 do. 1841 8,175,124
[5] 1851 do. 1851 6,522,386
-----
[5]
These are taken from the census returns of the respective periods.
-----
With reference to the above summary, it may be remarked that a rapid
increase in the population of a country, cannot always be taken as a
proof of the increase of wealth and civilization, or of improvement in
the social condition of the people. It is possible indeed that it may be
productive of results the very reverse in these respects, when the
increase unduly presses upon or outruns the ordinary means of
subsistence, as it sometimes undoubtedly did in certain parts of
Ireland. But on the whole, and making every allowance for adverse
circumstances, the above table affords grounds for concluding, that
subsequently to 1672, the productive powers of the country were
receiving continually increased development, to meet the wants of a
continually increasing population. Or we might perhaps go further back,
and date the increase from the time when Cromwell, with a strong hand,
enforced order and established the ascendancy of the law in Ireland. The
decrease in the population which took place between 1841 and 1851, when
the number was forced back below what it had been thirty years
preceding, indicates a period of great trial and suffering. In the
latter portion of this period, the country was assailed by famine and
pestilence—a fearful visitation which will be noticed hereafter in its
order of date, and of which it would be out of place to say more at
present.
Until a comparatively recent period, there was no law directly providing
for the relief of the Irish poor. In this respect the legislation of
Ireland differed from that OF England and Scotland, in both of which
countries we have seen that such a provision was early made. The
difference in this respect, was probably at first owing to the disturbed
and unsettled state of Ireland; and afterwards, when it was brought more
thoroughly under subjection, the difference of race and religion with
other unfavourable circumstances, united to prevent the growth of that
orderly gradation of classes, and that sympathy between one class and
another, which exist in every well-conditioned community, and of which a
poor-law is a natural development.
Although there was no direct provision for the relief of the poor in
Ireland, several Acts of the Irish parliament were more or less
subsidiary to that object, whilst others were calculated to illustrate
the progress of civilization, and the general condition of the country.
Various institutions of a charitable character were likewise
established; and it will be necessary to notice certain of these
matters, before entering upon a consideration of the important measure
of 1838. The legislative enactments have precedence in order of time,
and to these we will now in the first instance direct our attention.[6]
[6]
The citations hereafter made, are taken from ‘The Statutes at Large,
passed in the Parliament held in Ireland’—published by authority in
thirteen volumes folio, in 1786.
[Sidenote: 1310.
Edward II.]
As early as 1310, in the reign of Edward the Second, we find that in a
parliament assembled at Kilkenny “it was agreed that none should keep
idle people or kearn in time of peace, to live upon the poor of the
country; but those which will have them shall keep them at their own
charges, so that the free tenants and farmers be not charged with them.”
And [Sidenote: 1440. Henry VI.] 130 years afterwards, in the reign of
Henry the Sixth, among the ordinances established by a parliament holden
in Dublin, it was declared—“that divers of the English do maintain and
succour sundry thieves robbers and rebels, because that the same thieves
robbers and rebels do put them into their safeguard and comrick, so that
the king’s faithful subjects dare not pursue their right against such
thieves robbers and rebels, for fear of them which have taken them into
their safeguard and comrick”—wherefore it is ordained, that such as do
put themselves, and such as do grant such safeguard and comrick, be
adjudged traitors, and suffer accordingly. [Sidenote: 1450. Henry
VI.]And in the same reign, at a certain great council held in Dublin
(1450) it was declared—“that thieves and evildoers increase in great
store, and from day to day do increase in malice more than they have
done heretofore, and do destroy the commons with their thefts stealings
and manslaughters, and also do cause the land to fall into decay and
poverty and waste every day more and more”—wherefore it is ordained that
it shall be lawful for every liege man to kill or take notorious
thieves, and thieves found robbing spoiling or breaking houses—“and that
every man that kills or takes any such thieves, shall have one penny of
every plough and one farthing of every cottage within the barony where
the manslaughter is done, for every thief.”
These enactments show that the state of the country within the English
pale, or that portion of it which was subject to English rule, was then
very similar to what existed at the same periods in England and
Scotland, more prone to violence and disorder perhaps, and therefore
somewhat more backward in civilization; but all the leading
characteristics are nearly identical. Beyond the pale however a far
worse state of things prevailed. There violence and disorder ranged
without control. “The Irishry,” as they were called, were continually
engaged in battleings and feuds among themselves, one chief or one sept
against another, or in making inroads and committing robberies and
murders within the pale, which again led to retaliations; and thus a
species of domestic or border warfare alike injurious to all
parties,—and a state of ferment and insecurity throughout the country,
were kept up and perpetuated.
[Sidenote: 1447.
Henry VI.]
A parliament held at Trim in 1447, laments—“that the sons of husbandmen
and labourers, which in old time were wont to be labourers and
travaylers upon the ground, as to hold ploughs, to ere the ground, and
travayl with all other instruments belonging to husbandry, to manure the
ground, and do all other works lawful and honest according to their
state—and now they will be kearnes, evildoers, wasters, idle men, and
destructioners of the king’s leige people”—wherefore it is ordained that
the sons of labourers and travaillers of the ground, shall use the same
labours and travails that their fathers have done. [Sidenote: 1457.
Henry VI.]And ten years afterwards, at a parliament held at Naas, it was
ordained—“forasmuch as the sons of many men from day to day do rob spoil
and coygnye the king’s poor liege people, and masterfully take their
goods without any pity—that every man shall answer for the offence and
ill doing of his son, as he himself that did the trespass and offence
ought to do, saving the punishment of death, which shall incur to the
trespasser himself.” This last enactment, making the father answerable
for the acts of his son, was perhaps under the circumstances of the
period calculated to check violence and disorder and may be so far
regarded as defensible. But the same cannot be said of the former
enactment requiring the son to follow the same occupation as the father.
Yet such has been the practice throughout a great part of Asia from the
earliest period. In the present instance, the enforcement of the
practice by special enactment, seems to imply that the demand for
agricultural labour was increasing in Ireland, either through an
increase of land under cultivation, or an increased amount of labour
applied to it; and either the one or the other must be considered as
indicative of improvement.
[Sidenote: 1465.
Edward IV.]
In the reign of Edward the Fourth (1465) an Act was passed ordaining and
establishing “that in every English town of this land[7] that pass three
houses holden by tenants, where no other president is, there be chosen
by his neighbours or by the lord of the said town, one constable to be
president and governor of the same town, in all things that pertaineth
to the common rule thereof”—doubtless a useful provision, and calculated
to aid the cause of order and good government. [Sidenote: 1472. Edward
IV.] In the same reign, at a parliament held at Naas, (1472) it is
recorded—“For that there is so great lack of money in this land, and
also the grain are enhanced to a great price because of great lading
from day to day used and continued within this realm, by the which great
dearth is like to be of graines, without some remedy be
ordeyned”—whereupon the premises considered it is enacted—“that no
person or persons lade no grain out of the said land to no other parts
without, if one peck of the said grains exceed the price of ten pence,
upon pain of forfeiture of the said grain or the value thereof, and also
the ship in which the said grains are laden.”
-----
[7]
That is every town within the English pale.
-----
The prohibition of export has always been clamoured for, and often
resorted to whenever the price of corn becomes high, whether it be in
Ireland, England, or elsewhere; and this always moreover on the ground
here set forth, that is, for the sake of the poor classes, or “for that
there is so great lack of money in this land.” All such prohibitions are
however based on erroneous views of economical policy. By prohibiting
export cultivation is discouraged, and so in the long run corn is made
dearer rather than cheaper. It may moreover be remarked, that if grain
be exported, it will be for the purpose of obtaining a higher price than
can be obtained at home, and the exporting country will thus be better
enabled to go to another market for a supply, and will have the benefit
of whatever profit may arise in the double interchange. With respect to
grain therefore, as with respect to all other commodities, the true
principle is that of non-interference—they will then each and all find
their own level, and that in the way most beneficial to all parties
interested, whether as producers or consumers, whether those who want or
those who have to spare. But this great truth was not recognised at that
day. Neither is it indeed universally so at present; for at this time
(the end of 1855) there are clamourings for a prohibition of the export
of corn, on account of the present high price.[8]
-----
[8]
The average price of wheat in Mark-lane for the week ending on the
10th of November, was 83_s._ 8_d._ per qr. For the week ending on Nov.
15, 1851 the price per quarter was 36_s._ 4_d._; and for the week
ending Nov. 13, 1852 the price per quarter was 39_s._ 11_d._
-----
We are now arrived at the reign of Henry the Seventh, by whom order was
established in Ireland, as it previously had been established in
England. [Sidenote: 1495. Poynings’ Act. 10 Hen. VII. cap. 4.] The first
important measure towards the accomplishment of this object was the
passing of Poynings’ Act,[9] _10th Henry 7th, cap. 4_, which directs
that no parliament shall be holden in Ireland, until the Acts be first
certified into England, and be thence returned with sanction of the king
and council expressed under the great seal. This secured a harmony of
action between the legislatures of the two countries, and was otherwise
beneficial. But there were two other Acts passed in the same year, not
less important for the peace and good government of the country than the
preceding, and therefore requiring to be separately noticed.
-----
[9]
So called after Sir Edward Poynings, who was lord deputy in Ireland
during a great part of Henry’s reign, and in the earlier part of that
of his successor. The lord deputy is described as “the active scourge
of all insurgents,” and it was latterly said of him that “he might
call all Ireland his own.” See Liber Munerum, book ii. cap. 1. Mr.
Lascelles gives 1494 as the year in which this Act was passed. In the
Statutes at Large it bears the date of 1495.
-----
[Sidenote: 1495.
10 Hen. VII. cap. 6.]
The first of these Acts, _cap. 6_, directs that no citizen shall receive
livery or wages of any lord or gentleman; and it further enacts “That no
lord nor gentleman of the land shall retain by livery, wages, or
promise, sign or token, by indenture, or otherwise, any person or
persons, but only such as be, or shall be his officers, as baylifs,
steward, learned counsel, receivors, and menial servants daily in
household at the said lord’s cost.” And if any lord or gentleman retain
any person contrary to this Act, both the retainer and he that is
retained are to forfeit to the king twenty pounds of lawful money for
every such offence. [Sidenote: 10 Hen. VII. cap. 17.] The second Act,
_cap. 17_, directs “that no peace nor war be made with any man without
licence of the governor.” It recites—“Forasmuch as diverse lords and
great gentlemen of Ireland, useth daily to make several peace with the
king’s Irish enemies, and where the peace hath been taken and concluded
by the lieutenants and their deputies for the time being with the
aforesaid enemies, and for the universal weal of our said sovereign
lord’s true subjects, the said lords and gentlemen for singular lucor
and for malice, have diverse and many seasons and without any authority
of the lieutenant or deputy, entered into the countries of such Irish
enemies as have standen under the protection of our sovereign lord, and
the same countries have robbed, spoiled, hurt and destroyed, by reason
whereof the said enemies have likewise entered into the English country,
and the true English subjects have robbed, spoiled and brent in
semblable wise”—wherefore it is ordained, that thenceforward “there be
no peace nor war taken or had within the land, without the lieutenant or
deputy’s licence;” and whatsoever persons break the said peace, or rob
or spoil contrary to this Act, as often as they so offend are to forfeit
100_l._ to the king, and be committed to ward until the same is paid.
We see from the above, that the Irish beyond the pale were still
regarded as enemies; and to prevent as far as possible the barbarous
conflicts that were continually taking place between them and the people
within the pale, was doubtless one reason for passing these Acts. But
independently of this object, the general policy of the two measures is
abundantly obvious. They amount, taken together, to no more than
extending to Ireland the principle observed by Henry in his government
of England, namely, that of reducing the exorbitant power assumed by the
great nobility and gentry, and making them amenable to the general law,
a thing no less necessary in one country than in the other, although
widely differing in so many respects.
[Sidenote: 1522.
13 Hen. VIII. cap. 1.]
On the accession of Henry the Eighth, Irish legislation became more
active, but we shall only notice a few of the Acts. _The 13th Henry 8th,
cap. 1_, declares, that “many ill-disposed persons for malice, evil
will, and displeasure, do daily burn corn, as well in ricks in the
fields, as in villages and towns, thinking that it is no felony, and
that they should not suffer death for so doing”—wherefore it is enacted,
that all wilful burning of ricks of corn in fields and in towns, and
burning of houses of and upon any of the king’s true subjects, be high
treason, and that execution be awarded against such evil-doers
accordingly. [Sidenote: 1534. 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 1.]Twelve years
afterwards another Act (the 25th Henry 8th, cap. 1) was passed against
lezers of corn. It recites—“That whereas many inconveniences within this
land ensueth by reason that many and diverse persons, labourers strong
of body, as well men as women, falleth to idleness, and will not labour
for their living, but have their sole respect to gathering and lezing of
corn in harvest-time, and refuse to take money for their wages to rippe
or binde corn, to the intent that the poor earth-tillers should give
them sheaves of corn for their labour, by colour whereof they steal
men’s cornes, as well by night as by day, to the great hindrance and
impoverishing of the poor earth-tillers; and also by giving of said
sheafes, the church is defrauded of the tythe of the same.”—Wherefore it
is ordained, that henceforth no persons “being strong of body to labour
for their living, shall gather or leze in any place in harvest-time,
except it be in their own fields; and that no impotent persons gather or
leze in any other place, saving in the parish where their dwelling is;
and that no man give nor take any corn in harvest for ripping nor
binding,” under penalty of the same being taken from him and forfeited.
These Acts for the protection of the corn-grower against waste in time
of harvest, and against incendiarism when the corn is in the rick, are
indications of the advance of agriculture in Ireland. The titheowner may
have had some influence in the passing of the latter Act; but taking the
two together, it seems impossible to doubt that the occupation of the
“poor earth-tillers,” as they are termed, was considered to be important
with regard to the general welfare, and therefore deserving of special
protection.
[Sidenote: 1537.
28 Hen. VIII. cap. 15.]
Three years after the last preceding Act, another was passed (_The 28th
Henry 8th, cap. 15_) in which it is declared that the king, considering
that “there is nothing which doth more conteyne and keep many of his
subjects of this his land in a certain savage and wilde kind and manner
of living, than the diversitie that is betwixt them in tongue, language,
order and habite, which by the eye deceiveth the multitude, and
persuadeth them that they should be as it were of sundry sorts, or
rather of sundry countries, where indeed they be wholly together one
body”—wherefore it is enacted, that no person shall wear hair on the
head or face nor any manner of clothing, mantle, coat, or hood, after
the Irish fashion, but in all things shall conform to the habits and
manners of the civil people within the English pale. And it is further
enacted, that all persons of whatsoever degree or condition “to the
uttermost of their power cunning and knowledge shall use and speak
commonly the English tongue,” and cause their children to do the same,
“and shall use and keep their houses and households as near as ever they
can, according to the English order.” Spiritual promotion is moreover
directed to be given only to such as can speak English; so that nothing
appears to have been omitted for bringing about the desired assimilation
of the native Irish with their fellow-subjects of the English race.
Subsequent events showed however that these efforts were not crowned
with success, and a long period elapsed before the Irish of the western
districts can be said to have at all assimilated to English habits, or
become amenable to English rule.
[Sidenote: 1542.
33 Hen. VIII. cap. 9.]
The regulation of wages by legislative enactment so frequently adopted
in England,[10] was likewise attempted in Ireland, but apparently with
no better result; for we find _The 33rd Henry 8th, cap. 9_, complaining,
that “forasmuch as prices of victuals, cloth, and other necessaries for
labourers, servants at husbandry, and artificers, yearly change, as well
sometimes by reason of dearth and scarceness of corn and victual as
otherwise, so that hard it is to limit in certain what wages servants at
husbandry should take by the year, and other artificers and labourers by
the day, by reason whereof they now ask and take unreasonable wages
within the land of Ireland”—wherefore it is enacted that the justices of
peace at a sessions to be held yearly within a month after Easter and
Michaelmas, “shall make proclamation by their discretion, having respect
to such prices as victuals cloth and other necessaries then shall be at,
how much every mason, carpenter, sclantor, and every other artificer and
labourer shall take by the day, as well in harvest-season as any other
time of the year, with meat and drink, and how much without meat and
drink, between both the said seasons; and also at the Easter sessions,
how much every servant at husbandry shall take by the year following,
with meat and drink; and that every of them shall obey such proclamation
from time to time, as a thing made by Act of parliament for a law in
that behalf,” on pain of imprisonment. By thus empowering justices to
vary the rate of wages according to the variations in the price of
provisions and clothing, the objection which exists to a permanent fixed
rate is no doubt so far obviated; but the great primary objection to any
interference with the natural range of prices, and to subjecting them to
other control than that of supply and demand still remains, and is not
susceptible of any defence. Thus much on the score of principle. But the
passing of such a measure as the above, is nevertheless a proof of the
increasing demand for labour, and of the advance of regular industrial
employment, which is always an important step in the progress of
civilization.
-----
[10]
See ‘History of the English Poor Law,’ vol. i. pages 100 and 110.
_11th Henry 7th, cap. 2_, and _6th Henry 8th, cap. 3_.
-----
[Sidenote: 1537.
33 Hen. VIII. cap. 15.]
The last enactment of the present reign requiring to be noticed, in
connexion with our subject, is _The 33rd Henry 8th, cap. 15_, entitled
‘An Act for Vagabonds.’ It recites—“forasmuch as at a parliament holden
at London, it was enacted and ordeyned how aged poor and impotent
persons compelled to live by alms should be ordered, and how vagabonds
and mighty strong beggars should be punished, which Act (_22nd Henry
8th, cap. 12_) for divers causes, is thought very meet and necessary to
be enacted in this land”—wherefore it is ordained and established, “That
the same Act, and all and every article provision and thing comprised in
the same, be an Act and statute to be continued and kept as a law within
this land of Ireland, according to the tenor and purport of the same.”
The English Act (_22nd Henry 8th, cap. 12_) is then given at length, and
stands in the statutes as an Act of the Irish parliament, and is to be
obeyed accordingly. A full account of this statute will be found in the
‘History of the English Poor Law’ (vol. i. page 115) to which the reader
is referred. Whether the Act was entirely suited to the backward state
of Ireland at that time, may admit of doubt; but there can be no doubt
that if enforced it was calculated to bring about a better order of
things by repressing vagabondism, and making some provision for the
relief of the destitute. We have no means of knowing to what extent the
Act was enforced, or whether it was enforced at all. It could hardly
have been brought into operation beyond the English pale, and even
within the pale the arm of the law was then feeble, and its action
uncertain; so it is probable that like many other measures intended for
the benefit of Ireland, the present Act was permitted to lie dormant. It
remained in force however, as one of the Irish statutes, until 1772,
when it was repealed by the _11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 30_.[11]
-----
[11]
See post, p. 51.
-----
[Sidenote: 1569.
11 Elizabeth, cap. 4.]
There are only two of the Acts passed by the Irish parliament in
Elizabeth’s reign calling for notice, and this rather as exhibiting the
condition of the country at that time, than as directly connected with
our subject. The first of these is _The 11th Elizabeth, cap. 4_,
entitled ‘An Act that five persons of the best and eldest of every
nation amongst the Irishrie, shall bring in all the idle persons of
their surname, to be justified by law.’ It declares that her Majesty’s
“most humble and obedient subjects have been these many years past
grieved with a generation of vile and base conditioned people (bred and
maintained by coynie and liveries), the ancient enemies to the
prosperity of this realm, of which sort the lords and captains of this
land hath to raise and stirr up some to be maintained as outlaws to
annoy each other’s rules, and so serving the iniquitie of the time, hath
not only in attending those practices imbased their own particular
estates, but also brought the whole public wealth of their supposed
rules to ruin and utter decay.” For remedy whereof, it is now ordained,
“that five persons of the best and eldest of everie stirpe or nation of
the Irishrie, and in the countries that be not as yet shire grounds, and
till they be shire ground, shall be bound to bring in to be justified by
law, all idle persons of their surname which shall be hereafter charged
with any offence, or else satisfie of their own proper goods the hurts
by them committed to the parties grieved, and also such fines as shall
be assessed upon them for their offences.” The Act we see applies to
parts of the country beyond the pale, “which be not yet shire grounds,”
where “the lords and captains of the land” were in the habit of
maintaining a number of base-conditioned people in a state of outlawry
to annoy each other’s rules, which practice it is said hath not only
injured their own estates, but also brought the whole country under
their supposed rule to ruin and utter decay. The remedy for these evils
now sought to be applied, is by making five of the principal people of
each sept or nation of the “Irishrie” answerable for the rest of the
clan, and it seems likely that nothing better could have been devised
under the circumstances; but the resorting to it is nevertheless an
indication of the lawlessness and insecurity which prevailed, and how
imperfectly the country had yet been brought under subjection.
[Sidenote: 1570.
12 Elizabeth, cap. 1.]
The other Irish Act of Elizabeth’s reign requiring notice, is _The 12th
Elizabeth, cap. 1_, entitled ‘An Act for the erection of Free Schools.’
It commences by reciting—“Forasmuch as the greatest number of the people
of this realm hath of long time lived in rude and barbarous states, not
understanding that Almighty God hath by his divine laws forbidden the
manifold and heinous offences which they spare not daily and hourly to
commit and perpetrate, nor that He hath by His Holy Scriptures commanded
a due and humble obedience from the people to their princes and rulers,
whose ignorance in these so high points touching their damnation
proceedeth only of lack of good bringing up of the youth of this realm,
either in public or private schools, where through good discipline they
might be taught to avoid those loathsome and horrible errours”—Wherefore
it is enacted that there shall be a free school established in every
diocess of Ireland, and that the schoolmaster shall be an Englishman,
“or of the English birth of this realm.” The archbishops of Armagh and
Dublin, and the bishops of Meath and Kildare and their successors, are
to appoint the schoolmasters within their respective diocesses, and the
lord deputy for the time being is to have the appointment in the other
diocesses. The schoolhouses are to be built in the principal shire
towns, at the cost and charge of the whole diocess, under direction of
the ordinary, the vicars general, and the sheriff; and the lord deputy
for the time being is “according to the quality and quantities of every
diocess,” to appoint a yearly salary for every schoolmaster, whereof the
ordinary of every diocess is to bear the third part, and the parsons,
vicars, prebendaries, and other ecclesiastical persons of the diocess,
by an equal contribution, are to bear the other two parts. The whole
charge of these free schools was therefore, we see, to be borne by the
clergy, on whom their superintendence also devolved.
The Reformation had at this time been established in Ireland, and the
clergy whom the state recognised were necessarily all Protestant. The
desire for extending education as a means for improving and enlightening
the people, was therefore to be expected from them; and it is not
improbable this desire was accompanied, and perhaps strengthened, by a
belief that education would bring about the conversion of such of the
people as were not yet of their flock, but still adhered to the church
of Rome. That such were the motives of the Protestant clergy in the
prominent part taken by them with regard to these free schools, and that
the government and the proprietary classes generally were influenced by
similar motives, can hardly admit of doubt. The result turned out
different however from what was anticipated. The great bulk of the
people remained in ignorance, and devotedly attached to the old
religion, as it was and still is called; and thus a separation sprung up
between one class and another, between the more English and Protestant
class, and the more Irish and Romanist class, which has been a fruitful
source of evil to each, and in spite of the countervailing efforts which
have of late years been made, can hardly be said to have altogether
disappeared even at the present day. How strange it seems that religion,
which ought, and we must believe was designed to be, a bond of concord
and union, should be perverted into an occasion for hatred and
strife!—Yet so it unhappily too often has been, and in no country
perhaps more than in Ireland.
[Sidenote: 1612.
11 and 12 James I. cap. 5.]
Little was done in the way of legislation during the reign of James the
First, and only one of the Acts of the Irish parliament in his reign
requires to be noticed, namely _The 11th and 12th James 1st, cap. 5_.—It
is entitled ‘An Act of Repeal of divers Statutes concerning the natives
of this kingdom of Ireland.’ The preamble declares, that “in former
times the natives of this realm of Irish blood, were for the most part
in continual hostility with the English and with those that did descend
of the English, and therefore the said Irish were held and accounted,
and in divers statutes and records were termed and called Irish
enemies.” But—“Forasmuch as the cause of the said difference and of
making the said laws doth now cease, in that all the natives and
inhabitants of this kingdom, without difference and distinction, are
taken under his Majesty’s gracious protection, and do now live under one
law as dutiful subjects, by means whereof a perfect agreement is and
ought to be settled betwixt them”—Wherefore it is enacted, “that all the
said Acts and statutes, and every clause and sentence in them conteyned,
shall for ever be utterly and thoroughly repealed, frustrated,
annihilated, and made void to all intents and purposes.” The passing of
this Act manifests a change in public feeling, and was certainly a step
in the right direction. To treat a people as enemies, is the sure way to
make them such; and that the native Irish had long been so treated, the
records of the antecedent period abundantly prove. The present was
therefore a healing measure. By abolishing the distinction of race, and
bringing all alike under protection of the law, the Act was no doubt
intended to pave the way for an entire amalgamation of the two people.
National distinctions and national grievances are however not easily
obliterated or forgotten; time, intercourse, and the mutual interchange
of good offices being necessary for effecting the one, or blotting out
the remembrance of the other. And even after this has been accomplished,
and a kind of oblivion of the past established, ancient feuds are too
apt to be revived by the occurrence of some circumstance, trivial
perhaps in itself, and race to be again put at enmity with race, class
to be arrayed against class, and sect against sect. The history of
Ireland abounds in examples of such revival of enmities, promoting
discord and disorder, retarding improvement, and exercising a baneful
influence on the character as well as on the condition of the people.
[Sidenote: 1634-5.
10 and 11 Charles I. cap 4.]
The Irish parliament was somewhat more active in the reign of Charles
the First, than it had been in that of his predecessor, and four of its
Acts, all passed in the same year, we will now proceed to notice, the
first of these being—_The 10th and 11th Charles 1st, cap. 4_—entitled
‘An Act for the erecting of Houses of Correction, and for the punishment
of Rogues Vagabonds sturdy Beggars and other lewd and idle persons’—For
which purpose it is enacted, that before Michaelmas in the following
year “there shall be built or otherwise provided within every county of
Ireland, one or more fit and convenient house or houses of correction,
with convenient backside thereunto adjoining, together with mills,
working-cards, and other necessary implements, to set the said rogues
and other idle and disordered persons on work; the same houses to be
built or provided in some convenient place or town in every county,
which houses shall be purchased conveyed or assured unto such person or
persons as by the justices of peace, or the most part of them shall be
thought fit, upon trust, to the intent the same shall be used and
employed for the keeping correcting and setting to work of the said
rogues, vagabonds, sturdy beggars, and other idle and disorderly
persons.” The justices are empowered to make orders from time to time,
for raising money upon the inhabitants of the county for providing the
said houses, and for the government and ordering thereof, and for
setting to work such persons as shall be committed to the same; and also
for the yearly payment of the governor and such others as they shall
think necessary to be employed therein. The justices are moreover to
appoint honest and fit persons to be governors of such houses,—which
governors “shall have power and authority to set such rogues vagabonds
idle and disorderly persons as shall be sent to the said houses, to work
and labour (being able) for such time as they shall there continue, and
to punish the said rogues &c. by putting fetters or gyves upon them, and
by moderate whipping.” And it is further ordered, that the said rogues
and vagabonds during the time they remain in such house of correction,
“shall in no sort be chargeable to the country for any allowance, either
at their bringing in or going forth, or during the time of their abode
there, but shall have such and so much allowance as they shall deserve
by their own labour and work.”
The justices at their quarter session of the peace are required to
assign to the governors of the said houses a fitting salary, to be paid
quarterly in advance by the treasurer of the county, which if the
treasurer neglect to pay, the governor is empowered to levy upon him by
distress of his goods. And in order that more care may be taken by the
governors of such houses of correction, “when the country hath been at
trouble and charge to bring all such disorderly persons to their safe
keeping,” it is directed that they shall at every quarter session yield
a true account to the justices of all persons committed to their
custody; and if any of such persons “shall be troublesome to the country
by going abroad, or otherwise shall escape away from the said house of
correction before they shall be from thence lawfully delivered, the
justices may impose such fines and penalties upon the said governor as
they shall think fit.” The justices are to meet at least twice a year
for the better execution of this statute, and are by warrant to command
the constables of every barony, town, parish, village and hamlet within
the county (“who shall be assisted with sufficient men of the same
places”) to make a general privy search in one night for finding out and
apprehending all rogues, vagabonds, wandering and idle persons, who are
to be brought before the justices to be examined of their wandering idle
life, and punished accordingly, or otherwise sent to the house of
correction and there set to labour and work.
[Sidenote: Who are to be deemed rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars.]
And that there may be no doubt as to who are liable to punishment under
these provisions, it is enacted—“that all persons calling themselves
scholars going about begging; all idle persons going about in any
country either begging or using any subtle craft, or unlawful games or
plays, or feigning themselves to have knowledge in physiognomy palmistry
or other like crafty science, or pretending that they can tell
destinies, fortunes, or such other like phantastical imaginations; all
persons that be or utter themselves to be proctors, procurers, patent
gatherers, or collectors for gaols prisons or hospitals; all fencers,
bear-wards, common players of interludes and minstrels wandering abroad;
all jugglers, wandering persons, and common labourers being able in
body, using loytering, and refusing to work for such reasonable wages as
is taxed and commonly given, and not having living otherwise to maintain
themselves; all persons delivered out of gaols that beg for their fees,
or otherwise travaile begging; all such as wander abroad, pretending
loss by fire or otherwise; all such as wandering pretend themselves to
be Egyptians, or wander in the habit form or attire of counterfeit
Egyptians—shall be taken adjudged and deemed rogues vagabonds and sturdy
beggars, and shall sustain such punishments as are appointed by the
_33rd Henry 8th, cap. 15_,[12] or be otherwise dealt withall by sending
them to the house of correction in the county where they shall be found,
as to the justices shall be thought fit.”
-----
[12]
Ante, p. 22.
-----
It appears moreover that many wilful people having children, and being
able to labour for the maintenance of themselves and their families, “do
nevertheless run away out of their parishes, and leave their families
upon the parish”—Wherefore it is enacted that all such persons so
running away, shall be taken and deemed to be incorrigible rogues, and
suffer accordingly—“and if either such man or woman, being able to work,
shall threaten to run away and leave their families as aforesaid, the
same being proved by two sufficient witnesses upon oath before two
justices of peace, the person so threatening shall by the said justices
be sent to the house of correction, there to be dealt with as a sturdy
and wandering rogue, unless he or she can put in sufficient sureties for
the discharge of the parish.” This enactment, and the recital by which
it is introduced and justified, might be taken for a part of our late
English poor-law system, so exactly does it accord with what was
frequently practised in English parishes. Yet nothing like settlement,
or a right to relief, or any organization for providing or affording
relief, existed in Ireland. The great principle of parochial
chargeability for relief of the destitute embodied in the _43rd of
Elizabeth_, seems nevertheless to have been in some degree recognised,
and was probably to some extent operative in Ireland, although without
legal sanction; for unless such were the case, persons running away
could not be said to leave their families a charge upon the parish,
neither perhaps would their threatening to run away be so stringently
dealt with as we here find it to be.
The provisions of this Act are no doubt important, and the Act itself
taken as a whole, throws considerable light upon the condition of
Ireland at that time, and shows that the state of society there was
gradually approximating to that which prevailed in England. The persons
subjected to punishment as rogues and vagabonds, are identical with
those described in the English Act _22nd Henry 8th, cap. 12_.[13] The
provisions with respect to houses of correction, are similar to those
directed by the English Acts _18th Elizabeth, cap. 3_,[13] and the _7th
James 1st, cap. 4_;[13] and the privy search ordered to be made for
apprehending vagrants &c. is the same as in the Act of James.[13] With
such a similarity of enactments therefore, we can hardly doubt that
there was a general similarity in the circumstances of the two
countries, although those parts of Ireland which were latest brought
under subjection, may still have been in a rude and backward state, as
indeed it is known that they then were, and for a long time afterwards
continued to be.
-----
[13]
See ‘History of the English Poor Law,’ vol. i. pp. 115, 171, 233 and
234.
-----