Transcriber’s Note:

The original footnotes were sequenced using the alphabet, cycling repeatedly from a to z. They have been resequenced numerically for uniqueness. Footnotes have been collected at the end of the text, and are linked for ease of reference.

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.

Any corrections are indicated using an underline highlight. Placing the cursor over the correction will produce the original text in a small popup.

Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will navigate the reader to the corresponding entry in the corrections table in the note at the end of the text.

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.

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.

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.

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. |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]]

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]]

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. |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.

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—

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]]

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 |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. |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.

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. |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.

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. |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.”

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]]

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. |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.

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. |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 100l. 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.

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. |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.

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.

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.

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]]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

In proof of the backwardness of at least some parts of Ireland at that time, two Acts passed in the same year as the foregoing may be cited. |1634-5.
10 and 11 Charles I. cap. 15.| The first is, The 10th and 11th Charles 1st, cap. 15, entitled ‘An Act against ploughing by the Tail and pulling the Wool off living Sheep.’ It declares that “in many places of this kingdom there hath been a long time used a barbarous custom of ploughing, harrowing, drawing and working with horses, mares, geldings, garrans, and colts, by the tail, whereby (besides the cruelty used to the beasts) the breed of horses is much impaired in this kingdom, to the great prejudice thereof; and also, that divers have and yet do use the like barbarous custom, of pulling off the wool yearly from living sheep[^[14]] instead of clipping or shearing of them”—Wherefore all such barbarities are prohibited, and it is enacted that whomsoever shall so act in either case in future, or procure the same to be done, shall be subject to fine and imprisonment. |1634-5.
10 and 11 Charles I. cap. 17.| The other Act is the 10th and 11th Charles 1st, cap. 17, entitled ‘An Act to prevent the unprofitable custom of burning Corn in the Straw.’ It recites—“Whereas there is in the remote parts of this kingdom of Ireland commonly a great dearth of cattle yearly, which for the most part happeneth by reason of the ill husbandrie and improvident care of the owners, that neither provide fodder nor stover for them in winter, nor houses to put them in extremitie of stormy cold weather, but a natural lazie disposition possessing them, will not build barnes to house and thresh their corn in, nor houses to keep their cattle from the violence of such weather; but the better to enable them to be flitting from their lands, and to deceive his Majesty of such debts as they may be owing, and their landlords of their rents, do for a great part instead of threshing, burn their corn in the straw, thereby consuming the straw which might relieve their cattle in winter, and afford materials towards covering or thatching their houses, and spoiling the corn, making it black, loathsome and filthy”—for prevention of which unprofitable and uncivil customs it is ordained, that no person shall “by himself, wife, children, servants, or tenants,” burn or cause to be burned any corn or grain in the straw, on pain of being imprisoned ten days for the first offence, for the second offence one month, and for the third offence to pay a fine of forty shillings and be bound to good behaviour.

These Acts certainly indicate the existence of very rude and barbarous practices in some parts of Ireland—so rude indeed, that one finds some difficulty in giving credence to them; but that they did prevail, there can be no reasonable doubt. To plough by the tail, to strip the wool off sheep, and to burn corn in the straw, are doubtless all indications of a lamentable state of backwardness and barbarism; but how far this backwardness was owing to “a natural lazie disposition” in the Irish tenantry, or whether it was the “better to enable them to be flitting from their lands to deceive their landlords of their rents,” as asserted above, or occasioned by the oppressive conduct of the landlords, as described by Spenser,[^[15]] it is impossible to say with certainty. Most likely all these causes were in operation, together with a general feeling of insecurity, a backward state of civilization, and a feeble and uncertain administration of the law.

Another cause of backwardness and disorder is indicated |1634-5.
10 and 11 Charles I. cap. 16.|by the ‘Act for the suppressing of Cosherers and idle Wanderers.’ This Act (the 10th and 11th Charles 1st, cap. 16) commences with the following recital—“Whereas there are many young gentlemen of this kingdom that have little or nothing to live on of their own, and will not apply themselves to labour or other honest industrious courses to support themselves, but do live idly and inordinately, coshering upon the country, and sessing themselves their followers their horses and their greyhounds upon the poor inhabitants, sometimes exacting money from them to spare them and their tenants, and to go elsewhere to their eaught and edraugh, viz. supper and breakfast, and sometimes craving helps from them; all which the poor people dare not deny them, sometimes for shame, but most commonly for fear of mischief to be done them so refusing, and therefore do bear it although unwillingly, and many times when they are scarce able so to do, and yet dare not complain for fear of the inconveniences aforesaid, and to that end do make cuts levies and plotments upon themselves to pay them, and give such entertainment and helps to the utter impoverishing and disabling of the poor inhabitants to pay their duties to the king, and their rents unto their landlords; and by that lawless kind of life of these idle gentlemen and others, being commonly active young men, and such as seek to have many followers and dependants upon them, many other inconveniences are likely to arise, for they are apt upon the least occasion of disturbance or insurrection, to rifle and make booty of his Majesty’s loyal subjects, and to be heads and leaders of outlaws and rebels, and in the mean time do and must sometimes support their excessive and expenceful drinking and gaming by secret stealths, or growing into debts often-times filch and stand upon their keeping, and are not amenable to law”—wherefore for prevention of such inconveniences it is enacted, that if any person or persons shall directly or indirectly follow any of the above practices in future, the justices of assize are to cause them to be apprehended and bound to good behaviour, and imprisoned until good sureties for the same be given. These “cosherers” are apparently the same class of persons described by Spenser as infesting the country half a century before,[^[16]] too proud to beg, too idle to labour, and for the most part living by the plunder and intimidation of the poor tenantry. There could hardly have been a greater obstruction to improvement, or a more certain incentive to violence and disorder, than the conduct of these “cosherers and idle wanderers” as above described. They must have been in every way a curse to the country, stirring up and perpetuating whatever was pernicious oppressive and demoralizing, and subverting whatever had a contrary tendency.

We have now approached the period of what is emphatically called “the great Rebellion,” which was followed by the Commonwealth, the Protectorate, and the Restoration; and then, after an interval, by the Revolution of 1688, which led to the establishment of constitutional monarchy. But in none of these periods, although all highly interesting and important in an historical point of view, do we find anything in Irish legislation so immediately bearing upon our present subject, as to call for citation or remark.

The first enactment in the order of time which it is necessary to notice,|1703.
2 Anne, cap. 19.
The Dublin workhouse.| is The 2nd Anne, cap. 19, entitled—‘An Act for erecting a Workhouse in the city of Dublin, for employing and maintaining the poor thereof.’ The preamble declares, that “the necessities number and continual increase of the poor within the city of Dublin and liberties thereto adjoining, are very great and exceeding burdensome for want of workhouses to set them at work, and a sufficient authority to compel them thereto: and whereas the lord mayor, sheriffs, commons and citizens of Dublin for the encouragement of so charitable and necessary a work, are willing not only to appropriate a piece of ground for a workhouse within the said city, but also to endow the same with lands of inheritance of the value of one hundred pounds per annum”—It is enacted, that from and immediately after the 1st of May 1704, there shall be a corporation to continue for ever within the county of the city of Dublin, to be entitled the governors and guardians of the poor, and to consist of the chief governor (or lord lieutenant) the lord mayor, the lord chancellor, the archbishop of Dublin, the sheriffs, the justices of peace, the members of the corporation, and a great many others specially named, who are to have perpetual succession, with all the usual powers and privileges of a corporation. They are to assemble on the first Thursday in every month, “for relieving, regulating, and setting at work, all vagabonds and beggars which shall come within the city or liberties,” and are to provide such necessaries and material as are needful for the same. They are likewise empowered to apprehend all idle or poor people begging or seeking relief, or who receive parish alms within the city or liberties; and also to detain and keep in the service of the said corporation until the age of sixteen, any poor child or children found or taken up within the said city or liberties above five years of age, and to apprentice out such children to any honest persons, being protestants, a male child until the age of twenty-four, and a female child until the age of twenty-one. The governors and directors are moreover empowered to inflict reasonable punishment or correction, from time to time, on all persons within the workhouse who shall not conform to the established regulations; and are to have the care of the poor of the said city and liberties of what age or kind soever they be, infants under the age of five years only excepted; and in order thereto, are empowered “to examine, search, and see what poor persons are come into, inhabiting, or residing within the said city and liberties, or any part thereof, and to apprehend any idle vagrants and beggars, and to cause them to be set and kept at work in the said workhouse, for any time not exceeding seven years.”

For the encouragement of such as shall become benefactors to the foregoing “good design,” it is enacted that a donor of fifty pounds and upwards shall be eligible for the office of governor and guardian; and power is also given for granting licences for the keeping of hackney coaches not exceeding 150 in number, and for sedan-chairs not exceeding 80 in number, to ply for hire within the city and liberties, every licence so granted being charged with the sum of 5l., to be paid to the governors and guardians of the poor by way of fine, and forty shillings annually afterwards, so long as the said licence shall be continued. It is further enacted for the support of the poor in the said workhouse, that a rate of 3d. in the pound be charged on every house within the city and liberties, to be levied in the same way as ministers’ money; but in case any surplus should remain after defraying the necessary charges of the workhouse, and the poor maintained and employed therein, a proportional abatement is to be made in this tax upon houses.

The above is the substance of this important Act, important, that is, as being the first in which a direct provision is made for the relief of poverty in Ireland. The Act is local, it is true, its operation being limited to the city and liberties of Dublin; but it recognises the principle of taxing the public for the prevention of vagrancy and begging, conjointly with the alternative of relieving the destitute—a principle universal in itself, and susceptible of universal application. The endeavour to effect these objects through the agency of workhouses, was very generally resorted to in England about this time. They had been recommended by Sir Matthew Hale, and also by Mr. Locke in his Report on the state of the poor, and the Bristol, Worcester, and other workhouses were established with a like intent,[^[17]] although the employment of the inmates with a view to profit, was no doubt at the same time regarded as a collateral advantage. The direction that the poor children “found or taken up” should be apprenticed to “honest persons being protestants,” seems, as in the case of the free schools already noticed,[^[18]] to indicate a desire in the framers of the measure to make it subservient to the spread of the reformed religion; but at that time the property, and nearly all the industrious occupations of the country were in the hands of protestants, so that with them alone was there likely to be an eligible opportunity for apprenticing out the children. The direction to do so was therefore superfluous, but it indicates the dominant feeling of the time. The corporation was reconstituted and its powers extended by the 1st George 2nd, cap. 27, in 1728, and ultimately the workhouse became merged in the Dublin Foundling Hospital; but as it will hereafter be necessary to revert to this point we need not dwell on it at present.

The Act passed in 1635, ‘for the suppression of cosherers and idle wanderers,’ has already been noticed.[^[19]] |1707.
6 Anne, cap. 11.|In 1707 another was passed (the 6th Anne, cap. 11,) explaining and amending the former, and entitled ‘An Act for the more effectual suppressing tories robbers and rapparees, and for preventing persons becoming tories or resorting to them.’ It directs—“that all loose idle vagrants, and such as pretend to be Irish gentlemen, and will not work nor betake themselves to any honest trade or livelihood, but wander about demanding victuals and coshering from house to house among their fosterers followers and others, and also loose persons of infamous lives and characters, upon presentments of the grand juries at assizes and general quarter sessions, and upon warrant of the justices, shall be imprisoned until sent on board the fleet, or transported to some of her Majesties plantations in America, whither the justices are empowered to send them, unless sufficient security for their good behaviour be given. Many persons are moreover said to make a trade of obtaining robbery money from the country, pretending to have been robbed, “whereas they never were robbed, or were not robbed of near the value they allege, and so get money on that account which they never lost”—Wherefore it is directed that all persons pretending to be robbed, shall not only give notice thereof to some neighbouring justice, but likewise to the high constable, who is forthwith to publish the same in all the market towns of the barony.

There appears to have been another species of fraud in connexion with this |“Robbery money.”| “robbery money,” for the principal inhabitants, when applotments were made for reimbursing the persons that had been robbed, do it is said, “usually lay the whole burthen on the poorer sort, that are least able to bear it, or least able to resist or pursue the tories, and thereby they pay little or nothing themselves, who ought to be charged according to their abilities”—Wherefore the parties aggrieved are authorised to appeal to the judges of assize, who are empowered to examine into the case upon oath, and to determine the same. We thus see how apt a law, however good in itself, is to be perverted to a bad purpose. The making the county answerable for reimbursing a person who had been plundered, would seem calculated to array all the inhabitants on the side of honesty and good order; but without preventing robbery, the law in this case appears to have given rise to a fraudulent trafficking in “robbery money,” and to gross injustice in other respects. There is no other Act of the Irish parliament in Anne’s reign requiring to be noticed, but there is one in that of her successor which must not be passed over.

1715.
2 George I. cap. 17.

The 2nd George 1st, cap. 17, may be called a multitudinous Act, as it comprises a great variety of enactments, but such parts only will be noticed as bear upon our subject. It is entitled ‘An Act to empower justices to determine disputes about servants’ wages &c.’ and it recites—“Whereas several persons do refuse or neglect to pay the wages due to servants, artificers, and day labourers, and there being no remedy whereby they can in a summary way, without much charge or delay recover what is due for their service”—it is therefore enacted for the more easy recovery of the same, that any neighbouring justice of the peace or chief magistrate may receive the complaint of any such servant upon oath, and may summon the master or mistress and determine the demand, which if not paid within ten days as so determined, may be levied by distress. “And forasmuch as several servants are drunkards, idle or otherwise disorderly in their services, or waste and purloin their master’s goods, or lend the same without their master’s or mistress’s consent or knowledge, or depart their service within the time for which they had obliged themselves to serve,” it is further enacted, that on complaint upon oath of any master or mistress to such effect before any justice of peace or chief magistrate, they are to hear and determine the same, and if the offence be duly proved, may commit the offender for six hours to the stocks, or to the house of correction with hard labour for any time not exceeding ten days. It is also enacted, that on the discharge or quitting service of any servant, the master or mistress shall give a certificate in writing to that effect, “and shall in the said discharge certify, if desired, or if the master or mistress shall think fit, the behaviour of such servant;” and no servant is in future to be hired without producing such discharge or certificate of character. These enactments appear alike calculated to benefit the master and the servant class, and if fairly administered could hardly fail of so doing. They show moreover that social organization in Ireland had attained a more stable and orderly form, that its gradations were more distinctly marked and better understood, and that the duties of each were more clearly defined. We no longer see any allusion to the “Irishry” as a separate race. All are brought within the pale of the law, or it may rather be said that the law and the pale have become conterminous.

11th section. Apprenticing of helpless children.

By the 11th section of the Act provision is made for apprenticing helpless children. It commences with this preamble—“and whereas there are in almost every part of this kingdom great numbers of helpless children who are forced to beg their bread, and who will in all likelihood, if some proper care be not taken of their education, become hereafter not only unprofitable but dangerous to their country; and whereas it is hoped that many of them may be entertained in comfortable services, and others may be bound out to and bred up in useful callings, if well-disposed persons could have any fair prospect of receiving hereafter by the labour of such poor children, any return suitable to the trouble and charges they must necessarily undergo in bringing them through that state of childhood”—Wherefore it is enacted, that the minister and churchwardens shall have power, with consent of a justice of peace, to bind out any child they find begging within their parish, or any other poor child with consent of the parents, to any honest and substantial protestant housekeeper or tradesman that will entertain such child, until the age of 21, if as a menial servant, or till the age of 24, if as an apprentice to a trade. And to prevent abuse of power in masters and mistresses towards such servants and apprentices, it is further enacted that justices of peace may, on complaint of ill usage or cruel treatment examine into the case, and if the complaint appear groundless, may order reasonable correction for the servant or apprentice complaining without cause; but if immoderate severity or cruel usage be fully proved against the master or mistress, the justice is empowered to discharge the servant or apprentice from their service, and to bind him or her to some other master or mistress for the remainder of the time. We here see that the power of apprenticing out poor children conferred upon the Dublin corporation of governors and guardians of the poor,[^[20]] is now extended to the minister and churchwardens of every parish in Ireland, accompanied by a like condition as to the master’s being a protestant. In this respect only is there any material difference between the present enactment, and The 39th Elizabeth, cap. 3,[^[21]] with regard to apprenticing poor children, although better provision is now made for protecting them against improper treatment subsequently.

1735.
9 George II. cap. 25.

In 1735 an Act was passed for establishing a workhouse at Cork, similar in its main provisions to that which was passed for Dublin in 1703.[^[20]] The present Act (The 9th George 2nd, cap. 25) however makes provision for rebuilding the cathedral church of St. Finbarry, as well as “for erecting a workhouse in the city of Cork for employing and maintaining the poor, punishing vagabonds, and providing for and educating foundling children.” With respect to the former of these provisions, it is only necessary to remark, that the money authorised to be raised by a coal-tax, was directed to be applied during the first four years to the purposes of the cathedral; and we may therefore abstain from further noticing that point, and proceed at once to a consideration of the other provisions of the Act.

Strolling beggars and vagabonds to be seized.

The 9th George 2nd, cap. 25, has the same preamble as the Dublin Act. It constitutes the bishop of Cork, and the mayor, recorder, aldermen, sheriffs, common councilmen, the common speaker, together with twenty-six other persons who are to be elected annually, a corporation and body politic, entitled the “Governors of the Workhouse of the City of Cork.” They are to have a common seal, with all the usual powers, and may purchase and take for the uses of the corporation any lands or other hereditaments not exceeding the annual value of 2000l. The ground for the workhouse is given by the city corporation, and in order to defray the expenses to be incurred in carrying the several provisions of the Act into effect, a duty of one shilling per ton is imposed on all coal and culm imported into Cork during the term of thirty-one years, to be paid to the governors of the workhouse. Four general assemblies of the governors are to be held in every year, and they may from among themselves annually appoint fifteen to be assistants, any five of whom are to have full power to carry the regulations established by the governors into effect, and likewise to regulate the management of the gaol or house of correction. The beadles and constables are authorised to seize all beggars and other idle vagabonds, found strolling in or frequenting any of the streets or houses within the city and suburbs, and to carry them before one of the said assistants, who is empowered to commit them to the workhouse and hard labour until the next meeting of the governors, who may if they see cause confine such beggars or vagabonds in the workhouse for any term not longer than four years, and keep them to hard labour or otherwise as shall be thought fit. If disorderly, they may be committed to the house of correction.

Section 17. Foundling children.

The workhouse at Cork, like that established in Dublin, is thus we see primarily intended for the repression of mendicancy and vagabondism, and like that too it is further designed for the reception and maintenance of foundlings. The 17th section of the Act declares that “the exposed or foundling children left yearly on the several parishes in the city and suburbs of Cork are very numerous, and do frequently perish for want of due care and provision for them”—Wherefore it is enacted, that as soon as the workhouse shall be built, the governors shall receive from the churchwardens of the respective parishes all the exposed or foundling children that are then within the same, and likewise all such as may thereafter be found exposed or left to be maintained by any of the said parishes, “and shall take due care to have such children nursed, clad, and taught to read and write, and thoroughly instructed in the principles of the protestant religion.” The male children are to be taught some trade or calling, and employed thereon within the workhouse until the age of 21, when they are to be discharged, and furnished with a certificate under the seal of the corporation, stating their having been so brought up and taught such trade in the workhouse, which certificate will entitle them to the freedom of the city of Cork, with all the privileges other freemen enjoy.

If the number of male foundlings should become so great, that the fund appropriated to the maintenance of the workhouse proves insufficient for continuing them therein until they severally attain the age of 21 years, the governors or assistants are empowered to place out so many of the male children to such art trade or calling, or to the sea service, or to be household servants, for any term not exceeding seven years, as they shall judge necessary and expedient. The female children are to be instructed in such proper trades and employments, and disposed of at such ages and in such manner, as the governors may deem advisable; and in order to prevent the improper interference of the parents of such deserted children, many of whom being Roman catholics are said to strive to hinder their children from being brought up protestants, the governors of the workhouses of Dublin and Cork are empowered to exchange the children maintained therein, whenever such interchange shall be agreed upon by the respective governors. This appears the only material addition suggested by the experience obtained in the thirty years between the passing of the two Acts, and it strikingly illustrates the difficulty of dealing with matters connected in any way with differences in religion. Here are parents so wanting in natural affection as to desert their own progeny, and leave them to be cared for by their protestant fellow-subjects, and who yet make it a point of conscience to hinder their children’s being brought up in the religion of their protectors. It would seem impossible to carry unreasoning inconsistency further.

Foundling hospitals have, from a remote period, existed on the continent of Europe, especially in Italy and France. It appears to have been thought that by providing a place where mothers might deposit their illegitimate offspring in safety, the frequent recurrence of child-murder would be prevented. But it may be doubted whether the exemption from the consequences of illicit intercourse, does not tend to relax moral restraints, and to increase the number of illegitimate children.

1771-2.
11 and 12 George III. cap 11. Dublin Foundling Hospital.

The double functions assigned to the Dublin workhouse, of dealing both with vagrants and foundling children, were deemed to be inconsistent, and The 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 11, was passed to remedy this defect, and in fact to reconstitute the entire establishment. All former Acts affecting it were accordingly repealed, and a new corporation appointed, comprising a long list of persons official and non-official, from the lord-lieutenant downwards, who are to be called “the Governors of the Foundling Hospital and Workhouse of the city of Dublin.” The corporation is invested with large powers, and may for its own use and benefit purchase and hold any lands, tenements or hereditaments, not exceeding the annual value of 2,000l., or any personal estate whatsoever; and may make such rules by-laws and other regulations, as the governors shall judge necessary and expedient for the good government of the institution. There are to be four quarterly meetings of the governors in the year, and as in the case of Cork the governors may appoint annually from among themselves fifteen or more “to be called the Court of Assistants,” who are to assemble as often as they think proper for putting in execution the orders and regulations ordained by the governors, and are invested with authority to inspect and regulate the management of the institution, “and the children received therein or sent out to nurse therefrom.”

Vagabonds and strolling beggars not to be admitted.

And as “the reception of vagabonds and strolling beggars into the same house, or within the same walls with children,[children,] will be manifestly injurious by the setting a bad example,”—it is enacted that no vagabond or strolling beggar shall be sent into the same house, or kept within the same walls with the children; but when apprehended shall be sent to bridewell, or to such other place as the governors shall appoint, separate and apart from the said children, and be there maintained and set to work at the expense of the corporation, under such management and regulation as the governors shall prescribe, the produce of their labour to be applied in aid of the revenues of the institution. The governors and the court of assistants are empowered to inflict reasonable punishment or correction from time to time, on any vagabond beggar or poor person within the said bridewell, or other place of confinement; and each of the governors, and every justice of peace, may apprehend any poor persons begging or seeking relief, and all vagabonds and strolling beggars, within the city and liberties. The beadles, constables, and inhabitants generally, are moreover required to seize and take all such persons before one of the said governors, or one of the said justices, in order to their being committed to bridewell or other appointed place, until the next quarterly court of governors, who may confine the beggars and idle vagabonds so committed for any term not exceeding three years, “there to be kept to hard labour, or otherwise usefully employed, as they shall see cause and shall order and direct.”

Section 16.
Foundling children.

The entire separation of the vagrant classes from the foundling children being thus provided for, it is then by the 16th section enacted—“that all and every poor child and children under the age of six years, who shall be found or taken up within the said city and liberties, or sent to the foundling hospital, shall be received and kept therein, or sent to nurse therefrom; and that all children presented for reception who appear to be six years old, and not exceeding eight, shall be received if there be room, and the children appear to be sound in mind and body.” The children are to be instructed in the principles of the protestant religion, and taught to read write and cast accounts, together with such other useful matters as “may tend to increase the fund for the support of the said house.” The governors may, from time to time, place out as apprentices by proper indentures any of the said children to persons being protestants and following any trade or calling, or to seafaring men, or to gentlemen or housekeepers for servants, for any term not exceeding seven years.[^[22]] The maintenance and education afforded to these poor children, and their being thus placed out as servants, or apprenticed to a trade, naturally made the institution attractive; and it is declared to be necessary “that some further funds should be provided, as it is found by experience that the numbers of children are of late years greatly increased, and the children are brought to the hospital from all parts of the kingdom, and from his Majesty’s neighbouring dominions.”

Accordingly, the governors are empowered for “the better support of the said Foundling Hospital and workhouse, and for the maintenance and education of the children and other purposes of the Act,” to grant licences to persons keeping hackney coaches, stages, or other vehicles plying for hire, and to porters or messengers within the city or suburbs or seven miles thereof,—on conditions and at rates of charge prescribed in the Act; and also to charge and receive 6d. in the pound on the yearly rent of all houses within the city and liberties, or within two Irish miles of Dublin Castle, as the same is returned for the minister’s money, or if not so returned, on the rents payable by tenants in possession. And whenever the number of children causes the expense to exceed the revenue provided by the Act, the governors are to cause notice thereof to be inserted in the Dublin Gazette, after which no child is to be again received until notice to that effect be in like manner given.

On comparing this with the original Act of 1703, and with the Cork Act of 1735, it will be seen that the chief difference is the entire separation of the vagabond or culpable class from the foundling children which is now directed, and the reason for which is distinctly stated. This was doubtless an advantage, and it led to so many other improvements in the care and management of the children, that the numbers deserted and pressed upon the institution went on continually increasing, and soon became excessive. It is indeed complained of in the present Act, before the separation it directs was carried into full effect, and the influence we are told even extended beyond the limits of Ireland. To provide for the additional charges thus arising, the area of the house-tax was extended, and its rate increased from 3d. to 6d. in the pound. No change is made in the charge for licensing carriages, but the number to be licensed was increased, hackney coaches from 150 to 300, and sedan-chairs from 80 to 400, which may be taken as proof of the increasing wealth and population of Dublin, if not of the country generally. This Act was repeatedly amended; and even in the following year, on the ground that “the number of children of the age of six years and under, have of late years increased so far beyond the expectation of the governors,” it is directed by the 13th and 14th George 3rd, cap. 17, that children of three years old and upwards are not to be received, and that the house-tax be raised from 6d. to 10d. in the pound for two years, on houses of 10l. rental and upwards.

1772-74.
11 and 12 George III. cap. 15.
13 and 14 George III. cap. 24.

Nothing further need at present be said with respect to the above statute. But two other Acts were subsequently passed, one in the same year, and the other in the year following which require to be noticed.—The first is The 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 15, ‘for the relief of poor infants who are or shall be deserted by their parents’—the other is The 13th and 14th George 3rd, cap. 24, for amending the same. The first-named Act commences with this recital—“Whereas poor infants are frequently deserted by their parents, and left exposed to the inclemency of the weather in the streets and other places in cities; and whereas the inhabitants of several parishes in which children are so exposed refuse to raise money for the support of such children, by which many of them perish”—it is therefore enacted, that in every parish of every city (excepting Dublin and Cork) a vestry shall be held in the first week of June annually, at which three overseers are to be chosen, who shall take up and provide for the maintenance and education of all such children as shall be so deserted and exposed within their respective parishes. The sum of 5l. is allowed for the bringing up of each child, and the entire expense is to be equally borne by the inhabitants of the cities respectively. The overseers are to collect the sums assessed upon each inhabitant, and apply the money so collected to the maintenance and education of such deserted children within their respective parishes. This provision is, we see, limited to cities; but the other Act (13th and 14th George 3rd, cap. 24) makes the provision general throughout the country. After citing the former Act, it directs—“that in every parish in this kingdom (except in the cities of Dublin and Cork for which particular provision is made) a vestry shall be held annually, at such time and with such powers as the former Act prescribes;” and the overseers in such parishes are to “take up and provide for the maintenance and education of all such children as shall be deserted and exposed within their respective parishes at the age of twelve months or under;” and such sums of money as shall be necessary for the purpose, are to be “raised upon the respective parishes in the same manner and with such remedies as other parish cesses.” If any parish refuses or neglects to raise the amount necessary, the next going judge of assize, upon complaint of the minister or curate thereof, may order such sum to be raised as he shall think fit, “so as the same do not exceed the sum of 5l. for each child;” and the money so directed to be raised is to be assessed and levied in the manner and with the like remedies as the presentments of grand juries, and is to be paid to the minister or curate of such parish, and by him applied to the purposes of the Act.

These Acts, taken together, make provision for the support of exposed and deserted children of tender age in every parish in Ireland, by means of a compulsory assessment upon the inhabitants. This amounts in fact to a limited relief of the poor, or a restricted kind of poor-law, the children being in almost every instance the offspring of parents too poor to rear and maintain them, whence (as was the case in England) the parish of necessity becomes responsible for the performance of these duties, and stands in loco parentis. After thus legislating for one class of the destitute, and recognising the principle of compulsory assessment, it seems remarkable that nothing further should be done in the way of establishing a regular system of relief for the destitute of every class, especially as vestries were now being organised, and overseers appointed in all the parishes of Ireland. Perhaps an Act passed about the same time, and to which we will now turn, may serve to explain this omission, as it attempts to effect the object circuitously and by indirect means, instead of openly charging property for the relief of destitution.

1771-2.
11 and 12 George III. cap. 30.

The 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 30, is entitled ‘An Act for Badging such Poor as shall be found unable to support themselves by labour, and otherwise providing for them, and for restraining such as shall be found able to support themselves by labour or industry from begging.’ It commences as follows—“Whereas strolling beggars are very numerous in this kingdom, and whereas it is equally necessary to give countenance and assistance to those poor who shall be found disabled by old age or infirmities to earn their living, as to restrain and punish those who may be able to support themselves by labour or industry, and yet may choose to live in idleness by begging; and it is just to call upon the humane and affluent to contribute to the support of real objects of charity; and whereas those purposes may be better effected by one law, than by many laws tending to the same purpose”—it is enacted that the 33rd Henry 8th, cap. 15,[^[23]] and the 10th and 11th Charles 1st, cap. 4,[^[23]] be repealed.

The Act then proceeds—“And whereas the good purposes intended by this Act are most likely to be promoted by creating corporations in every county at large, and in every county of a city or town in this kingdom, |Corporations to be established in every county.|who may execute the powers and trusts hereinafter expressed”—it is enacted that such corporations be established accordingly, consisting in counties of the archbishop or bishop, the county members, and the justices of peace; and in counties of a city or town, of the chief magistrate, sheriffs, recorder, members of parliament and justices of peace. Every such corporation is to be called “The President and Assistants instituted for the relief of the Poor, and for punishing Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars,” of the county, city, or town, as the case may be; and is to have a common seal, and to hold meetings at which the bishop when present is to preside, and to make by-laws and appoint standing committees, and is likewise empowered to elect such other persons as shall be thought fit, including those who contribute any sum not less than 20l., or subscribe annually not less than 3l., to the charitable purposes of the corporation, to be members thereof respectively. The corporations are authorised to accept donations, and to take or purchase lands and tenements not exceeding 500l. annual value, and to hold leases for terms not exceeding 21 years, and may also take by grant or devise any quantity of land in a city or town not exceeding two roods, and in the open country not exceeding twenty acres, “for the sites of houses to be built for the reception of the helpless poor, and for keeping in restraint sturdy beggars and vagabonds.”

The poor to be badged and licensed to beg.

The corporations, constituted as above, are empowered to grant badges to such of the helpless poor as have resided one year in their respective counties cities or towns, with a licence to beg within such limits for such time as may be thought fit; and are also empowered to appoint certain of the justices to grant badges and licences likewise—“specifying the names and places of birth and the character of the persons so licensed, and the causes as nearly as may be collected of their poverty, and whether reduced to that state by sickness or misfortune.”

Houses of industry or workhouses to be provided.

The said corporation are moreover required as soon as they possess sufficient funds, to build hospitals to be called workhouses or houses of industry for the relief of the poor in their respective counties, “as plain, as durable, and at as moderate expense as may be;” which hospitals are to be divided into four parts, one for such poor helpless men, and one other for such poor helpless women as shall be judged worthy of admission, a third for the reception of men able to labour and committed as vagabonds or sturdy beggars, and the fourth for idle strolling and disorderly women committed to the hospital and found fit for labour.

Persons begging without a licence to be apprehended.

Every man above the age of fifteen found begging without a licence, and not wearing a badge, is to be committed to the stocks for any time not exceeding three hours for the first offence, and six hours for every subsequent offence; and old persevering offenders may be indicted at the sessions, and if convicted are to suffer imprisonment not exceeding two months; after which if they again offend they may be publicly whipped, and be again imprisoned for four months, and so on continually for every subsequent offence. Every female found begging without a licence and badge, may be confined in any place appointed for that purpose, not exceeding three hours for the first offence, and for every subsequent offence not exceeding six hours; and every old and persevering offender is, as in the case of the men, to be proceeded against at the sessions; and in order that these directions may be carried into effect, the corporations are empowered to appoint “such and so many persons as they shall think fit, at reasonable salaries, to seize and arrest all such persons whom they shall find begging without such licence and badge, and carry them before the next justice, who may commit the party to the stocks or otherwise as aforesaid.” Justices are moreover empowered on their own view, to cause such persons to be seized and dealt with as is above directed for every first and subsequent offence.

Poor children to be provided for.

Whenever a poor person deemed worthy of having a licence to beg, has one or more children under the age of ten years not apprenticed or otherwise provided for, the age and number of such children are to be inserted in the licence by the person applied to in such case, or he may “at his or their election take such and so many of them as he or they shall think fit from the parent, and convey such child or children to the committee of that county, city or town, and insert the names of the rest in the parents’ licence.” If any fatherless or deserted poor children under eight years of age are found strolling and begging, they are to be conveyed to the committee of the particular county city or town, to be placed in such charter school nursery as will receive them when under eight, and the rest are to be apprenticed. The committees are required to keep up a correspondence with the Protestant Charter Schools Society,[^[24]] that they may be informed from time to time when there is accommodation for poor children, in order “that all poor children may as much as possible be prevented from strolling, and may be put to trades or to industry.”

Strolling vagabonds to be seized and committed.

As soon as the houses of industry are provided and furnished for the purpose, the corporations are to place therein so many vagrants sturdy beggars and vagabonds, and so many helpless poor as their funds admit of; “and they are authorised and required to seize every strolling vagrant capable of labour who hath no place of abode, and who doth not live by his or her labour or industry, and every person above the age of fifteen who shall beg publicly without a licence or badge, and every strolling prostitute capable of labour, and to commit the said persons to the divisions allotted for them respectively in the said houses, and there to keep them to hard labour, and compel them to work, maintaining them properly,” and inflicting reasonable punishment when necessary, for the periods named in the Act, varying from two months to four years.

Money to be provided by grand-jury presentments.

“In order to furnish some revenues for the said corporations at the outset,” the grand juries are required to present annually at every spring assizes in every county of a city or town, to be raised off the lands and houses equally and rateably, any sum not less than 100l. nor more than 200l., and in every county at large any sum not less than 200l. nor more than 400l., to be assessed and collected as other county taxes are, and paid to the corporations respectively, without fee or deduction whatever, for the charitable purposes of the Act. All rectors vicars and incumbents of parishes are likewise required to permit such clergymen as the respective corporations may appoint, to preach sermons in their churches annually, and to permit collections to be made for the objects contemplated by the Act.

Recapitulation.

We here see that provision has been made, partly by compulsory assessment, partly by voluntary contributions, and through the instrumentality of corporations specially appointed—for the badging and licensing of the poor to beg—for providing hospitals workhouses or houses of industry in every county at large and county of a city or town—for separately confining therein able-bodied vagabonds and disorderly women who are to be kept to hard labour—and for the maintenance therein of poor helpless men and women. Authority is likewise given to seize any one found begging without a badge or licence, and to send such as are above fifteen to the house of industry for punishment, whilst the children are to be placed at school or put out to trade or service. And finally, persons are appointed at reasonable salaries to carry these enactments against unlicensed begging into effect.

In this Act therefore we have stringent provisions against mendicancy, coupled with a conditional permission for practising it. The deserving poor are permitted to beg, or if helpless are maintained; the undeserving poor if they beg are punished: but the distinction between the two is not defined, neither is it perhaps possible so to define it as to guard against continual deception and fraud. The punishment of vagrancy in every shape prescribed by this Act, accords with what we find in all the earlier Scottish and English statutes, and if due provision were at the same time made for relieving the destitute poor, this would be open to little objection; but the relief of poverty is here proposed to be effected chiefly by means of an organised system of begging, the helpless poor for whom provision is made in the houses of industry, being evidently those only who are too infirm to travel about for that purpose. By thus combining two objects of an opposite nature, it is evident neither will be accomplished—vagrancy will not be put down, and poverty will not be relieved. The providing for the establishment of corporations in every county, with powers to erect hospitals, houses of industry, or workhouses, and to tax the property of the country for such purpose, was no doubt an important advance in the legislation with regard to the poor; but like many other Irish enactments the present does not appear to have been carried into effect, except in a very few instances; and as a general measure the Act may be said to have been inoperative. It possessed however so much of a general character, and seemed to hold out such a promise of efficiency by consolidating the provisions of former Acts, that it was for a time relied upon, and upwards of half a century elapsed before anything further was attempted for the relief of the poor in Ireland.

The foregoing is the last of the Acts of the Irish parliament which we shall have occasion to notice, and when the Union took place in 1800, the Imperial legislation superseded that which had been local.

On here closing the last volume of Irish statutes, it may be convenient to give a short statement of the nature and extent of the previous legislation connected with our subject. Houses of industry and foundling hospitals, supported partly by public rates, and partly by voluntary contributions, were we have seen established at Dublin and Cork, for the reception and bringing up of exposed and deserted children, and the confinement of vagrants—free schools were directed to be maintained in every diocese, for educating the children of the poor—parishes were required to support the children exposed and deserted within their limits, and vestries were organised and overseers appointed to attend to this duty—hospitals, houses of industry or workhouses, were to be provided in every county, and county of a city or town—severe punishments were enacted against idle vagabonds and vagrants; whilst the deserving poor were to be badged and licensed to beg, or if infirm and helpless were to be maintained in the hospitals or houses of industry, for the building and upholding of which however, reliance was chiefly placed on the charitable aid of the humane and affluent, assessments for the purpose being limited to 400l. in counties at large, and to 200l. in counties of cities or towns.

It is evident that each of these measures partakes more or less of the nature of a poor-law, but there is one material deficiency pervading them all, that is, the want of a certain and sufficient provision for carrying them into effect. In no instance is such a provision made compulsory upon the public. A portion only of what is necessary for the purpose is so imposed, and the remainder is sought to be obtained by voluntary contributions, a combination always attended with uncertainty, and in most cases leading to an insufficiency of the necessary means. Even if the various provisions were fully carried into effect and generally acted upon, this would go far towards rendering them practically inefficient; but at that time in Ireland, it by no means followed because an Act was passed that its provisions would be enforced, and there is reason to believe that in very few instances only were the provisions contained in these Acts carried into operation. The existence of such provisions however, defective and for the most part inoperative as they were, would nevertheless serve as an answer to any person who might be desirous of seeing an efficient system established for the relief of the destitute; and thus the semblance of such a system may have prevented the establishing of one that would have been real, which it only could be when founded upon a general rate, as in the Act of Elizabeth. No such foundation was however, we see, here provided. Neither parochial nor parental liability as recognised and enforced in England, was established by these Acts. Even in the case of fatherless and deserted children, the entire chargeability of the parish for any such child was limited to 5l., an amount surely insufficient for its rearing and maintenance until it attained an age to support itself; so that here also reliance must have been placed on the co-operation of private charity, or else upon the child’s being received into one of the foundling hospitals, and the parish being thus relieved from further expense. In short, the training up and educating poor children as protestants, and the repression of vagabondism, appear to be the objects chiefly sought to be attained in all these Acts of the Irish parliament; and to these objects the relief of the infirm and destitute poor, seems to be regarded as a matter altogether secondary and subordinate.

A short account of the state of Ireland at this time will be a fitting conclusion of the present chapter, as well as a useful preparative for what is to follow. The best authority we can refer to for furnishing such an account I believe to be Arthur Young,[^[25]] who devoted three years from 1776 to 1778 inclusive, to a personal examination of the country, its agriculture, commerce, and the social condition of the people. I have had considerable opportunities of testing the accuracy of Arthur Young’s statements, and making due allowance for the changes which must be presumed to have taken place during a period of some sixty years, they have appeared to me to exhibit the circumstances of the country about the time they were written with remarkable accuracy and perspicuity. Of these statements, the following is such a condensed summary as will, it is hoped, show the reader what were Arthur Young’s views of the then condition of Ireland, more especially with regard to matters bearing upon our present subject.

Arthur Young’s account of the state of Ireland.

In natural fertility, acre for acre, Ireland is said to be superior to England. It has no such tracts of uncultivated mountain as are seen in the English northern counties, and its lighter shallower and more rocky soil (chiefly of limestone) is nourished by and flourishes under a fall of rain, which if it took place in England, would render the stiff clay lands almost useless. There is no chalk, and little sand or clay in Ireland. The fertility of England may be said to be in great measure owing to the application of skill industry and capital, that of Ireland chiefly to the soil and climate; whilst the bogs, which else would be waste, afford abundance of fuel. Notwithstanding the naturally superior fertility of Ireland however, the rent of land there as compared with England is in the proportion of two to five, or in other words, the land which lets in Ireland for two shillings, would in England let for five. It is considered that 5l. per acre expended over all Ireland (which would amount to about eighty-eight millions) “would not more than build, fence, plant, drain and improve that country to be upon a par in those respects with England;” and that it would take above twenty millions more to put the farmers in the two countries upon an equal footing. Profit in all undertakings depends upon capital, and the deficiency of capital thus accounts for the inferiority of the Irish rents. Tillage is little understood, and the produce is very inferior; “and were it not for potatoes, which necessarily prepare for corn, there would not be half of what we see at present.” The practice of harrowing by the tail, and burning corn in the straw, was still seen at Castlebar and other places in the west, notwithstanding its being prohibited by statute.[^[26]] The moisture of the climate is favourable to pasturage and the keeping of cattle was much followed, as it well suited the indolent habits of the people.

Considerable pains are taken to show that the system of middlemen which then prevailed, or persons holding tracts of land intermediately between the head landlord and the smaller occupiers, was injurious to both, and a bar to improvement. It was defended on the ground of its affording greater security for the rent. But Arthur Young says that the smaller tenantry were found to be the most punctual rent-payers; and he further observes, “that at the last extremity it is the occupier’s stock which is the real security of the landlord,—it is that he distrains, and finds abundantly more valuable than the laced hat hounds and pistols of the gentleman jobber, from whom he is more likely in such a case to receive a ‘message’ than a remittance.” These “profit-renters” are said to waste their time and their means in horseracing and hunting, and to be the hardest drinkers and most dissolute class of men in Ireland, as well as the greatest oppressors of the poor tenantry, whose condition is described as little better than the cottars they employ.

Arthur Young declares, that—to be ignorant of the condition of the labouring classes and the poor generally, is to be wanting in the first rudiments of political knowledge, and he states that he made every endeavour to obtain the best information on the subject, from persons in every class of life. According to some, the poor were all starving. According to others, they were in a very tolerable state of comfort.—Whilst a third party, who looked with a jaundiced eye on British administration, pointed at their poverty and rags as proofs of the cruel treatment of their country. When truth is thus liable to be warped, an inquirer should, he remarks, be slow to believe and assiduous to examine, and he intimates that such had universally been his practice.

The recompense for labour is the means of living. In England the recompense is given in money, in Ireland for the most part in land or commodities. Generally speaking the labouring poor in Ireland are said to have a fair bellyfull of potatoes, and the greater part of the year they also have milk. If there are cabins on a farm, the labourers reside in them. If there are none, the farmer marks out the potato-gardens, and the labourers raise their own cabins, the farmer often assisting them with the roof and other matters. A verbal contract is then made for the rent of the potato-garden, and the keep of one or two cows, as the case may be; after this the cottar works with the farmer at the rate of the neighbourhood, “usually sixpence halfpenny a day, a tally being kept, half by each party, and a notch cut for every day’s labour.” At the end of six or twelve months they reckon, and the balance is paid. Such it is said is the Irish cottar system, and it does not differ materially from that which prevailed in Scotland at a period somewhat anterior. Many cabins are however seen by the road-side or built in the ditch, the inhabitants of which have no potato-gardens—“a wandering family will fix themselves under a dry bank, and with a few sticks, furze, fern &c., make up a hovel no better than a pigsty, support themselves how they can by work begging and pilfering, and if the neighbourhood wants hands or takes no notice of them the hovel grows into a cabin”—these people are not cottars, but are paid in money for whatever work they perform, and consequently have no potato-ground.

The food of the smaller tenantry the cottars and labouring poor generally, was potatoes and milk, of which for the most part they are said to have a sufficiency. The English labourer’s solitary and sparing meal of bread and cheese, is contrasted with “the Irishman’s potato-bowl placed on the floor, the whole family upon their hams around it, devouring quantities almost incredible, the beggar seating himself to it with a hearty welcome, and the pig taking his share.” It must be admitted that the contrast is sufficiently striking, and scenes such as here described were no doubt then often witnessed in Ireland, and with some little modification may even occasionally be met with at the present day. This luxurious abundance was however by no means universal, as is evident by statements in other parts of the work, where many of the people are described as living very poorly, “sometimes having for three months together only potatoes and salt and water.” There is said to be a marked difference between the habits of the people in the north, and those inhabiting the southern and western districts. In the latter, land is alone looked to for affording the means of subsistence. The former are manufacturers as well as farmers, each man holding from 5 to 10 acres of land, and sometimes more, on which he raises the usual crops of corn and potatoes, together with a certain quantity of flax, which is prepared and spun, and sometimes also wove by himself and his family. This double occupation is however not favourable to excellence or improvement in either. The farming was bad, and the people generally very poor. The practice of subdividing the land, until it is brought down to the smallest modicum that can support a family, prevailed in the north as in the other parts of Ireland at that time, and has not entirely disappeared at the present day.

The people are said to be everywhere very indifferently clothed. Shoes and stockings were rarely seen on the feet of women or children, and the men were very commonly without them. They appeared more solicitous to feed than to clothe their children, the reverse of which is the case in England, where, as has often been remarked, it is common to pinch the belly in order to clothe the back. Education as far as reading and writing goes was pretty general. “Hedge schools,” as they are called, were everywhere met with, and it is remarked that they might as well be called ditch schools, many a ditch being seen full of scholars. This shows the people to have been desirous of instruction, another proof of which is, the fact of there being schools for men. “Dancing is so universal among them that there are everywhere itinerant dancing-masters, to whom the cottars pay sixpence a quarter for teaching their families.” The people are said to be more cheerful and lively than the English, but lazy to an excess at work, although active at play; and their love of society is as remarkable as is their curiosity, which is declared to be insatiable. Their truthfulness is however not to be relied upon, and petty thefts and pilferings are very common. They are “hard drinkers and quarrelsome, yet civil submissive and obedient.” Such is the summary of the Irish character at that time, as drawn by Arthur Young, and there is no reason to doubt its general accuracy.

With regard to other matters, an Irish cabin is described as being the most miserable-looking hovel that can well be imagined. It is generally built of mud, and consists of only one room. There is neither chimney nor window. The door lets in the light, and should let out the smoke, but that for the sake of the heat it is mostly preferred to keep it in, which injures the complexion of the women. The roof, consisting of turf straw potato-stalks or heath, has often a hole in it, and weeds sprouting from every part, giving it all the appearance of a weedy dunghill, upon which a pig or a goat is sometimes seen grazing. The furniture accorded with the cabin, often consisting only of a pot for boiling the potatoes, and one or two stools probably broken. A bed is not always seen, the family often lying upon straw, equally partaken of by the cow and the pig. Sometimes however the cabin and furniture were seen of a better description, but on inquiry it generally appeared that the improvement had taken place within the last ten years.

The readiness with which habitations are procured in Ireland, and the facility of obtaining food for a family by means of the potato, are considered to be one cause of the rapid increase of population which is shown to have taken place towards the end of the 18th century.[^[27]] Marriage was, and indeed still is, more early and more universal in Ireland than in England. An unmarried farmer or cottar is there rarely seen, and even the house-servants, men as well as women, are commonly married. Yet notwithstanding the rapid increase of population, there was a continual emigration from the ports of Derry and Belfast, several ships being regularly engaged in this passenger trade as it was called, conveying emigrants to the American colonies. These emigrants were however chiefly from the northern counties, partly farmers partly weavers. When the linen trade, the great staple of Ireland flourished, the passenger trade was low, and when the former was low the latter flourished. The emigrants are said to have been chiefly protestants, the Roman catholics at that time rarely quitting the country.

The towns were said to have very much increased during the last twenty years. “It may in truth be said that Ireland has been newly built over within that period, and in a manner far superior to what was the case before.” Towns are the markets for the general produce of the country, which they help to enrich, and at the same time also to improve. The rise of rents is a natural consequence of the increase of towns; and on an average throughout Ireland, the rents are said to have doubled in the last twenty-five years. The entire rental of Ireland at that time is set down at 5,293,312l., but Arthur Young considered it to be not less than six millions. The cost of living was on the whole found to be nearly one-half less than in England. All the articles of use and consumption were cheaper in Ireland, and the taxes trifling in comparison. There was no land-tax, no poor’s-rate, no window-tax, no candle or soap tax, only half a wheel tax, no servants’ tax; and a variety of other things heavily burthened in England, were free or not so heavily burthened in Ireland. The expenses of a family in Dublin and in London, are considered to be in the proportion of five to eight; but the Irish do however, it is added, nevertheless contrive to spend their incomes.

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.’

The commencement of the nineteenth century is memorable for the legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland. This measure, fraught with such important benefits to both countries, was probably hastened by what occurred in Ireland in 1798, when the partizans of democracy, excited by the events of the French Revolution, and stimulated by French emissaries and promises of support, broke out into open rebellion. |1798.
Irish Rebellion.|The rebellion was however soon put down, although not without the sacrifice of many of the ignorant misguided people who had been led on to take a part in it; and the speech from the throne at the opening of the session on the 20th of November 1798, announced that “the French troops which had been landed for its support were compelled to surrender, and that the armaments destined for the same purpose were, by the vigilance and activity of our squadrons, captured or dispersed.” On the 22nd of January following, a royal message relative to a union with Ireland was delivered to parliament, in which the king expressed his persuasion, that the unremitting industry with which the enemy persevered in their avowed design of effecting the separation of Ireland from this kingdom, cannot fail to engage the particular attention of both houses, and he recommended them to consider of the most effectual means of counteracting and defeating such design.

1800.
Mr. Pitt’s speech on proposing the Union, January 22.

In the debate which followed the delivery of the royal message, Mr. Pitt observed—“Ireland is subject to great and deplorable evils, which have a deep root, for they lie in the situation of the country itself—in the present character manners and habits of its people—in their want of intelligence—in the unavoidable separation between certain classes—in the state of property—in its religious distinctions—in the rancour which bigotry engenders and superstition rears and cherishes.” If such circumstances combine to make a country wretched, the remedy ought, he said, to be sought for in the institution of “an imperial legislature, standing aloof from local party connexion, and sufficiently removed from the influence of contending factions, to be the advocate or champion of neither. A legislature which will neither give way to the haughty pretensions of a few, nor open the door to popular inroads, to clamour, or to invasion of all sacred forms and regularities, under the false and imposing colours of philosophical improvement in the art of government.” This, he said, “is the thing that is wanted in Ireland. Where is it to be found?—in that country or in this?—certainly in England; and to neglect to establish such a legislature when it is possible to do so, would be (he declared) an improvidence which nothing could justify.”

Much of the evil which Ireland then laboured under arose, Mr. Pitt considered, from the condition of the parliament of that country. “When there are two independent parliaments in one empire,” he observed, “you have no security for a continuance of their harmony and cordial co-operation. We all have in our mouths a sentence that every good Englishman and good Irishman feels—we must stand or fall together, we should live and die together—but without such a measure as that which is about to be proposed, there can be no security for the continuance of that sentiment.” And he concluded a long and powerful address, by saying, “I am bound to convey to this house every information which it may be in my power to give; but however acceptable to the one or to the other side of the house, however acceptable or otherwise to those whom I respect on the other side the water, my sentiments upon this subject may be, my duty compels me to speak them freely. I see the case so plainly, and I feel it so strongly, that there is no circumstance of apparent or probable difficulty, no apprehension of popularity, no fear of toil or labour, that shall prevent me from using every exertion which remains in my power to accomplish the work that is now before us, and on which I am persuaded depend the internal tranquillity of Ireland, the interest of the British empire at large, and I hope I may add, the happiness of a great part of the habitable world.” The address in answer to the Royal message was carried without a division.

1800.
Mr. Pitt’s speech on submitting resolutions for the Union.

On the 31st of January following, Mr. Pitt submitted to the house of commons certain resolutions declaratory of the principles on which it was proposed to establish the union between the two countries, and explained most fully the various circumstances connected with the measure. It was not merely in a general view, he said, that the question ought to be considered—“We ought to look to it with a view peculiarly to the permanent interest and security of Ireland. When that country was threatened with the double danger of hostile attacks by enemies without, and of treason within, from what quarter did she derive the means of her deliverance?—From the naval force of Great Britain—from the voluntary exertions of her military of every description, not called for by law—and from her pecuniary resources—added to the loyalty and energy of the inhabitants of Ireland itself, of which it is impossible to speak with too much praise, and which shows how well they deserve to be called the brethren of Britons.” Great Britain has, he observed, always felt a common interest in the safety of Ireland; “but the common interest was never so obvious and urgent as when the common enemy made her attack upon Great Britain through the medium of Ireland, and when their attack upon Ireland went to deprive her of her connexion with Great Britain, and to substitute in its stead the new government of the French Republic. When that danger threatened Ireland, the purse of Great Britain was as open for the wants of Ireland as for the necessities of England.”

Among the great defects of Ireland, Mr. Pitt remarked, “one of the most prominent is its want of industry and capital—How are those wants to be supplied, but by blending more closely with Ireland the industry and the capital of this country?”—The advantages which Ireland will derive from the proposed arrangement are, he said, “the protection she will secure to herself in the hour of danger, the most effectual means of increasing her commerce and improving her agriculture, the command of English capital, the infusion of English manners and English industry necessarily tending to ameliorate her condition, to accelerate the progress of internal civilization, and to terminate the feuds and dissensions which now distract the country, and which she does not possess within herself the power either to control or to extinguish.” And he added, “while I state thus strongly the commercial advantages to the sister kingdom, I have no alarm lest I should excite any sentiment of jealousy here. I know that the inhabitants of Great Britain wish well to the prosperity of Ireland; that if the kingdoms are really and solidly united, they feel that to increase the commercial wealth of one country, is not to diminish that of the other, but to increase the strength and power of both.” He then cited the example of the union with Scotland—“a union as much opposed, and by much the same arguments prejudices and misconceptions, as are urged at this moment; creating too the same alarms, and provoking the same outrages as have lately taken place in Dublin.” Yet the population of Edinburgh is said to have nearly doubled since the Union, a new city being added to the old; whilst the population of Glasgow since the Union, has increased in the proportion of between five and six to one. The division in favour of the measure was 140 to 15.

On the 2nd of April 1800 Mr. Pitt presented a message from the king, expressing his Majesty’s satisfaction at being enabled to communicate to the house, the joint address of the lords and commons of Ireland, containing the terms proposed by them for an entire union between the two kingdoms; and he earnestly recommends the house to take all such further steps as may best tend to the speedy and complete execution of a work so happily begun, and so interesting to the security and happiness of his subjects, and to the general strength and prosperity of the British empire. The session terminated on the 29th of July, when the king in his speech from the throne congratulated both houses on the success of the steps taken for effecting the union of Great Britain and Ireland, emphatically adding—“This great measure on which my wishes have been long earnestly bent, I shall ever consider as the happiest event of my reign, being persuaded that nothing could so effectually contribute to extend to my Irish subjects, the full participation of the blessings derived from the British constitution, and to establish on the most solid foundation the strength prosperity and power of the whole empire.”[^[28]]

It would seem impossible, having regard to the circumstances of the times, to doubt the necessity for such a union as was thus established, and perhaps equally impossible to doubt or over-estimate the benefits it was calculated to confer. But as in the case of Scotland a century previous, the Union was now denounced as an act of injustice and degradation to Ireland, although it is difficult to see how the combining of the two countries under one united government and common designation, thus adding to the security and general importance of both, could be an injustice or degradation to either. The author is able to remember the circumstances of that period, the alarms, the forebodings of evil, the fervid declamations of popular patriots, who regardless of the benefits that would ensue to their country, could only be induced to acquiesce in the measure by some immediate benefit accruing to themselves. The Union has indeed continued down even to the present day, to be declaimed against as a grievance by certain parties in Ireland, whenever for factious or sectarian objects it suited their purpose to do so; and the blending and amalgamation of the two peoples which was hoped for, and which was foretold and relied upon as a certain consequence of the Union by its great promoter, has therefore been less entire than it otherwise would have been. Notwithstanding this drawback however, the material resources of Ireland have vastly increased, and its general condition been in all respects greatly improved, since it has by the Union become an integral portion of the British empire.

1801.
First parliament of “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.”

The first parliament of “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” assembled on the 22nd of January 1801, when the king, in his opening speech, declared his confidence “that their deliberations will be uniformly directed to the great object of improving the benefits of that happy union, which by the blessing of Providence, has now been effected, and of promoting to the utmost the prosperity of every part of his dominions.”

There were certain Acts passed subsequent to the Union which it will be requisite to notice, as they exhibit the views of the now united parliament in regard to Ireland and the relief of the Irish poor, and form also a necessary introduction to the more important measure which followed in 1838.

1801.
41 Geo. III. cap. 73.

The first of these Acts is The 41st George 3rd, cap. 73, which directs the application of certain sums of money granted by parliament to the Dublin Society and the farming societies in Ireland—namely any sum not exceeding 4,500l. Irish currency to the Dublin Society, to be applied towards completing their repository in Hawkins Street, and the botanic garden at Glassnevin; and any sum not exceeding 2,000l. Irish currency, to be applied in promoting the purposes of the farming societies in Ireland for the current year. The Irish Society is an institution founded for the purpose of promoting improvements generally, and the farming societies are exceedingly valuable as promoting agricultural improvements in particular. The imperial parliament could hardly therefore have better shown its desire for the improvement of Ireland, than by thus so immediately after it assembled giving its aid and high sanction to these two societies.

1805.
45 Geo. III. cap. 111. Dispensaries.

After referring to the Irish Acts which provide for the establishment of infirmaries and hospitals, The 45th Geo. 3rd, cap. 111, recites—“and whereas the distance of many parts of each county from the infirmary therein established, does not allow the poor of those parts the advantages of immediate medical aid and advice which such infirmary was proposed to afford”—it is then enacted, that in all cases where the governors of the county infirmary shall certify to the grand jury of the county, that they have actually received from private subscription or donation any sum since the preceding assize, for the purpose of establishing in any place a dispensary for furnishing medicine, and giving medical aid and relief to the poor therein—the grand jury are empowered to raise from the county at large a sum equal in amount to the sum or sums so received, to be applied by the said governors, together with the moneys so received, in providing medicines and medical or surgical aid and advice for the poor of such place and its neighbourhood, in such manner as the said governors shall deem most advisable. Every person subscribing not less than one guinea towards the establishment or maintenance of any local dispensary, or towards the county hospital or infirmary, is entitled to be a member of the body corporate thereof, “so far as relates to the management of and direction of such local dispensary.” The dispensaries are perhaps the most extensively useful of all the medical institutions in Ireland, and this Act providing for their establishment, cannot therefore fail of being considered as of great importance, more especially as regards the rural population residing at a distance from towns, and who are consequently deprived of access to hospitals or infirmaries.

1806.
46 Geo. III. cap. 95. Hospitals and infirmaries.

The 46th Geo. 3rd, cap. 95, is entitled—‘An Act for the more effectually regulating and providing for the Relief of the Poor and the Management of Infirmaries and Hospitals.’ It refers to the 11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30, of the Irish parliament,[^[29]] and directs—that in case it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the judge at the summer assize in any county, that the corporation instituted under that Act is properly conducted, and that on comparison of the expense incurred in the former year, it is expedient that a greater sum should be presented and levied, or that it is expedient to provide for the expense of building the house of industry—the grand jury in the county of a city or town may present and levy a sum not less in the whole than 400l., nor more than 500l., and in any county at large a sum not less than 500l., nor more than 700l., to be applied to the purposes directed by the said Act. The limits of such presentments are thus we see greatly enlarged from what was prescribed by the Act of 1772; but the entire amount permitted to be raised by assessment is still small, showing that voluntary contribution was still chiefly relied upon. All infirmaries and hospitals are moreover now required to make out returns annually, showing in detail the amount of their funds and their expenditure, and the lord lieutenant may order an examination of their state and condition. By an Act in the following year another sum of 100l. was allowed to be presented for a fever hospital, “whenever one had been established.”

1809.
49 Geo. III. cap. 101.
Irish bogs.

‘An Act to appoint Commissioners for two years, to examine into the nature and extent of the several Bogs in Ireland &c.,’ was passed in 1809, commencing with this recital—“whereas there are large tracts of undrained bog in Ireland, the draining whereof is necessary for their being brought into a state of tillage; and whereas the adding their contents to the lands already under cultivation, would not only increase the agriculture of Ireland, but is highly expedient towards promoting a secure supply of flax and hemp within the United Kingdom for the use of the navy, and support of the linen manufacture”—it is therefore enacted that the lord lieutenant may appoint not exceeding nine persons, to be commissioners for ascertaining the extent of such bogs as exceed 500 acres, and for inquiring into the practicability and best modes of draining the same, and the expense of so doing,—also as to the depth of bog soil, the nature of the strata underneath, the nature and distance of the manure best fitted for their improvement &c.—“together with the opinion of the said commissioners as to such measures as they shall deem necessary or expedient for carrying into speedy effect the drainage cultivation and improvement of all such bogs, and the future increase of timber in Ireland, by providing for the plantation and preservation of trees in such parts thereof as shall be best fitted for the purpose;” and it is further enacted that the commissioners shall act without a salary.

This inquiry could hardly fail to prove useful, by directing attention to a subject of very great importance, both in a general and a local point of view: but in this, as in most other instances, the result fell short of what was anticipated. The appointing of such a commission however, evidenced a strong desire on the part of the imperial legislature for the amelioration of Ireland. The term of the commission was afterwards extended for another two years by the 51st George 3rd, cap. 122; and four elaborate Reports, the 1st in June 1810, and the last in April 1814, accompanied by a large mass of evidence on all matters connected with the subject, are proofs of the commissioners’ zeal and industry in discharging the duties assigned them. The subject was moreover again reported upon by a special committee in 1819, and valuable evidence was taken in reference to it, in connexion with the employment of the poor.

1814-18.
54 Geo. III. cap. 112, and 58 Geo. III. cap. 47.
Fever hospitals.

The 54th George 3rd, cap. 112—provides—“that whenever any fever hospital has been or shall be established in any county, or county of a city or town, it shall be lawful for the grand jury at the spring or summer assize to present such sum or sums of money, not exceeding 250l., as shall appear to be necessary for the support of such fever hospital, to be raised off the county at large, or the county of a city or town as the case may be;” and four years afterwards another Act on the same subject was passed (The 58th George 3rd, cap. 47) entitled—‘An Act to establish Fever Hospitals, and make other regulations for relief of the suffering Poor, and for preventing the increase of Fevers in Ireland,’ commencing with this preamble—“Whereas fevers of an infectious nature have for some time past greatly prevailed among the poor in several parts of Ireland, whereby the health of the whole country has been endangered, and it is expedient that hospitals should be established for the relief of the sufferers in such cases, and that regulations should be made to prevent, as effectually as possible, the increase of infection; and such good purposes are most likely to be promoted by creating corporations in every county at large, and every county of a city or town”—it is therefore enacted that such corporations shall be created accordingly, to consist in counties of the bishop or archbishop of the diocess, the representatives in parliament, and the justices of peace for the county; and in the county of a city or town, to consist of the chief magistrate, sheriffs, recorder, representatives in parliament, and justices of peace, all for the time being, and also donors of not less than 20l., or contributors of one guinea annually—which corporation is to be called “The President and Assistants of the Fever Hospital of ——,” and is to have perpetual succession &c., and to hold meetings and make by-laws &c., and purchase and hold lands not exceeding 500l. yearly value, as they shall think fit.

The corporations are required to build or hire houses for hospitals for relief of the poor who are ill of fever, in the several counties or counties of cities or towns, “as soon as they shall be possessed of funds sufficient for this purpose, as plain, as durable, and at as moderate expense as may be.” The hospitals are to be divided into two parts, one for poor helpless men, the other for poor helpless women, and the corporations are to appoint masters, physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, nurses, and other fit persons and servants to govern and take care of such hospitals and the patients therein. Grand juries are empowered to present sums, not exceeding double the amount of private donations and subscriptions to fever hospitals, whether the same be attached to any dispensary or not, and they may also present in like proportion for local dispensaries; and whenever such presentments are certified by the clerk of the crown, the lord lieutenant may order an advance of money from the consolidated fund; and on the appearance of fever in any town or district, he may also appoint a board of health, with powers “to direct that all streets, lanes and courts, and all houses and all rooms therein, and all yards gardens or places belonging to such houses, shall be cleansed and purified, and that all nuisances prejudicial to health shall be removed therefrom.”

1819.
59 Geo. III. cap. 41.
Officers of health to be appointed.

The powers of this Act were extended in the following year by The 59th George 3rd, cap. 41, which declares that—“it has become highly expedient to provide for and secure constant attention to the health and comforts of the inhabitants of Ireland,” and authorizes the appointment of officers of health to carry the sanitary measures specified above into effect. The increase of fever indicated by the passing of these Acts, would seem to have been very marked about this time, and may possibly have been in part owing to the rapid increase of the population, and the consequent overcrowding in the dwellings of the poorer classes. The practice of subdividing their land among all the members of a family, may also have had some share in causing fevers, by reducing the means and lowering the general standard of living, as well in their dwellings as in their food clothing and ordinary mode of subsistence.

1817.
57 Geo. III. cap. 106.
Lunatic asylums.

The 57th George 3rd, cap. 106, commences by declaring it to be “expedient, that the distressed state of the lunatic poor in Ireland should be provided for;” and it empowers the lord lieutenant to direct, that any number of asylums for the lunatic poor shall be established in such districts as he shall deem expedient; “and that every such district shall consist of the whole of two or more counties, or of one or more county or counties, and one or more county or counties of cities or towns, but shall not include part only of any county, or county of a city or town;” and that all lunatic poor within any such district respectively, shall be maintained and taken care of in the asylum belonging thereto; and that every such asylum shall be sufficient to contain such number of lunatic poor, not being less than 100, nor more than 150 in any one asylum, as shall seem expedient to the lord lieutenant. The grand juries respectively are to present such sum or sums of money as shall be requisite for defraying the expenses of erecting and establishing such asylums, and for maintaining the same, to such amount and in such proportion as shall be directed by the lord lieutenant; who is further empowered to appoint such persons as he shall think fit, to be governors and directors of every such asylum, and also to nominate any persons not exceeding eight to be commissioners for superintending directing and regulating such asylums—“provided that all such governors directors and commissioners shall act without salary fee reward or emolument whatsoever.”

The necessity for attending to the state of the poor generally, including the lunatic and insane poor, seems now to have been strongly felt, and this feeling naturally led to the passing of the present Act. Lunacy is said to be more prevalent in Ireland, than it is either in England or Scotland, whilst the poverty of the people caused it to be there, if possible, a greater affliction than elsewhere, and rendered greater care necessary for the protection of its hapless victims.

1822.
3 George IV. caps. 3 and 84.
Distress and extension of relief.

The year 1822 was a period of much distress in Ireland, and on the 24th of May The 3rd George 4th, cap. 3, entitled ‘An Act for the employment of the Poor’ was passed, empowering the lord lieutenant in certain cases to order advances to be made from the public treasury, in anticipation of but not exceeding the amount of grand-jury presentments actually made. This does not however appear to have been sufficient to meet the emergency, and on the 26th of July The 3rd George 4th, cap. 84, was passed, the preamble declaring that—“Whereas by reason of the distress that exists in many parts of Ireland, it is in many counties thereof impossible without great severity and great mischief to the country to levy and raise the sums heretofore presented by the grand juries of such counties, and which ought by law to be levied and raised on or within the said counties respectively; and whereas the roads and works and other objects and purposes for which many of the said sums have been presented, cannot be delayed without great injury to the persons interested therein, and the commencement of such works, by employing the poor, must tend to alleviate the existing distress”—it is therefore enacted that certain advances which had been provisionally made by the lord lieutenant should be confirmed, and that he may further order advances for public works to be applied according to such directions as he shall give in connexion therewith; and the respective grand juries on being certified of the sums so advanced, are to present the same, to be raised by not less than four nor more than twelve half-yearly instalments, according to the state of the country. Such advances are therefore loans at longer or shorter periods, for road-making or other public works, as a means of relieving the distress of the people, there being then no other source whence relief could be derived.

1825.
6 George IV. cap. 102.
Deserted children.

In 1825 an Act was passed ‘to amend the Laws respecting Deserted Children in Ireland.’ After referring to previous Acts, which provide that the sum of 5l. sterling shall be leviable on any parish for the support of each deserted child found therein, it proceeds—“and whereas the sum of 5l. is now required to be paid previous to the reception of any such deserted child into the General Foundling Hospital of Dublin, transmitted from any such parish; and whereas no fund at present exists either to pay the expense of maintaining such deserted children in the parishes wherein found, or of transmitting them to the city of Dublin”—It is therefore enacted that it shall henceforward be lawful “for the several parishes in Ireland to raise and levy such additional sum as may be necessary for maintaining such deserted children as shall be found therein, until such children shall be admitted into the foundling hospital aforesaid, and for transmitting such children thither.” But it is further provided that no greater sum than fifty shillings shall be raised in any one year for the support of any such deserted child, or for its transmission to the foundling hospital in Dublin. The city and liberties of Cork are exempted from the provisions of the Act, which is limited to two years. It will not fail to be observed that this Act gives a legislative sanction to the rating of a parish for the relief of a destitute class “found therein,” and so far may be said to amount to a species of poor-law.

The foregoing are the only Acts requiring to be noticed, between the period of the Union and the passing of the Irish Poor Relief Act in 1838. They show the feeling of the legislature with regard to the state of Ireland, and seem to point to further measures as being necessary for amending its social defects. But in the interval there were moreover several commissions appointed by the crown, and several committees of parliament, whose reports contain much valuable information as to the state of the country and the condition of the people at the respective periods; and some of the more prominent of these we will now proceed to notice.

Report of committee of house of commons respecting the poor in Ireland.

In 1804 a Report was made to the house of commons by a committee which had been specially appointed to make inquiry “respecting the Poor in Ireland.” The committee, after considering the several statutes, and examining such evidence as was laid before them, came to the resolution—“that the adoption of a general system of provision for the poor of Ireland, by way of parish rate, as in England, or in any similar manner, would be highly injurious to the country, and would not produce any real or permanent advantage, even to the lower class of people who must be the objects of such support.” The committee further resolved, “that the Acts directing the establishment of a house of industry in every county and county of a city or town, have not been complied with, nor any presentment made by grand juries to assist in the support of such establishments for relief of the aged and infirm poor, and the punishment of vagrants and sturdy beggars, except in the counties of Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and Clare, and in the cities of Cork, Waterford, and Limerick.” But the committee remark, that the house of industry in Dublin is open to the admission of the poor from all parts of Ireland, which may have induced the other counties and cities to consider it sufficient, “and precluded the necessity of their making further provision for the poor.” The futility of this excuse must be sufficiently apparent, and coupled with the resolution against any systematic provision for the relief of the poor “by way of parish rate,” shows the kind of feeling which prevailed at the time in parliament on the subject. It appeared to the committee however, that the Acts directing the establishment of infirmaries or county hospitals, and granting a certain allowance from the Treasury for the salary to the surgeon or physician attending thereon, “have been carried into effect in almost all the counties;” whilst the provisions of the 57th George 3rd[^[30]] “empowering grand juries to present the sums necessary for support of a ward for idiots and insane persons have not been complied with; and the committee consider that there is a great want of accommodation for idiotic and lunatic persons, and recommend the establishment of an asylum in each of the four provinces, to be erected and maintained either by grand-jury presentment or otherwise as may thereafter be determined.” The very important objects which had been referred to the committee require however, they say, more deliberation than the advanced period of the session permitted, and they therefore recommend that the investigation should be resumed in the ensuing session; but it does not appear that this was done, although the Acts passed in the two following years with regard to dispensaries infirmaries and hospitals, may very possibly have had their origin in the inquiries instituted by this committee.

Dublin house of industry.

The notice taken of the Dublin house of industry in the above Report, as well as the real importance of the institution, renders some account of it here necessary. The house of industry was established in 1772, by the 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 11,[^[31]] under the provisions of which Act it was separated from the foundling hospital, of which it had before formed a part; and was thenceforward applied to the maintenance of such helpless men and helpless women as from age and infirmity were deemed fitting objects for admission, for the confinement of men who were committed as vagabonds or sturdy beggars, and for the punishment of such idle strolling and disorderly women as the magistrates might commit thither. Considerable additions were made to the building, and after a time some changes and modifications took place in the management, which ultimately led to the house of industry being used for the reception of poor aged and infirm men and women, idiots and incurable lunatics removed from the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, the sick poor and persons labouring under acute chronic and surgical complaints, for whom appropriate hospitals had been provided, and lastly strolling beggars thither committed by the magistrates of police. From the year 1773 to 1776 inclusive, the house of industry was supported by subscriptions, donations, and charity sermons, and afterwards by annual parliamentary grants, voluntary contributions, the profits (so called) arising from the labour of the poor, and a small sum of interest accruing on certain legacies. The voluntary contributions became less after aid was obtained from parliament, and as might be expected, soon ceased altogether. In 1776 the parliamentary grant to the institution was 3,000l.—In 1786 it was 8,600l.—In 1796 it was 14,500l.—In 1806 it was 22,177l.—In 1814 it was 49,113l.—In 1820 it was 26,474l., and in 1827 it was 23,000l.[^[32]] At first the house of industry was managed and governed by the corporation for the relief of the poor in the county of the city of Dublin, under the provisions of the Act of 1772—afterwards by seven persons balloted for and appointed “acting governors of the house of industry,” in conformity with the 39th George 3rd, cap. 38. In 1800 the number of governors was reduced to five, and in 1820 the management was vested in a single governor, with a salary of 500l. a year. The number of admissions in 1803 was 4,468, and the average number in the house was 1,313. In 1807 the admissions were 5,900, and the average number in the house was 1862. In this latter year 271 of the admissions were by committal.

Dublin Foundling Hospital.

The foundling hospital originally formed part of the house of industry, the joint establishments being founded in 1704 under the 2nd Anne, cap. 19.[^[33]] They remained so united until 1772, when the objects of the two institutions being deemed incompatible, they were as before stated placed under separate and distinct government by the 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 11.[^[33]] The object of the institution is thenceforward said to be “the preservation of the lives of deserted or exposed infants, by their indiscriminate admission from all parts of Ireland;[^[34]] putting them out to nurse in the country until they are of a proper age to be drafted into the hospital, and educating them there in such manner as to qualify them for being apprenticed to trades, or as servants, and thus rendering them useful members of society.”[^[35]] Down to 1823 the institution was supported partly by a house-tax levied on the citizens of Dublin and its liberties and suburbs, amounting to between 7,000l. and 8,000l. annually, and partly by parliamentary grants, and the rent of a small property of 115l. per annum: but the citizens of Dublin were then relieved from the house-tax, and the sum of 5l. was required to be paid with every child on its admission to the hospital, by the overseers or the minister and churchwardens of the parish whence the infant was sent, no child being admissible whose age exceeded twelve months. The aggregate of these latter payments amounted to about 2,000l. annually, and the annual grants by parliament varied from 21,554l. in 1800, to 34,000l. in 1828. The number of admissions was 2,041 in 1800, 2,168 in 1806, and 2,359 in 1811, at which time the number of children remaining on the books of the institution was 6,498.

Report on the state of disease, and the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland.

In 1819 a select committee of the commons of which Sir John Newport was the chairman, was appointed to inquire into the state of disease, and also into the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland; and a Report on each of these subjects was presented to the house in course of the session, of which Reports the following is an abstract.

On the prevalence of fever.

With regard to the first point, although it is said not to be “the most essential or most difficult object of their investigation,” the committee consider the prevalence of contagious fever in Ireland a calamitous indication of general distress; and in order “to prevent the migration through the country of numerous bodies of mendicant poor, who pressed by want and seeking for relief, have fatally contributed to the general diffusion of disease,” they recommend that magistrates, churchwardens, or other appointed officers “be empowered to remove out of their respective parishes any persons found begging or wandering as vagabonds therein, or to confine such persons to hard labour for twenty-four hours in any bridewell or other public place of confinement, or to adopt both measures as the case may require; and also to cause the persons and clothes of such vagabond beggars to be washed and cleansed during the period of such confinement.” The committee consider that the Act of last session (58th George 3rd, cap. 47)[^[36]] “enacted under circumstances of severe and calamitous visitation,” has on the whole been productive of good, and they think it of infinite moment that there should be a systematic local control established in all cities and great towns for the removal of nuisances which generate and increase disease; for which purpose they recommend that officers of health should be annually elected by the householders in places containing above 1,000 inhabitants, with power to direct the cleansing of streets &c., the removal of nuisances, the ventilation of houses, and the doing of all things necessary for the health and preservation of the inhabitants; and also that such country parishes as think proper may do the same, and that the expenses incurred in performance of these duties should be levied as a parish rate, and the expenditure accounted for as in the case of other parochial assessments.

The committee then express their intention of proceeding, “in further execution of their duty,” to inquire into the practicability of ameliorating the condition of the labouring poor, “by facilitating the application of the funds of private individuals and associations for their employment in useful and productive labour,” by which alone the entire and permanent removal of the malady can be expected, although it is, they say, much mitigated in its severity, and more circumscribed in its extent than heretofore. The disease still however, it is observed, continues to press heavily on the community, and by “the united testimonies of every competent inquirer is attributed to the want of employment of the labouring classes, as a primary and powerfully efficient cause.”

1819.
On the condition of the labouring poor.

On the second head of inquiry, the condition, or in other words, the employment of the labouring poor, the committee “find themselves in a great measure controlled by the unquestionable principle that legislative interference in the operations of human industry is as much as possible to be avoided.” There are however, they say, certain exceptions to such a rule, either when injurious impediments are to be removed, or where any branch of industry cannot at its commencement be carried on by individual exertion, on which occasions, it is considered, parliament may with advantage interpose its aid. The existence of general distress and the deficiency of employment were so notorious, that the committee deemed it unnecessary to encumber their Report with evidence on the subject. Their inquiries were particularly directed to agriculture and the fisheries, as being the two most important departments of labour, and as “those likewise to which the greatest extension may be given without hazarding reaction.” They refer to the Report of the Commissioners on the Bogs of Ireland, which they consider “prove the immense amount of land easily reclaimable, and convertible to the production of grain almost without limit for exportation”—whilst, “the small extent to which the commissioners’ recommendations have been acted upon, demonstrates lamentably that want of capital which in Ireland unnerves all effort for improvement.” The institution of commissioners of sewers, as in England, is then recommended, as is also the draining of the great bogs and marshes, and the making a legal provision for repayment of the necessary outlay. The formation of roads in the mountainous districts is likewise recommended, those districts not having, it is said, “their due share of the benefits of the grand-jury system.”

The want of capital the committee consider is attributable to a variety of causes. Capital, they justly remark, “can accumulate only out of the savings of individuals; and in Ireland there are few persons who conduct their operations on such a scale, as to admit of much surplus for accumulation.” The manufacture which flourishes most is the linen-trade, and this is said to be “spread abroad amongst a population which at the same time cultivates the soil for their sustenance,” a state of things incompatible with large savings. Whilst in agriculture, the tendency to the subdivision of farms, and the practice of throwing the expense of buildings and repairs on the tenants, prevent the accumulation of profit in the hands of the farmers, and its application to agricultural improvements. There are, it is said, two millions of acres of bog in Ireland, capable when reclaimed of growing corn; and the mountain districts comprise a million and half of acres at present nearly unproductive, but about one-half of which is suitable for agriculture, and the remainder for pasturage and planting. The reclamation and improvement of these bogs and mountain districts would, the committee observe, afford profitable employment to the people, and greatly increase the productive powers of the country; but for this capital is necessary, and in Ireland the capital is not to be found.

With regard to the fisheries, it is declared that “in whatever view they can be considered, whether as a source of national wealth, as a means of employing an overflowing population, or as a nursery of the best seamen,” they are of the utmost importance; and the revision and simplification of the fishery laws, and the direct application of encouragement to the fishermen of the coast, whose actual condition is said to be miserable, the committee consider essential to any successful fishery in Ireland. The northern, western, and southern coasts, are said to afford every advantage for a bay or coast fishery, and to be admirably suited for a deep-sea cod-fishery of great importance; and after noticing what had been done in Scotland, where an improved system of fishery laws, and parliamentary encouragement wisely applied, had been eminently successful, the committee earnestly recommend “on every ground of policy as well as justice,” that the precedent of Scotland should be applied to Ireland. The circumstances of the two countries are declared to be remarkably similar, “both being mountainous and uncultivated, and abounding with an unemployed population.”

On this last point, the committee remark—“It is almost impossible in theory to estimate the mischiefs attendant on a redundant, a growing and unemployed population, converting that which ought to be the strength into the peril of the state.” It is obvious, they say, that the tendency of such a population to general misery, and the boundless multiplication of human beings satisfied with the lowest condition of existence, must be rapid in proportion to the facility of procuring human sustenance; and it is declared—“that such a population, excessive in proportion to the market for labour, exists and is growing in Ireland, a fact that demands the most serious attention of the legislature, and makes it not merely a matter of humanity, but of state policy, to give every reasonable encouragement to industry in that quarter of the empire.” The non-residence of a great portion of the proprietors, and their spending their incomes in England, is then adverted to, as being a circumstance which “enhances the claim of Ireland on the generous consideration of parliament.”

No one better knew the state of Ireland than the chairman of this committee, the substance of whose Report is here given. We may therefore rely upon the correctness of the statement, that there was then, twenty years after the Union, a redundant, an increasing, and unemployed population in Ireland, subsisting on food obtained with peculiar facility, (the potato) and consequently “leading to the boundless multiplication of human beings satisfied with the lowest condition of existence.” Yet the land was fertile, the sea-coasts abounded in fish, and the bogs and mountain districts solicited improvement. It will probably be said that there must be something wrong in the character, habits, or social position of a people, where such circumstances existed. The Report points to want of capital, and the non-residence of proprietors, as being the cause or causes of what was wrong; and no doubt both circumstances may have been influential in the matter. But capital we are told is the accumulation of savings, which are the fruits of industry, which again is nourished and supported by its own progeny; so that a want of industry may have lain at the root of the evil as regards the mass of the population, whilst the proprietors through absence, or want of sympathy with the other classes, probably failed in their duty of originating and urging forward improvement. With the proprietor class indeed, as with the others, the capital arising from savings and applicable to objects of improvement, was of slender amount; and the committee appear to rely more upon “the generous consideration of parliament,” than upon native energy or resource, for supplying the deficiencies and remedying the evils of which they complain.

1823.
Report on the condition of the labouring poor.

In 1823 another select committee[^[37]] was appointed “to inquire into the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland, with a view to facilitate the application of the funds of private individuals and associations for their employment in useful and productive labour.” The committee made their Report on the 16th of July, and after adverting to the course pursued in the former inquiry of 1819, they state that during the last year “a pressure of distress wholly unexampled was felt in Ireland, which directed the attention of government, of parliament, and of the British public, to the condition of the Irish peasantry, and led to the appropriation of large sums voted by the legislature, and subscriptions by individuals for the purpose of mitigating if not of averting, that famine and disease which had extended to so alarming a degree in many districts in Ireland.”[^[38]]

It appears that early in May of the preceding year, a public meeting was held in the city of London to raise subscriptions for the relief of the distress in Ireland, and a committee of gentlemen was appointed to superintend the distribution of the money subscribed. Considerable grants of public money were also made by parliament for the same purpose. The committee state that the distressed districts comprised one-half of the surface of Ireland, and there were grounds for believing that considerably more than one-half of the entire population of these districts depended upon charitable assistance for support. The sums distributed through the city of London committee amounted to nearly 300,000l., which with the amount advanced by government furnished means for continuing the relief until the month of August, when the necessity for its further continuance seems to have ceased; and it is satisfactory, the committee observe, to find that the most lively feelings of gratitude have been excited by this benevolent interposition, “which it is to be hoped will tend to unite the two parts of the empire in the strong ties of sympathy and obligation.”

In the districts where the distress chiefly prevailed, the potato constituted the principal food of the peasantry, and the potato crop had failed; but there was no deficiency in the other crops, and the prices of corn and oatmeal were moderate. Indeed the exports of grain from ports within the distressed districts, was considerable during the entire period of the distress: so that those districts, the committee observe, “presented the remarkable example of possessing a surplus of food, whilst the inhabitants were suffering from actual want.” The calamity of 1822 may therefore be said to have proceeded less from want of food in the country, than from the people’s want of the means to purchase it, “or in other words, from their want of profitable employment.” In some districts where the potato failed, but where the population were engaged in the linen-trade, no individual so employed is said to have had occasion for relief; and the committee come to the conclusion that the late distress had chiefly arisen from the circumstance that the peasantry depended for subsistence upon the food raised by themselves. When the potato fails, they have not the means to purchase other food, and the potato is not only uncertain as a crop but it soon decays, so that the surplus of one year cannot be preserved to supply the deficiency in another.

The agents of government, and of the London contributors, as well as the local associations which had been formed, made a point on all occasions as far as possible, of affording the necessary assistance in return for labour; and the committee express their entire approbation of this principle. “Relief purely gratuitous (they observe) can seldom in any case be given without considerable risk and inconvenience; but in Ireland, where it is more peculiarly important to discourage habits of pauperism and indolence, and where it is the obvious policy to excite an independent spirit of industry, and to induce the peasantry to rely upon themselves and their own exertions for support, gratuitous relief can never be given without leading to most mischievous consequences.” Any system of relief, it is remarked, which leads the peasantry to depend upon the interposition of others, rather than upon their own labour, however benevolently it may be intended, cannot fail to repress the spirit of independent exertion which is essentially necessary to the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes.

The condition of the people in the districts to which the evidence obtained by the committee chiefly applied, appears “to be wretched and calamitous to the greatest degree.” A large portion of the peasantry in those districts, are described as living in a state of the utmost misery. Their cabins scarcely contain an article that can be called furniture. In some families there are no such things as bedclothes, the place of which is supplied by a little fern, and a quantity of straw thrown over it, upon which they sleep in their working clothes. The witnesses agreed in this description with regard to a large portion of the peasantry, and they agreed also in attributing the existence of this state of things to the want of employment. Yet the people are represented as being willing to labour, and we are told that they quit their homes at particular seasons in search of employment elsewhere, whilst the inhabitants of the coasts bordering on the Atlantic, carry on their backs the sand and seaweed many miles inland for the purpose of manure.

The committee are of opinion that the rapid increase of the population[^[39]] is one immediate cause of the want of employment. The demand for labour, they say, has not kept pace with the continually increasing number of persons seeking employment. Another cause of the want of employment, they consider, arises from the effect produced on the gentry of the country by the fall of prices. The fixed payments to which many of the landlords are subjected, whether in the shape of head-rents or interest on incumbrances, bear a greater proportion to the whole income than they did during the war, and consequently the balance remaining in the hands of the resident gentry is diminished, a reduced employment follows, labourers are discharged, and the distress of the higher class is thus visited upon the lower.

The want of capital was however in most instances assigned as the principal cause of the want of employment. This want was manifested in the wretched description of implements commonly in use. The ploughs, carts, harrows, were of the very rudest kind, and there appeared to be a deficiency even of these. The same want of capital has, it is said, led to the payment of wages, not in money, but by allowances in account, or as a set-off against the landlord’s claims for rent, or presentments, or some other object, which is not only a hardship to the labourer, but tends to an increase of local burdens; and as it was “generally admitted that if the wages of labour were paid in money, the labour would be more cheaply purchased and more cheerfully and efficiently given,” the committee express a hope “that a system of ready money payment may be introduced, so far at least as the public works of the country are concerned.”

The encouragement of the fisheries, the erection of piers, the formation of harbours, and the opening of mountain roads, are all recommended, as is also the instruction of the peasantry in agriculture, by combining instruction in this branch, with the other instruction imparted in the various educational establishments throughout the country. In conclusion, the committee admit that danger attends all interferences with industrial pursuits, which prosper best when left to their own natural development; but they consider that the state of Ireland constitutes it an exception to the general rule, and that the aid of government in support of local effort is there absolutely necessary.

1830.
Report of select committee on the state of the poorer classes in Ireland.

At the end of seven years, another select committee of the commons was appointed “to take into consideration the state of the poorer classes in Ireland, and the best means of improving their condition,”[^[40]] and their very elaborate and comprehensive Report, (which was ordered to be printed on the 16th of July,) will require to be especially considered.

The committee commence their Report by declaring that they entertain a deep sense of the difficulty and importance of the question referred to them, and that they have felt it their duty to make most minute inquiries into the actual state and condition of the Irish poor, considered in all points of view, moral, political, physical and economical, in order to enable the house to form a correct opinion on the entire subject. The Report is arranged under three principal heads—1st, the state and condition of the poorer classes—2ndly, the laws which affect the poor, and the charitable institutions—3rdly, the remedial measures suggested; and each of these is again subdivided into several minor headings. It is not intended to adhere to these divisions in the following summary, but to select such portions only as immediately bear upon our subject, and as are calculated to show what was then the general state of the country and the condition of the people.

State of the country, and condition of the people.

Regret is expressed by the committee at their being compelled to state “that a very considerable portion of the population is considered to be out of employment.” The number is, they say, estimated differently—by some at one-fifth, by others at one-fourth; and this want of demand for labour necessarily causes distress among the labouring classes, which combined with the consequences of an altered system of managing land, is said to produce “misery and suffering which no language can possibly describe, and which it is necessary to witness in order fully to estimate.” Yet the price of labour is not considered to have materially fallen. By returns from the county treasurers, the rate of wages appears to average 10d. per day on presentment works throughout Ireland, and an extensive contractor thinks that there is a tendency in wages to increase rather than otherwise, notwithstanding that the labourers can now, he says, purchase for 6s., what would formerly have cost them 12s. These are seemingly contradictions, and there is much more of the same kind of conflicting testimony given in the Report, which can only be accounted for by the fact, that the several parts of Ireland differ widely from each other, and that what is true in one case is not true in another. This indeed appears to be the view taken by the committee, for they say however consolatory the favourable testimony may be, it would lead to a false inference were it to induce a disbelief in the existence of very great distress and misery in Ireland. “The population and the wealth of a country may (they observe) both increase, and increase rapidly; but if the former proceeds in a greater ratio than the latter, an increase of distress among the poor may be concurrent with an augmentation of national wealth.” The state of the labouring classes must, it is considered, mainly depend on the proportion existing between the number of the people and the capital which can be profitably employed in labour. Of the truth of these propositions, there can be no reasonable doubt; neither can it well be doubted, that much of the distress and misery which were seen in Ireland, was owing to a disturbance of this proportion, the population having become greatly in excess of the capital necessary for and applicable to profitable employment.

The committee consider that it would be impossible to form a correct estimate of the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, without first ascertaining the nature of the relations which existed between landlord and tenant,—“the connexion between the inheritor and the occupier of the soil being one which must influence if not control the whole system of society.” Great attention is accordingly bestowed on this part of the subject, and much evidence was taken in reference to it.

Under the excitement of war prices, it is observed, agriculture advanced with extreme rapidity. The demand for labour increased, and the population augmented in proportion. Land rose in value from year to year, and lessees realised large profit rents by subletting, one or more persons being frequently interposed between the owner and the occupier who was ultimately liable for the rent, both to the head landlord and the intermediate tenants. It became the practice in most cases, we are told, for the occupying tenant either to sublet, or to divide the land among the members of his family—in the former case a class of middlemen was created, which operated as a bar to improvement, and led to the paying or to the promise of paying higher rents—in the latter case the practice of subdividing led to consequences perhaps still more mischievous. When the farmer of 40 acres subdivided the land among his children, those children were led to do the same among theirs, until the farm of 40 acres was cut up into holdings of one two or three acres, each holding occupied by its particular owner, and yielding no more than was barely sufficient for his subsistence. “Now if the tenant of 40 acres had been prevented from subdividing his land, he would,” as is observed by one of the witnesses,[^[41]] “have provided for his children by sending them one into the army, another into the navy, and then left his holding to a third, and thus the farm would have been continued in its first state.” The cultivation of the land so subdivided and cut up is moreover always of the very worst description. The crops are uncertain, the liabilities to scarcity greater, the cabins are most miserable, and the visitations of fever are more frequent. The soil itself becomes deteriorated by bad tillage, and not a bush nor a tree is left standing; whilst the ease with which a cabin is reared, and the meal of potatoes provided, induces early marriages, and the land teems with an excessive population.

The above is not an overdrawn description of the consequences of subdividing land, but a change in management is said to have taken place soon after the peace, when the decline in the price of agricultural produce disabled many of the middlemen as well as the occupying tenants from paying their rents, and created much anxiety and alarm in the minds of the landlords. An apprehension was moreover[moreover], we are told, generally felt that a pauper population would go on increasing, and the value of the land at the same time go on diminishing, until the entire produce would become insufficient to maintain the people. The proprietors sought to devise a remedy for this state of things, so as to prevent the occurrence of such an evil; and Dr. Doyle stated in his evidence, that they did apply remedies, the principle of which he fully approved; but he added “that he thought, and still thinks, that those remedies ought to have been accompanied by some provision for the poor.”

The remedy or change in management here adverted to was the consolidating of farms, which it is said would lead to better husbandry, to a greater certainty[certainty] of crop, to the providing farm-buildings and more comfortable habitations, and to an increase in the quantity and improvement in the quality of the produce. These are all important considerations, and if the landlords and the tenants who continued in possession were alone to be regarded, the change would appear an unmixed good. But there is another class, the ejected tenants, whose condition, it is said, necessarily becomes most deplorable. “It would be impossible for language to convey an idea of the state of distress to which the ejected tenantry have been reduced, or of the disease, misery, and even vice, which they have propagated in the towns wherein they have settled; so that not only they who have been ejected have been rendered miserable, but they have carried with them and propagated that misery.”

Such is the testimony of Dr. Doyle on this point, and although the committee express a hope that it may be regarded as descriptive of an extreme case, they yet have no doubt “that in making the change, in itself important and salutary, a most fearful extent of suffering must have been produced.” The change was however, they say, unavoidable, and delay would have increased and aggravated the evil which followed in its train. Various suggestions were made with a view to carry the country through the period of change, and the severe trials by which it must be attended—“Emigration, the improvement of bogs and waste lands; the embankment and drainage of marsh lands; the prosecution of public works on a large scale; the education of the people not only in elementary knowledge, but in habits of industry; the encouragement of manufactures; the extension of the fisheries; and lastly, the introduction of a system of poor-laws, either on the English or Scotch principles, or so modified as to be adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland,” were all recommended, and on each of these questions, the committee say, valuable evidence had been taken and would be submitted to the house.

Vagrancy.

On the subject of vagrancy, after referring to the old laws against it which had fallen into desuetude, and which are recommended to be repealed, the committee quote the 6th Anne, cap. 11,[^[42]] under which (as amended by the 9th George 2nd, cap. 6) idle vagrants, or pretended Irish gentlemen, who will not work &c., may on the presentment of a grand jury be apprehended and transported for seven years. They likewise quote The 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 30,[^[43]] for establishing houses of industry, and these statutes are said to be in full force. A table is also given, showing that on an average of eight years the number of commitments under the first-named statutes was 160 annually; and the committee observe, that “although it is necessary to continue penalties against vagrancy,” they “cannot but think that a more constitutional and efficient system may be adopted, than one which allows the penalty of transportation to be inflicted upon the mere presentment of a grand jury, and this, not for an offence defined with precision, but under contingencies extremely vague and uncertain.” In the opinion thus expressed by the committee, every one must concur.

With regard to the county infirmaries, of which |County infirmaries.|there were thirty-one,[^[44]] the committee, after referring to the several Acts under which they were established,[^[45]] state that during the last year relief had been given to 7,729 intern patients, besides other medical assistance; and that the entire incomes amounted to 54,693l., the whole derived from local subscriptions and grand-jury presentments, excepting 3,000l. (Irish currency) furnished by government. The committee recommend that the several statutes should be consolidated, and that the grand juries should be enabled to provide more than one infirmary in the larger counties, and that their presenting powers should be extended in order to guard against insufficiency in any case. An efficient audit of the accounts, and a duly authenticated Report half-yearly of all particulars connected with the hospitals, together with a regular inspection by the grand juries, are likewise recommended; and with these alterations, the committee are of opinion that “the county infirmaries of Ireland may be considered as adequate to the purposes for which they were intended.” There does not however, it is added, appear to be any reason for continuing the government grant of 3,000l. Aid from the public purse should, it is said, be reserved exclusively for loans and advances, “and for cases in which local funds are inadequate to the immediate discharge of a necessary duty.”

Fever hospitals and dispensaries.

The subject of fever and fever hospitals is next adverted to by the committee. “From the occasional failure of the potato crop, and the misery which then invariably ensues, the poor of Ireland are (it is said) peculiarly liable to fever, which has at various times spread with such violence, and to such an extent, as to require extraordinary aid, not only from private charity and local assessment, but from the public purse.” Dublin had suffered most severely from this calamity, upwards of 60,000 persons having in one year passed through the fever hospitals of that city. In 1817 fever extensively prevailed in Ireland, and a board of health was constituted whose Report to government showed “that on a moderate calculation a million and a half of persons suffered from fever, of which number at least 65,000 had died.” By the 58th George 3rd, cap. 47,[^[46]] additional facilities were given for establishing fever hospitals, and provision was made for the appointment of local boards of health. By the 59th George 3rd, cap. 41, effect was given to the recommendations of the select committee of 1819,[^[47]] and under these statutes fever hospitals have been established in most parts of Ireland. No county is said to be without one in Munster, and the county of Cork has four, and Tipperary eight; but many counties in the provinces of Ulster and Connaught have omitted to provide fever hospitals, and the committee consider that if the grand juries persist in such omission, the providing of them should be made compulsory. With respect to dispensaries for the medical relief of the sick poor, these were sanctioned by the 45th George 3rd, cap. 111,[^[48]] under which Act nearly 400 are said to have been established, “affording relief annually to upwards of half a million of persons.” But some doubts appear to have arisen as to whether the presentments for their support were optional or otherwise, and the committee recommend that such doubts should be removed by making the presentment imperative, as was apparently the intention of the framers of the statute; and for security against abuse, it is also recommended that a Report of all matters connected with the dispensary, should in each case be annually submitted to the grand jury making the presentment.

Lunatic asylums.

The provision for the lunatic poor is said to have been for a long time very defective in Ireland. A hospital attached to the house of industry in Dublin, a large asylum at Cork, and cells connected with some of the county infirmaries, were all that existed for the safe custody and proper treatment of the insane poor. In 1810 a grant was made for the establishment of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, with accommodation for 200 patients. In 1817 the subject was inquired into by a select committee,[^[49]] in accordance with whose recommendation the 57th George 3rd, cap. 106,[^[50]] was passed, empowering the lord lieutenant to fix certain districts within which lunatic asylums should be erected, the cost in the first instance to be advanced by government, but to be ultimately repaid by local presentments, from which also the maintenance of the asylums is to be derived. “When these institutions are completed, which is easily practicable within three years, every county in Ireland will be provided with receptacles for their lunatic poor; and if these shall not be found sufficient for incurable as well as curable cases, a ward or two may be attached to each at a moderate expense, and the exigency may be thus completely provided for.” This quotation is given from the inspector’s Report to the Irish government on the subject in 1830, and the committee express their satisfaction, that as regards “one of the most painful afflictions to which humanity is exposed, there has been provided within a few years, a system of relief for the Irish poor as extensive as can be wished, and as perfect and effectual as is to be found in any other country.” Still however the cases of idiots and incurable lunatics are not separately provided for; and the committee consider it important that curable and incurable cases should be kept distinct, and that space should not be appropriated to the safe custody of incurables, which would be more usefully employed in the treatment of cases where there was a probability of recovery. Every lunatic establishment in Ireland, whether public or private, is subject to the visitation of the inspectors of prisons, who report regularly upon the condition and management of these institutions.

After referring to the 11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30, the 46th Geo. 3rd, cap. 95, and the 58th Geo. 3rd, cap. 47,[^[51]] |Houses of industry.| the Acts under which houses of industry are established and regulated, the committee state that the number of these institutions in Ireland does not exceed twelve “including the great establishment bearing that name in Dublin, which is supported exclusively by votes of parliament.” There are eight in Munster, and three in Leinster, but none either in Ulster or Connaught. A proposition is said to have been made for extending houses of industry generally throughout the country, and for rendering their erection and support compulsory. But the committee are of opinion that “establishments of this description combining the two distinct purposes of punishment and relief, are not likely to be useful either as prisons or hospitals.” They think that coercion is more likely to be effective when applied in houses of correction, than when applied in asylums intended for old age infirmity and destitution. They also think that the criminal ought to be separated from the distressed poor, and that these asylums should be reserved for particular descriptions of the latter class only—or in the words of Dr. Chalmers, for “cases of hopeless and irrecoverable disease, and all cases of misery the relief of which has no tendency to increase the number of cases requiring relief.” To the poor who suffer from loss of sight or limbs, and the deaf and dumb, the house of industry judiciously managed, would they say “afford a suitable place of refuge.” Such are the views of the committee with regard to houses of industry, and they do not materially differ from what prevailed in England a century previous with regard to the almshouses or old parish poorhouses then so common.

Voluntary charities.

The number of voluntary charities in Ireland maintained by private benevolence, independently of any contribution from general or local taxation, said to be very great, and they are stated to be most liberally supported. “Among them will be found schools, hospitals, Magdalen asylums, houses of refuge, orphan establishments, lying-in hospitals, societies for relief of the sick and indigent, mendicity associations, and charitable loans.” Yet notwithstanding the existence of these multifarious institutions, and the active exercise of private benevolence, and the frequent collections by the clergy of all persuasions,[^[52]] “the committee have not the satisfaction to hope that more is accomplished than the mitigation of distress.” Societies for the suppression of mendicity have it is said been formed in many parts of Ireland, on a plan similar to those established in London, Bath, and other places in England. In Dublin the income of the Mendicity Society amounts to 7,000l., and the committee are informed “that although the voluntary contributions are scarcely sufficient to maintain the establishment, still on the whole, supporting the poor as they do, they have enough.” When the funds are very low, a threat is held out either of applying to parliament for a power of compulsory assessment, or else that the poor people supported by the society will be discharged into the streets, “and by these means additional subscriptions are called in.” Institutions of this kind, supported by private contributions, are said to be complained of as casting an unfair and unequal burden upon the benevolent, and it has been suggested that they should be supported or at least aided by local assessment: but this suggestion, the committee observe, involves the entire principle of a poor-law, a question on which at that advanced period of the session they are not prepared to enter. They however recommend it as a subject for future consideration and inquiry.

Emigration.

With regard to emigration, although in some districts “there exists a population exceeding that for whose labour there is a profitable demand,” the committee nevertheless consider emigration to the full as much an imperial as a provincial question. The cause of the great influx of Irish labourers into Great Britain is, they say, the higher rate of wages which prevails there, and emigration from Ireland would “diminish that inducement, and lessen the number of Irish labourers in the British market.” It might seem therefore that the expense of such emigration should be defrayed out of the general funds of the empire. But the committee say they are not prepared to recommend any compulsory system of taxation for the purpose, “nor yet to discuss the probability of the repayment of advances made to colonial settlers.” They have however no doubt that colonization might be carried on to a great extent, “if facilities were afforded by government to those Irish peasants who were disposed voluntarily to seek a settlement in the colonies, and who could by themselves or their landlords provide all the expense required for their passage and location.” In districts where the population is in excess, it must be alike the interest of all, of the landlords, the tenants, and the labourers, that such excess should be removed; and the committee consider the most legitimate mode of effecting this to be—“that upon the actual deposit of a sum sufficient to cover the entire expense, the government should undertake the appropriation of that sum in the way most effectual for the purpose”—that is, for the conveyance of the emigrants to, and helping them to obtain a suitable location in, some British colony.

Amongst the various remedial measures suggested, the committee urge at great length the importance of an extension of public works, roadmaking, drainage, embankments &c., founded chiefly on the example of Scotland, and the benefits which there ensued from opening out the Highlands by the formation of roads and the construction of the Caledonian canal. The evidence given by Mr. Telford the eminent engineer in 1817, is cited and much relied upon in this particular, and certainly no higher authority on the subject could have been adduced. An emendation of the grand-jury and vestry laws is also recommended, together with several other matters of minor import.

In the present very comprehensive Report, as in all preceding Reports on the state of Ireland, |Education.| whether by committees of parliament or Royal commissions, the necessity for education is adverted to as a matter of paramount importance. It is now moreover said, that “the entire body of the Roman catholic hierarchy have by petitions to both houses of parliament, entreated that the recommendations of the select committee of 1827,[^[53]] should be adopted”—on which account, as well as on account of its intrinsic importance with regard to the question of education generally, that Report now requires to be noticed.

1828.
Report of the Select Committee on Education in Ireland.

The Report of the select committee appointed in 1827 here referred to, was printed by order of the House of Commons on the 19th May 1828.[^[53]] The committee declare that they “have proceeded to consider the Reports on the state of education in Ireland, with a full sense of the importance of the subject, and of the peculiar difficulties with which it is encompassed.” During several centuries, they observe, the necessity for providing the means of education in Ireland has been recognised. As early as the reign of Henry the Eighth the prevalence of crime was attributed to the ignorance of the people, “and education was relied upon as producing moral improvement, and supporting the institutions of civil policy.” Various statutes were passed and charters granted, and endowments made, with a view to this object; and inquiries had likewise been at different times instituted with the same intent. Of the commissions appointed, the two latest are the most important, namely that issued in 1806, and which terminated in 1812, after making “fourteen Reports upon the schools of royal and private foundation, the charter schools, foundling hospital, and the parochial and diocesan schools;” and that issued in 1824, which terminated in 1827, after making “nine Reports on the various establishments for education.” But the interference of the State was not solely confined to regulation and inquiry. “Parliamentary grants have been at various times most liberally made for the purposes of education,” and of these a list is given, amounting in the whole to 2,914,140l. The number of scholars receiving instruction in the existing schools in 1826, is stated to be 560,549, “leaving in all probability upwards of 150,000 without the means of education.” Of the number of scholars returned, it is said that 394,732 are brought up in the common pay schools, 46,119 in schools supported exclusively by the Roman catholic priesthood and laity, 84,295 in various establishments of private charity, and 55,246 in schools maintained in whole or in part at the public expense.

In pursuing their investigations, the committee say “their sole object has been to consider the principle upon which it will be expedient hereafter to grant public money in aid of Irish education;” and they prefer recording the conclusions at which they have arrived in the form of abstract propositions, instead of reasoning upon and discussing the merits of different modes of procedure in this respect. After the most anxious deliberation, they have, they say, adopted a series of resolutions on the subject, which are given at length, and in fact constitute the substance of their Report; and it is now proposed to select such portions of these resolutions as will enable the reader to see clearly what the views of the committee were. To give the whole is unnecessary, and would be inconvenient. The various Reports of committees and commissioners on Irish education are so voluminous, as to make it impossible to quote them at length, and the abstracts of the more important portions herein given will be sufficient for our purpose.

A passage from the Report of the commissioners in 1812[^[54]] is cited, to the effect—“that no plan of education, however wisely and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effectual operation in Ireland, unless it be explicitly avowed, and clearly understood as its leading principle, that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomination of Christians.” A passage from the Report of the commissioners in 1824 is likewise cited, to the effect—“that in a country where mutual divisions exist between different classes of the people, schools should be established for the purpose of giving to children of all religious persuasions, such useful instruction as they may severally be capable and desirous of receiving, without having any ground to apprehend any interference with their respective religious principles.” Another passage of the same Report is also cited—“in favour of the expediency of devising a system of mutual education, from which suspicion should if possible be banished, and the causes of distrust and jealousy be effectually removed; and under which the children may imbibe similar ideas, and form congenial habits, tending to diminish, not to increase, that distinctness of feeling now but too prevalent.”

The committee of 1828 adopt these several propositions, and resolve—“that it is of the utmost importance to bring together children of different religious persuasions in Ireland, for the purpose of instructing them in the general subjects of moral and literary knowledge, and providing facilities for their religious instruction separately, when differences of creed render it impracticable for them to receive religious instruction together.” And in accordance likewise with the recommendations of the commissioners of 1812 and 1824, the committee further resolve—“that considering the very large sums of public money annually voted for the encouragement of education in Ireland, as well as the extreme discretion required in adopting a new system of united education, without permitting any interference in the peculiar religious tenets of the scholars—it is indispensably necessary to establish a fixed authority acting under the control of the government and of the legislature, bound by strict and impartial rules, and subject to full responsibility for the foundation control and management of such public schools of general instruction, as are supported on the whole or in part at the public expense.”

The committee likewise record their opinion, that the selection of teachers in the schools should be made without regard to religious distinction, and that their qualifications should be proved by instruction or examination in a model school, the teacher first producing a certificate of character from a clergyman of his own communion. And they further resolve—“that for the purpose of carrying into effect the combined literary, and the separate religious education of the scholars, the course of study for four days of the week should be exclusively moral and literary; and that of the two remaining days, the one should be appropriated solely to the separate religious instruction of the protestant children, the other for the separate religious instruction of the Roman catholic children—the religious instruction in each case being placed under the exclusive superintendence of the clergy of the respective communions.” The committee moreover recommend that a board of education should be appointed, “all persons being eligible without reference to religious distinctions;” and they also recommend, that as a rule the children be required to pay such small sums as may be directed, “but that free scholars, being either orphans or the children of parents unable to afford payment, be received on the recommendation of the parochial clergy, and dissenting ministers, and persons subscribing to the schools, or having granted land for the site.”

The conditions under which the committee consider that the parliamentary grants in aid of the establishment and support of schools in Ireland, should in future be made, are as follows—

“Not to exceed two-thirds of the sum required.

“The school-houses and site to be conveyed to the commissioners.

“The managers to undertake to conduct the school according to the prescribed rules.

“Gratuities to teachers according to regulations prescribed by the commissioners.

“Books for the literary instruction of the children to be furnished at half price, and for the separate religious instruction at prime cost.

“A model school for the education of teachers to be provided.

“A system of inspection to be established.

“Public aid to depend on private contributions, and adherence to the commissioners’ rules.”

In conclusion the committee observe, that it has been their object to discover a mode in which the combined education of protestant and Roman catholic children may be carried on, resting upon religious instruction, but free from the suspicion of proselytism.—They have endeavoured, they say, “to avoid any violation of the liberty of conscience, or any demands or sacrifices inconsistent with the religious faith of any denomination of Christians.” They propose to leave to the clergy of each persuasion, the duty and the privilege of giving religious instruction to those who are committed to their care. And finally, they express an earnest hope that if adopted, their recommendations will satisfy moderate and rational men of all opinions.

There can be no doubt that the committee were entitled to avow the expectation here expressed. The perfect fairness and impartiality of what they proposed with regard to religious teaching, and the simplicity and moderation of their recommendations, fortified moreover as these substantially are by the Reports of the commissions of 1812 and 1824, seem to leave no room for cavil or objection on any side. Yet we do not find that any steps were specifically taken for carrying the committee’s recommendations into effect until October 1831, when Mr. Stanley,[^[55]] the then Secretary for Ireland, addressed a letter to the Duke of Leinster, stating that it had been determined to constitute a board for the superintendence of a system of national education in Ireland, and that it was proposed, with the duke’s consent, to place him at its head. The motives for constituting the new board, and the powers intended to be conferred upon it, “and the objects which it is expected that it will bear in view and carry into effect,” are all then very fully explained.

1831.
Mr. Stanley’s letter to the Duke of Leinster on the formation of the Board of National Education.

A preceding government, it is observed, imagined that they had found a superintending body acting upon the impartial and non-proselytising system recommended by the committee of 1812, and had intrusted the distribution of the national grants to the care of the Kildare-street Society.[^[56]] But, the letter proceeds—

“His Majesty’s present government are of opinion that no private society deriving a part, however small, of their annual income from private sources, and only made the channel of the munificence of the legislature, without being subject to any direct responsibility, could adequately and satisfactorily accomplish the end proposed; and while they do full justice to the liberal views with which that society was originally instituted, they cannot but be sensible that one of its leading principles was calculated to defeat its avowed objects, as experience has subsequently proved that it has. The determination to enforce in all their schools the reading of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment, was undoubtedly taken with the purest motives; with the wish at once to connect religious with moral and literary education, and at the same time not to run the risk of wounding the peculiar feelings of any sect, by catechetical instruction, or comments which might tend to subjects of polemical controversy. But it seems to have been overlooked, that the principles of the Roman catholic church (to which, in any system intended for general diffusion throughout Ireland, the bulk of the pupils must necessarily belong) were totally at variance with this principle; and that the indiscriminate reading of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment, by children, must be peculiarly obnoxious to a church which denies, even to adults, the right of unaided private interpretation of the sacred volume, with respect to articles of religious belief.”

“Shortly after its institution, although the society prospered and extended its operations under the fostering care of the legislature, this vital defect began to be noticed; and the Roman catholic clergy began to exert themselves with energy and success against a system to which they were on principle opposed, and which they feared might lead in its results to proselytism, even although no such object were contemplated by its promoters. When this opposition arose, founded on such grounds, it soon became manifest that the system could not become one of national education.”

“The commissioners of education in 1824-5, sensible of the defects of the system, and of the ground, as well as the strength of the objection taken, recommended the appointment of two teachers in every school, one protestant and the other Roman catholic, to superintend separately the religious education of the children; and they hoped to have been able to agree upon a selection from the Scriptures that might have been generally acquiesced in by both persuasions. But it was soon found that these schemes were impracticable; and, in 1828, a committee of the house of commons,[^[57]] to which were referred the various Reports of the commissioners of education, recommended a system to be adopted, which should afford, if possible, a combined literary, and a separate religious education, and should be capable of being so far adapted to the views of the religious persuasions which prevail in Ireland, as to render it, in truth, a system of National education for the poorer classes of the community.”

The letter next points out, that on the composition of the board will in a great degree depend the obtaining of public confidence, and the success of the measure; and it is then declared to be the intention of government—

“That the board should exercise a complete control over the various schools which may be erected under its auspices; or which having been already established, may hereafter place themselves under its management, and submit to its regulations. Subject to these, applications for aid will be admissible from Christians of all denominations; but as one of the main objects must be to unite in one system, children of different creeds, and as much must depend upon the co-operation of the resident clergy, the board will probably look with peculiar favour upon applications proceeding either from—

“1st.—The protestant and Roman catholic clergy of the parish; or

“2nd.—One of the clergymen, and a certain number of the parishioners professing the opposite creed; or

“3rd.—Parishioners of both denominations.

“Where the application proceeds exclusively from protestants, or exclusively from Roman catholics, it will be proper for the board to make inquiry as to the circumstances which lead to the absence of any names of the persuasion which does not appear.

“The board will note all applications for aid, whether granted or refused, with the ground of the decision; and annually submit to parliament a Report of their proceedings.

“They will invariably require, as a condition not to be departed from, that local funds shall be raised, upon which any aid from the public will be dependent.”

The letter then goes into a statement of various kinds of local aid to be required; the school-hours to be observed; and the time for religious instruction. After which, it proceeds—

“The board will exercise the most entire control over all books to be used in the schools, whether in the combined moral and literary, or separate religious instruction; none to be employed in the first except under the sanction of the board, nor in the latter, but with the approbation of those members of the board who are of the same religious persuasion with those for whose use they are intended. Although it is not designed to exclude from the list of books for the combined instruction such portions of sacred history, or of religious or moral teaching as may be approved of by the board, it is to be understood that this is by no means intended to convey a perfect and sufficient religious education, or to supersede the necessity of separate religious instruction on the day set apart for the purpose.”

The part here printed in italics is not in the copy of the letter published with the 1st Report of the Commissioners of National Education, but it is in a copy annexed to the 8th Report, and is believed to be the true one. The remainder of the letter relates to school arrangements and other proceedings of the board.

1832.
Discussion in parliament on the government plan of education.

On the 6th of March 1832, a lengthened discussion on the government plan of education took place in the house of commons, in the course of which Mr. Stanley stated his views on the subject in answer to the objections raised by several members; and ended by saying, that “He was far from thinking the system now about to be carried into effect was perfect, but he believed that it was the most likely to unite the people of all religious persuasions in the education of their children, and produce those results which, the Scriptures said, were the fruits of the Christian religion—peace, meekness, gentleness and love.” On the 23rd of July following, 37,500l. was voted “in aid of the funds to be appropriated to the new system of education,” which thenceforward may be regarded as permanently established; and in 1844 the board was duly incorporated by royal charter.

We now approach a period when public attention was very generally and very earnestly directed to the condition of the poor, and to the operation of the laws providing for their relief. In 1832 commissioners were appointed to inquire into these subjects in England, and the reader is referred to the 2nd volume of the ‘History of the English Poor Laws’ for information as to their Report on the occasion, and also for an account of the important measure which was founded thereon.

1833.
Commission to inquire into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland.

On the 25th September 1833, commissioners were appointed “to inquire into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, and into the various institutions at present established by law for their relief; and also whether any and what further remedial measures appear to be requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor or any portion of them.”[^[58]] An extensive field of inquiry was thus laid open to the commissioners, who forthwith entered upon the duties confided to them; and it must be admitted that there could hardly have been any more important, or more highly responsible.

1835.
The commissioners’ first report.

In July 1835 the commissioners made their first Report—“as to the modes in which the destitute classes in Ireland are supported, to the extent and efficiency of those modes, and their effects upon those who give, and upon those who receive relief.” A large body of evidence is appended to the Report, which evidence the commissioners say is now complete, containing parochial examinations made in one parish in each of seventeen counties, relative to the present modes of relieving—

“Deserted and orphan children.

“Illegitimate children and their mothers.

“Widows having families of young children.

“The impotent through age or other permanent infirmity.

“The sick poor, who in health are capable of earning their subsistence.

“The able-bodied out of work.