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—

1672as estimatedby Sir William Petty1,320,000
1695”by Captain South (doubtful)1,034,102
1712”by Thomas Dobbs Esq., founded on returns of the hearth-money collectors2,099,094
1718”do.2,169,048
1725”do.2,317,374
1726”do.2,309,106
1731”by the magistrates and clergy2,010,221
1754”by returns from the hearth-money collectors2,372,634
1767”do.2,544,276
1777”do.2,690,556
1785”do.2,845,932
1788”by Gervais Parker Bushe Esq., one of the commissioners of revenue4,040,000
1791as estimatedby returns from the hearth-money collectors4,206,612
1792”by the Rev. Dr. Beaufort4,088,226
1805”by Major Thomas Newenham5,395,456
1813”founded on the incomplete census under the Act of 18125,395,856
1821ascertainedby the census of 18216,801,827
[[5]]1831do.18317,767,401
[[5]]1841do.18418,175,124
[[5]]1851do.18516,522,386

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.