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.