A history of the Irish poor law, in connexion with the condition of the people. Sir George Nicholls
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