6 he declared that the numbers of alleged pupils in the schools, in the official documents, published annually by the society, were grossly and systematically exaggerated; that the children were for the most part sickly, naked, and half-starved;' and that the state of most of the schools he visited was so deplorable as to disgrace Protestantism and to encourage Popery in Ireland rather than the contrary.'1 A parliamentary committee was appointed in 1788 to inquire into these allegations. Howard and several other competent witnesses gave evidence before it, and the result of a detailed examination of the Charter Schools throughout Ireland was a revelation of abuses perhaps as horrible as any public institution has ever disclosed. The public money was found to be systematically and profligately misused. In most of the schools the children were half fed, were almost naked, were covered with vermin, were reduced to the condition of the most miserable of slaves. Children at a very early age were compelled to work in the fields for the profit of their masters for eight hours at a time. That they might do so, their instruction was so neglected that there were those who having been eight, ten, or twelve years at the schools, could neither read nor spell. Whole schools were suffering from the itch or other maladies due to dirt, cold, or insufficient food. The rooms, the bed-covering, the scanty clothes of the children were alive with impurity, and the sad expression of their countenances showed but too plainly how effectually they had been severed from all who cared for them, and, in many cases, how near was the last sad deliverance that awaited them. This was the result of a system set up, no doubt with the best intentions,2 under the highest ecclesiastical auspices in the country, for the Howard, On Prisons, p. 208. 2 See the very well-meaning letters of Primate Boulter sug gesting the schools, in Boulter's civilisation of Ireland. This was the result of a system which, in the supposed interests of religion, made it a first object to break the tie of affection between the parent and the child. The institution, however, still continued. The Irish Parliament steadily endowed it till the Union, and bequeathed it to the Imperial Parliament. How it was looked upon in the early part of the present century is well told by an English writer thoroughly acquainted with Irish affairs, who said that the Irish peasant seldom passed the school without a curse or an expression of heartfelt anguish. For twentyfive years after the Union the Charter Schools dragged on their endowed existence, and during that time the Imperial Parliament voted 675,7071. for their support, though they maintained on an average only 1,870 children.2 The Kildare Street Schools, which were also, though to a very modified extent, sectarian, next rose to favour; but the real education of the Irish people dates only from 1834, when that system of unsectarian education was founded which, though violently assailed by conflicting bigotries, has proved probably the greatest benefit imperial legislation has ever bestowed upon the Irish people.3 It is probable that under the circumstances that have been enumerated in the preceding pages, the population 1 Wakefield's Account of Ireland, ii. 410-414. 2 Porter's Progress of the Nation, pp. 712, 713. 3 The history of the Charter Schools is chiefly to be collected from the resolutions and petitions relating to them in the Commons Journals. Most of these documents, including the terrible report of 1788, will be found in Stevens' Inquiry into the Abuses of the Chartered Schools in Ire land. See, too, the official reports published for many years with the annual sermon in favour of the institution; Harris's Description of Down, pp. 77, 109; Froude's English in Ireland. A Brief Review of the Incorporated Society for promoting English Protestant Schools (Dublin, 1748). O'Conor's Hist. of the Irish Catholics; Wakefield's Account of Ireland, ii. 410-414. of Ireland during the first half of the eighteenth century remained almost stationary. For many years after the great rebellion of 1641 the country had been extremely under-populated, and the prevailing habit of early and prolific marriages would naturally have led to very rapid multiplication, but famine, disease, and emigration were as yet sufficient to counteract it. Unfortunately, our -sources of information on this subject are very imperfect. No census was taken; our chief means of calculating are derived from the returns of the hearth-money collectors; and the number of cabins that were exempted from the tax, as well as the great difference in different parts of the country in the average occupants of a house, introduce a large element of uncertainty into our estimates. It appears, however, according to the best means of information we possess, that the population in the beginning of the century was not far from two millions, and that it increased in fifty years to about 2,370,000.1 The proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants is also a question of much difficulty. In the reign of Charles II. Petty had estimated it at eight to three. In a return based on the hearth-money collection, which was made to the Irish House of Lords in 1731, it was estimated at not quite two to one.2 It is probable, however, that the inequality was considerably understated. The great poverty of many of the Catholics, and the remote mountains and valleys in which they lived, withdrew them from the cognisance of the tax-gatherer; and Primate Boulter, in 1727, expressed his belief that there were 1 See a collection of statistics on this subject in Nicholls' Hist. of the Irish Poor Law, p. 11. Newenham, On Population in Ireland. Dobbs, in his Essay on Irish Trade, pt. ii. (published in 1731), p.9, calculating the average of families at 4:36, estimates the 2 1,309,768 to 700,453. " in Ireland at least five Papists to one Protestant.1 He adds a statement which, if it be unexaggerated, furnishes an extraordinary example of the superiority of Catholic zeal in the midst of the penal laws, and at a time when Protestantism enjoyed all the advantages of an almost universal monopoly. He says: 'We have incumbents and curates to the number of about 800, whilst there are more than 3,000 Popish priests of all sorts here.'2 Of the many depressing influences I have noticed in the foregoing pages, there is, perhaps, no one that may not be paralleled or exceeded in the annals of other countries; but it would be difficult, in the whole. compass of history, to find another instance in which such various and such powerful agencies concurred to degrade the character and to blast the prosperity of a nation. That the greater part of them sprang directly from the corrupt and selfish government of England is incontestable. No country ever exercised a more com 1 Boulter's Letters, i. 210. In another letter, dated Dec. 1731, he says: The Papists, by the most modest computation, are about five to one Protestant, but others think they cannot be less than seven to one,' ii. 70. Newenham gives more credit to the return of the House of Lords. It must be remembered that at this time Connaught was exclusively Catholic, while in Munster Berkeley estimated the Catholics as seven to one. Coghill, a very intelligent Irish politician and Member for Trinity College, however, in a letter to Southwell, dated Nov. 1733, said he was firmly persuaded that Papists did not outnumber the Protestants by more than three to one. The whole population he esti of Papists in this kingdom exceeds that of Protestants of all denominations in the proportion, some have said of eight to one, others of six to one, but the lowest computation which deserves any regard is that of three to one.' Abernethy's Scarce Tracts, p. 59. Archbishop King, writing in 1727, said: The Papists have more bishops in Ireland than the Protestants have, and twice (at least) as many priests.'-Mant, ii. 471. 2 Boulter's Letters, i. 210. See, too, p. 223. plete control over the destinies of another than did England over those of Ireland for three-quarters of a century after the Revolution. No serious resistance of any kind was attempted. The nation was as passive as clay in the hands of the potter, and it is a circumstance of peculiar aggravation that a large part of the legislation I have recounted was a distinct violation of a solemn treaty. The commercial legislation which ruined Irish industry, the confiscation of Irish land, which disorganised the whole social condition of the country, the scandalous misapplication of patronage, which at once demoralised and impoverished the nation, were all directly due to the English Government or to the English Parliament. The blame of the penal laws rests, it is true, primarily and principally on the Parliament of Ireland; but, as I have already shown, this Parliament, by its constitution and composition, was almost wholly subservient to English influence or control. All this must be fully acknowledged, but there are other circumstances to be taken into account, which will considerably relieve the picture. Whoever desires to judge the policy of England without passion or prejudice will remember that Ireland was a conquered country, and that the war of the Revolution was only the last episode of a struggle which had continued for centuries, had been disgraced on both sides by revolting atrocities, and had engendered the most ferocious antipathies. He will remember that the bulk of the Irish people were Catholics, and that over the greater part of Europe the relations of Protestantism and Catholicism were still those of deadly hostility. He will remember that from a much earlier period than the Revolution it had become a settled maxim in England that Ireland was the most convenient outlet for English adventurers, and that Irish land might be confiscated without much more scruple than the land over which the Red Indian roves. The VOL. I. R |