In 1823 another select committee[37] was appointed “to inquire into the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland, with a view to facilitate the application of the funds of private individuals and associations for their employment in useful and productive labour.” The committee made their Report on the 16th of July, and after adverting to the course pursued in the former inquiry of 1819, they state that during the last year “a pressure of distress wholly unexampled was felt in Ireland, which directed the attention of government, of parliament, and of the British public, to the condition of the Irish peasantry, and led to the appropriation of large sums voted by the legislature, and subscriptions by individuals for the purpose of mitigating if not of averting, that famine and disease which had extended to so alarming a degree in many districts in Ireland.”[38]
It appears that early in May of the preceding year, a public meeting was held in the city of London to raise subscriptions for the relief of the distress in Ireland, and a committee of gentlemen was appointed to superintend the distribution of the money subscribed. Considerable grants of public money were also made by parliament for the same purpose. The committee state that the distressed districts comprised one-half of the surface of Ireland, and there were grounds for believing that considerably more than one-half of the entire population of these districts depended upon charitable assistance for support. The sums distributed through the city of London committee amounted to nearly 300,000l., which with the amount advanced by government furnished means for continuing the relief until the month of August, when the necessity for its further continuance seems to have ceased; and it is satisfactory, the committee observe, to find that the most lively feelings of gratitude have been excited by this benevolent interposition, “which it is to be hoped will tend to unite the two parts of the empire in the strong ties of sympathy and obligation.”
In the districts where the distress chiefly prevailed, the potato constituted the principal food of the peasantry, and the potato crop had failed; but there was no deficiency in the other crops, and the prices of corn and oatmeal were moderate. Indeed the exports of grain from ports within the distressed districts, was considerable during the entire period of the distress: so that those districts, the committee observe, “presented the remarkable example of possessing a surplus of food, whilst the inhabitants were suffering from actual want.” The calamity of 1822 may therefore be said to have proceeded less from want of food in the country, than from the people’s want of the means to purchase it, “or in other words, from their want of profitable employment.” In some districts where the potato failed, but where the population were engaged in the linen-trade, no individual so employed is said to have had occasion for relief; and the committee come to the conclusion that the late distress had chiefly arisen from the circumstance that the peasantry depended for subsistence upon the food raised by themselves. When the potato fails, they have not the means to purchase other food, and the potato is not only uncertain as a crop but it soon decays, so that the surplus of one year cannot be preserved to supply the deficiency in another.
The agents of government, and of the London contributors, as well as the local associations which had been formed, made a point on all occasions as far as possible, of affording the necessary assistance in return for labour; and the committee express their entire approbation of this principle. “Relief purely gratuitous (they observe) can seldom in any case be given without considerable risk and inconvenience; but in Ireland, where it is more peculiarly important to discourage habits of pauperism and indolence, and where it is the obvious policy to excite an independent spirit of industry, and to induce the peasantry to rely upon themselves and their own exertions for support, gratuitous relief can never be given without leading to most mischievous consequences.” Any system of relief, it is remarked, which leads the peasantry to depend upon the interposition of others, rather than upon their own labour, however benevolently it may be intended, cannot fail to repress the spirit of independent exertion which is essentially necessary to the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes.
The condition of the people in the districts to which the evidence obtained by the committee chiefly applied, appears “to be wretched and calamitous to the greatest degree.” A large portion of the peasantry in those districts, are described as living in a state of the utmost misery. Their cabins scarcely contain an article that can be called furniture. In some families there are no such things as bedclothes, the place of which is supplied by a little fern, and a quantity of straw thrown over it, upon which they sleep in their working clothes. The witnesses agreed in this description with regard to a large portion of the peasantry, and they agreed also in attributing the existence of this state of things to the want of employment. Yet the people are represented as being willing to labour, and we are told that they quit their homes at particular seasons in search of employment elsewhere, whilst the inhabitants of the coasts bordering on the Atlantic, carry on their backs the sand and seaweed many miles inland for the purpose of manure.
The committee are of opinion that the rapid increase of the population[39] is one immediate cause of the want of employment. The demand for labour, they say, has not kept pace with the continually increasing number of persons seeking employment. Another cause of the want of employment, they consider, arises from the effect produced on the gentry of the country by the fall of prices. The fixed payments to which many of the landlords are subjected, whether in the shape of head-rents or interest on incumbrances, bear a greater proportion to the whole income than they did during the war, and consequently the balance remaining in the hands of the resident gentry is diminished, a reduced employment follows, labourers are discharged, and the distress of the higher class is thus visited upon the lower.
The want of capital was however in most instances assigned as the principal cause of the want of employment. This want was manifested in the wretched description of implements commonly in use. The ploughs, carts, harrows, were of the very rudest kind, and there appeared to be a deficiency even of these. The same want of capital has, it is said, led to the payment of wages, not in money, but by allowances in account, or as a set-off against the landlord’s claims for rent, or presentments, or some other object, which is not only a hardship to the labourer, but tends to an increase of local burdens; and as it was “generally admitted that if the wages of labour were paid in money, the labour would be more cheaply purchased and more cheerfully and efficiently given,” the committee express a hope “that a system of ready money payment may be introduced, so far at least as the public works of the country are concerned.”
The encouragement of the fisheries, the erection of piers, the formation of harbours, and the opening of mountain roads, are all recommended, as is also the instruction of the peasantry in agriculture, by combining instruction in this branch, with the other instruction imparted in the various educational establishments throughout the country. In conclusion, the committee admit that danger attends all interferences with industrial pursuits, which prosper best when left to their own natural development; but they consider that the state of Ireland constitutes it an exception to the general rule, and that the aid of government in support of local effort is there absolutely necessary.
At the end of seven years, another select committee of the commons was appointed “to take into consideration the state of the poorer classes in Ireland, and the best means of improving their condition,”[40] and their very elaborate and comprehensive Report, (which was ordered to be printed on the 16th of July,) will require to be especially considered.
The committee commence their Report by declaring that they entertain a deep sense of the difficulty and importance of the question referred to them, and that they have felt it their duty to make most minute inquiries into the actual state and condition of the Irish poor, considered in all points of view, moral, political, physical and economical, in order to enable the house to form a correct opinion on the entire subject. The Report is arranged under three principal heads—1st, the state and condition of the poorer classes—2ndly, the laws which affect the poor, and the charitable institutions—3rdly, the remedial measures suggested; and each of these is again subdivided into several minor headings. It is not intended to adhere to these divisions in the following summary, but to select such portions only as immediately bear upon our subject, and as are calculated to show what was then the general state of the country and the condition of the people.
Regret is expressed by the committee at their being compelled to state “that a very considerable portion of the population is considered to be out of employment.” The number is, they say, estimated differently—by some at one-fifth, by others at one-fourth; and this want of demand for labour necessarily causes distress among the labouring classes, which combined with the consequences of an altered system of managing land, is said to produce “misery and suffering which no language can possibly describe, and which it is necessary to witness in order fully to estimate.” Yet the price of labour is not considered to have materially fallen. By returns from the county treasurers, the rate of wages appears to average 10d. per day on presentment works throughout Ireland, and an extensive contractor thinks that there is a tendency in wages to increase rather than otherwise, notwithstanding that the labourers can now, he says, purchase for 6s., what would formerly have cost them 12s. These are seemingly contradictions, and there is much more of the same kind of conflicting testimony given in the Report, which can only be accounted for by the fact, that the several parts of Ireland differ widely from each other, and that what is true in one case is not true in another. This indeed appears to be the view taken by the committee, for they say however consolatory the favourable testimony may be, it would lead to a false inference were it to induce a disbelief in the existence of very great distress and misery in Ireland. “The population and the wealth of a country may (they observe) both increase, and increase rapidly; but if the former proceeds in a greater ratio than the latter, an increase of distress among the poor may be concurrent with an augmentation of national wealth.” The state of the labouring classes must, it is considered, mainly depend on the proportion existing between the number of the people and the capital which can be profitably employed in labour. Of the truth of these propositions, there can be no reasonable doubt; neither can it well be doubted, that much of the distress and misery which were seen in Ireland, was owing to a disturbance of this proportion, the population having become greatly in excess of the capital necessary for and applicable to profitable employment.
The committee consider that it would be impossible to form a correct estimate of the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, without first ascertaining the nature of the relations which existed between landlord and tenant,—“the connexion between the inheritor and the occupier of the soil being one which must influence if not control the whole system of society.” Great attention is accordingly bestowed on this part of the subject, and much evidence was taken in reference to it.
Under the excitement of war prices, it is observed, agriculture advanced with extreme rapidity. The demand for labour increased, and the population augmented in proportion. Land rose in value from year to year, and lessees realised large profit rents by subletting, one or more persons being frequently interposed between the owner and the occupier who was ultimately liable for the rent, both to the head landlord and the intermediate tenants. It became the practice in most cases, we are told, for the occupying tenant either to sublet, or to divide the land among the members of his family—in the former case a class of middlemen was created, which operated as a bar to improvement, and led to the paying or to the promise of paying higher rents—in the latter case the practice of subdividing led to consequences perhaps still more mischievous. When the farmer of 40 acres subdivided the land among his children, those children were led to do the same among theirs, until the farm of 40 acres was cut up into holdings of one two or three acres, each holding occupied by its particular owner, and yielding no more than was barely sufficient for his subsistence. “Now if the tenant of 40 acres had been prevented from subdividing his land, he would,” as is observed by one of the witnesses,[41] “have provided for his children by sending them one into the army, another into the navy, and then left his holding to a third, and thus the farm would have been continued in its first state.” The cultivation of the land so subdivided and cut up is moreover always of the very worst description. The crops are uncertain, the liabilities to scarcity greater, the cabins are most miserable, and the visitations of fever are more frequent. The soil itself becomes deteriorated by bad tillage, and not a bush nor a tree is left standing; whilst the ease with which a cabin is reared, and the meal of potatoes provided, induces early marriages, and the land teems with an excessive population.
The above is not an overdrawn description of the consequences of subdividing land, but a change in management is said to have taken place soon after the peace, when the decline in the price of agricultural produce disabled many of the middlemen as well as the occupying tenants from paying their rents, and created much anxiety and alarm in the minds of the landlords. An apprehension was moreovermoreover, we are told, generally felt that a pauper population would go on increasing, and the value of the land at the same time go on diminishing, until the entire produce would become insufficient to maintain the people. The proprietors sought to devise a remedy for this state of things, so as to prevent the occurrence of such an evil; and Dr. Doyle stated in his evidence, that they did apply remedies, the principle of which he fully approved; but he added “that he thought, and still thinks, that those remedies ought to have been accompanied by some provision for the poor.”
The remedy or change in management here adverted to was the consolidating of farms, which it is said would lead to better husbandry, to a greater certaintycertainty of crop, to the providing farm-buildings and more comfortable habitations, and to an increase in the quantity and improvement in the quality of the produce. These are all important considerations, and if the landlords and the tenants who continued in possession were alone to be regarded, the change would appear an unmixed good. But there is another class, the ejected tenants, whose condition, it is said, necessarily becomes most deplorable. “It would be impossible for language to convey an idea of the state of distress to which the ejected tenantry have been reduced, or of the disease, misery, and even vice, which they have propagated in the towns wherein they have settled; so that not only they who have been ejected have been rendered miserable, but they have carried with them and propagated that misery.”
Such is the testimony of Dr. Doyle on this point, and although the committee express a hope that it may be regarded as descriptive of an extreme case, they yet have no doubt “that in making the change, in itself important and salutary, a most fearful extent of suffering must have been produced.” The change was however, they say, unavoidable, and delay would have increased and aggravated the evil which followed in its train. Various suggestions were made with a view to carry the country through the period of change, and the severe trials by which it must be attended—“Emigration, the improvement of bogs and waste lands; the embankment and drainage of marsh lands; the prosecution of public works on a large scale; the education of the people not only in elementary knowledge, but in habits of industry; the encouragement of manufactures; the extension of the fisheries; and lastly, the introduction of a system of poor-laws, either on the English or Scotch principles, or so modified as to be adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland,” were all recommended, and on each of these questions, the committee say, valuable evidence had been taken and would be submitted to the house.
On the subject of vagrancy, after referring to the old laws against it which had fallen into desuetude, and which are recommended to be repealed, the committee quote the 6th Anne, cap. 11,[42] under which (as amended by the 9th George 2nd, cap. 6) idle vagrants, or pretended Irish gentlemen, who will not work &c., may on the presentment of a grand jury be apprehended and transported for seven years. They likewise quote The 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 30,[43] for establishing houses of industry, and these statutes are said to be in full force. A table is also given, showing that on an average of eight years the number of commitments under the first-named statutes was 160 annually; and the committee observe, that “although it is necessary to continue penalties against vagrancy,” they “cannot but think that a more constitutional and efficient system may be adopted, than one which allows the penalty of transportation to be inflicted upon the mere presentment of a grand jury, and this, not for an offence defined with precision, but under contingencies extremely vague and uncertain.” In the opinion thus expressed by the committee, every one must concur.
With regard to the county infirmaries, of which |County infirmaries.|there were thirty-one,[44] the committee, after referring to the several Acts under which they were established,[45] state that during the last year relief had been given to 7,729 intern patients, besides other medical assistance; and that the entire incomes amounted to 54,693l., the whole derived from local subscriptions and grand-jury presentments, excepting 3,000l. (Irish currency) furnished by government. The committee recommend that the several statutes should be consolidated, and that the grand juries should be enabled to provide more than one infirmary in the larger counties, and that their presenting powers should be extended in order to guard against insufficiency in any case. An efficient audit of the accounts, and a duly authenticated Report half-yearly of all particulars connected with the hospitals, together with a regular inspection by the grand juries, are likewise recommended; and with these alterations, the committee are of opinion that “the county infirmaries of Ireland may be considered as adequate to the purposes for which they were intended.” There does not however, it is added, appear to be any reason for continuing the government grant of 3,000l. Aid from the public purse should, it is said, be reserved exclusively for loans and advances, “and for cases in which local funds are inadequate to the immediate discharge of a necessary duty.”
The subject of fever and fever hospitals is next adverted to by the committee. “From the occasional failure of the potato crop, and the misery which then invariably ensues, the poor of Ireland are (it is said) peculiarly liable to fever, which has at various times spread with such violence, and to such an extent, as to require extraordinary aid, not only from private charity and local assessment, but from the public purse.” Dublin had suffered most severely from this calamity, upwards of 60,000 persons having in one year passed through the fever hospitals of that city. In 1817 fever extensively prevailed in Ireland, and a board of health was constituted whose Report to government showed “that on a moderate calculation a million and a half of persons suffered from fever, of which number at least 65,000 had died.” By the 58th George 3rd, cap. 47,[46] additional facilities were given for establishing fever hospitals, and provision was made for the appointment of local boards of health. By the 59th George 3rd, cap. 41, effect was given to the recommendations of the select committee of 1819,[47] and under these statutes fever hospitals have been established in most parts of Ireland. No county is said to be without one in Munster, and the county of Cork has four, and Tipperary eight; but many counties in the provinces of Ulster and Connaught have omitted to provide fever hospitals, and the committee consider that if the grand juries persist in such omission, the providing of them should be made compulsory. With respect to dispensaries for the medical relief of the sick poor, these were sanctioned by the 45th George 3rd, cap. 111,[48] under which Act nearly 400 are said to have been established, “affording relief annually to upwards of half a million of persons.” But some doubts appear to have arisen as to whether the presentments for their support were optional or otherwise, and the committee recommend that such doubts should be removed by making the presentment imperative, as was apparently the intention of the framers of the statute; and for security against abuse, it is also recommended that a Report of all matters connected with the dispensary, should in each case be annually submitted to the grand jury making the presentment.
The provision for the lunatic poor is said to have been for a long time very defective in Ireland. A hospital attached to the house of industry in Dublin, a large asylum at Cork, and cells connected with some of the county infirmaries, were all that existed for the safe custody and proper treatment of the insane poor. In 1810 a grant was made for the establishment of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, with accommodation for 200 patients. In 1817 the subject was inquired into by a select committee,[49] in accordance with whose recommendation the 57th George 3rd, cap. 106,[50] was passed, empowering the lord lieutenant to fix certain districts within which lunatic asylums should be erected, the cost in the first instance to be advanced by government, but to be ultimately repaid by local presentments, from which also the maintenance of the asylums is to be derived. “When these institutions are completed, which is easily practicable within three years, every county in Ireland will be provided with receptacles for their lunatic poor; and if these shall not be found sufficient for incurable as well as curable cases, a ward or two may be attached to each at a moderate expense, and the exigency may be thus completely provided for.” This quotation is given from the inspector’s Report to the Irish government on the subject in 1830, and the committee express their satisfaction, that as regards “one of the most painful afflictions to which humanity is exposed, there has been provided within a few years, a system of relief for the Irish poor as extensive as can be wished, and as perfect and effectual as is to be found in any other country.” Still however the cases of idiots and incurable lunatics are not separately provided for; and the committee consider it important that curable and incurable cases should be kept distinct, and that space should not be appropriated to the safe custody of incurables, which would be more usefully employed in the treatment of cases where there was a probability of recovery. Every lunatic establishment in Ireland, whether public or private, is subject to the visitation of the inspectors of prisons, who report regularly upon the condition and management of these institutions.
After referring to the 11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30, the 46th Geo. 3rd, cap. 95, and the 58th Geo. 3rd, cap. 47,[51] |Houses of industry.| the Acts under which houses of industry are established and regulated, the committee state that the number of these institutions in Ireland does not exceed twelve “including the great establishment bearing that name in Dublin, which is supported exclusively by votes of parliament.” There are eight in Munster, and three in Leinster, but none either in Ulster or Connaught. A proposition is said to have been made for extending houses of industry generally throughout the country, and for rendering their erection and support compulsory. But the committee are of opinion that “establishments of this description combining the two distinct purposes of punishment and relief, are not likely to be useful either as prisons or hospitals.” They think that coercion is more likely to be effective when applied in houses of correction, than when applied in asylums intended for old age infirmity and destitution. They also think that the criminal ought to be separated from the distressed poor, and that these asylums should be reserved for particular descriptions of the latter class only—or in the words of Dr. Chalmers, for “cases of hopeless and irrecoverable disease, and all cases of misery the relief of which has no tendency to increase the number of cases requiring relief.” To the poor who suffer from loss of sight or limbs, and the deaf and dumb, the house of industry judiciously managed, would they say “afford a suitable place of refuge.” Such are the views of the committee with regard to houses of industry, and they do not materially differ from what prevailed in England a century previous with regard to the almshouses or old parish poorhouses then so common.
The number of voluntary charities in Ireland maintained by private benevolence, independently of any contribution from general or local taxation, said to be very great, and they are stated to be most liberally supported. “Among them will be found schools, hospitals, Magdalen asylums, houses of refuge, orphan establishments, lying-in hospitals, societies for relief of the sick and indigent, mendicity associations, and charitable loans.” Yet notwithstanding the existence of these multifarious institutions, and the active exercise of private benevolence, and the frequent collections by the clergy of all persuasions,[52] “the committee have not the satisfaction to hope that more is accomplished than the mitigation of distress.” Societies for the suppression of mendicity have it is said been formed in many parts of Ireland, on a plan similar to those established in London, Bath, and other places in England. In Dublin the income of the Mendicity Society amounts to 7,000l., and the committee are informed “that although the voluntary contributions are scarcely sufficient to maintain the establishment, still on the whole, supporting the poor as they do, they have enough.” When the funds are very low, a threat is held out either of applying to parliament for a power of compulsory assessment, or else that the poor people supported by the society will be discharged into the streets, “and by these means additional subscriptions are called in.” Institutions of this kind, supported by private contributions, are said to be complained of as casting an unfair and unequal burden upon the benevolent, and it has been suggested that they should be supported or at least aided by local assessment: but this suggestion, the committee observe, involves the entire principle of a poor-law, a question on which at that advanced period of the session they are not prepared to enter. They however recommend it as a subject for future consideration and inquiry.
With regard to emigration, although in some districts “there exists a population exceeding that for whose labour there is a profitable demand,” the committee nevertheless consider emigration to the full as much an imperial as a provincial question. The cause of the great influx of Irish labourers into Great Britain is, they say, the higher rate of wages which prevails there, and emigration from Ireland would “diminish that inducement, and lessen the number of Irish labourers in the British market.” It might seem therefore that the expense of such emigration should be defrayed out of the general funds of the empire. But the committee say they are not prepared to recommend any compulsory system of taxation for the purpose, “nor yet to discuss the probability of the repayment of advances made to colonial settlers.” They have however no doubt that colonization might be carried on to a great extent, “if facilities were afforded by government to those Irish peasants who were disposed voluntarily to seek a settlement in the colonies, and who could by themselves or their landlords provide all the expense required for their passage and location.” In districts where the population is in excess, it must be alike the interest of all, of the landlords, the tenants, and the labourers, that such excess should be removed; and the committee consider the most legitimate mode of effecting this to be—“that upon the actual deposit of a sum sufficient to cover the entire expense, the government should undertake the appropriation of that sum in the way most effectual for the purpose”—that is, for the conveyance of the emigrants to, and helping them to obtain a suitable location in, some British colony.
Amongst the various remedial measures suggested, the committee urge at great length the importance of an extension of public works, roadmaking, drainage, embankments &c., founded chiefly on the example of Scotland, and the benefits which there ensued from opening out the Highlands by the formation of roads and the construction of the Caledonian canal. The evidence given by Mr. Telford the eminent engineer in 1817, is cited and much relied upon in this particular, and certainly no higher authority on the subject could have been adduced. An emendation of the grand-jury and vestry laws is also recommended, together with several other matters of minor import.
In the present very comprehensive Report, as in all preceding Reports on the state of Ireland, |Education.| whether by committees of parliament or Royal commissions, the necessity for education is adverted to as a matter of paramount importance. It is now moreover said, that “the entire body of the Roman catholic hierarchy have by petitions to both houses of parliament, entreated that the recommendations of the select committee of 1827,[53] should be adopted”—on which account, as well as on account of its intrinsic importance with regard to the question of education generally, that Report now requires to be noticed.
The Report of the select committee appointed in 1827 here referred to, was printed by order of the House of Commons on the 19th May 1828.[53] The committee declare that they “have proceeded to consider the Reports on the state of education in Ireland, with a full sense of the importance of the subject, and of the peculiar difficulties with which it is encompassed.” During several centuries, they observe, the necessity for providing the means of education in Ireland has been recognised. As early as the reign of Henry the Eighth the prevalence of crime was attributed to the ignorance of the people, “and education was relied upon as producing moral improvement, and supporting the institutions of civil policy.” Various statutes were passed and charters granted, and endowments made, with a view to this object; and inquiries had likewise been at different times instituted with the same intent. Of the commissions appointed, the two latest are the most important, namely that issued in 1806, and which terminated in 1812, after making “fourteen Reports upon the schools of royal and private foundation, the charter schools, foundling hospital, and the parochial and diocesan schools;” and that issued in 1824, which terminated in 1827, after making “nine Reports on the various establishments for education.” But the interference of the State was not solely confined to regulation and inquiry. “Parliamentary grants have been at various times most liberally made for the purposes of education,” and of these a list is given, amounting in the whole to 2,914,140l. The number of scholars receiving instruction in the existing schools in 1826, is stated to be 560,549, “leaving in all probability upwards of 150,000 without the means of education.” Of the number of scholars returned, it is said that 394,732 are brought up in the common pay schools, 46,119 in schools supported exclusively by the Roman catholic priesthood and laity, 84,295 in various establishments of private charity, and 55,246 in schools maintained in whole or in part at the public expense.
In pursuing their investigations, the committee say “their sole object has been to consider the principle upon which it will be expedient hereafter to grant public money in aid of Irish education;” and they prefer recording the conclusions at which they have arrived in the form of abstract propositions, instead of reasoning upon and discussing the merits of different modes of procedure in this respect. After the most anxious deliberation, they have, they say, adopted a series of resolutions on the subject, which are given at length, and in fact constitute the substance of their Report; and it is now proposed to select such portions of these resolutions as will enable the reader to see clearly what the views of the committee were. To give the whole is unnecessary, and would be inconvenient. The various Reports of committees and commissioners on Irish education are so voluminous, as to make it impossible to quote them at length, and the abstracts of the more important portions herein given will be sufficient for our purpose.
A passage from the Report of the commissioners in 1812[54] is cited, to the effect—“that no plan of education, however wisely and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effectual operation in Ireland, unless it be explicitly avowed, and clearly understood as its leading principle, that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomination of Christians.” A passage from the Report of the commissioners in 1824 is likewise cited, to the effect—“that in a country where mutual divisions exist between different classes of the people, schools should be established for the purpose of giving to children of all religious persuasions, such useful instruction as they may severally be capable and desirous of receiving, without having any ground to apprehend any interference with their respective religious principles.” Another passage of the same Report is also cited—“in favour of the expediency of devising a system of mutual education, from which suspicion should if possible be banished, and the causes of distrust and jealousy be effectually removed; and under which the children may imbibe similar ideas, and form congenial habits, tending to diminish, not to increase, that distinctness of feeling now but too prevalent.”
The committee of 1828 adopt these several propositions, and resolve—“that it is of the utmost importance to bring together children of different religious persuasions in Ireland, for the purpose of instructing them in the general subjects of moral and literary knowledge, and providing facilities for their religious instruction separately, when differences of creed render it impracticable for them to receive religious instruction together.” And in accordance likewise with the recommendations of the commissioners of 1812 and 1824, the committee further resolve—“that considering the very large sums of public money annually voted for the encouragement of education in Ireland, as well as the extreme discretion required in adopting a new system of united education, without permitting any interference in the peculiar religious tenets of the scholars—it is indispensably necessary to establish a fixed authority acting under the control of the government and of the legislature, bound by strict and impartial rules, and subject to full responsibility for the foundation control and management of such public schools of general instruction, as are supported on the whole or in part at the public expense.”
The committee likewise record their opinion, that the selection of teachers in the schools should be made without regard to religious distinction, and that their qualifications should be proved by instruction or examination in a model school, the teacher first producing a certificate of character from a clergyman of his own communion. And they further resolve—“that for the purpose of carrying into effect the combined literary, and the separate religious education of the scholars, the course of study for four days of the week should be exclusively moral and literary; and that of the two remaining days, the one should be appropriated solely to the separate religious instruction of the protestant children, the other for the separate religious instruction of the Roman catholic children—the religious instruction in each case being placed under the exclusive superintendence of the clergy of the respective communions.” The committee moreover recommend that a board of education should be appointed, “all persons being eligible without reference to religious distinctions;” and they also recommend, that as a rule the children be required to pay such small sums as may be directed, “but that free scholars, being either orphans or the children of parents unable to afford payment, be received on the recommendation of the parochial clergy, and dissenting ministers, and persons subscribing to the schools, or having granted land for the site.”
The conditions under which the committee consider that the parliamentary grants in aid of the establishment and support of schools in Ireland, should in future be made, are as follows—
“Not to exceed two-thirds of the sum required.
“The school-houses and site to be conveyed to the commissioners.
“The managers to undertake to conduct the school according to the prescribed rules.
“Gratuities to teachers according to regulations prescribed by the commissioners.
“Books for the literary instruction of the children to be furnished at half price, and for the separate religious instruction at prime cost.
“A model school for the education of teachers to be provided.
“A system of inspection to be established.
“Public aid to depend on private contributions, and adherence to the commissioners’ rules.”
In conclusion the committee observe, that it has been their object to discover a mode in which the combined education of protestant and Roman catholic children may be carried on, resting upon religious instruction, but free from the suspicion of proselytism.—They have endeavoured, they say, “to avoid any violation of the liberty of conscience, or any demands or sacrifices inconsistent with the religious faith of any denomination of Christians.” They propose to leave to the clergy of each persuasion, the duty and the privilege of giving religious instruction to those who are committed to their care. And finally, they express an earnest hope that if adopted, their recommendations will satisfy moderate and rational men of all opinions.
There can be no doubt that the committee were entitled to avow the expectation here expressed. The perfect fairness and impartiality of what they proposed with regard to religious teaching, and the simplicity and moderation of their recommendations, fortified moreover as these substantially are by the Reports of the commissions of 1812 and 1824, seem to leave no room for cavil or objection on any side. Yet we do not find that any steps were specifically taken for carrying the committee’s recommendations into effect until October 1831, when Mr. Stanley,[55] the then Secretary for Ireland, addressed a letter to the Duke of Leinster, stating that it had been determined to constitute a board for the superintendence of a system of national education in Ireland, and that it was proposed, with the duke’s consent, to place him at its head. The motives for constituting the new board, and the powers intended to be conferred upon it, “and the objects which it is expected that it will bear in view and carry into effect,” are all then very fully explained.
A preceding government, it is observed, imagined that they had found a superintending body acting upon the impartial and non-proselytising system recommended by the committee of 1812, and had intrusted the distribution of the national grants to the care of the Kildare-street Society.[56] But, the letter proceeds—
“His Majesty’s present government are of opinion that no private society deriving a part, however small, of their annual income from private sources, and only made the channel of the munificence of the legislature, without being subject to any direct responsibility, could adequately and satisfactorily accomplish the end proposed; and while they do full justice to the liberal views with which that society was originally instituted, they cannot but be sensible that one of its leading principles was calculated to defeat its avowed objects, as experience has subsequently proved that it has. The determination to enforce in all their schools the reading of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment, was undoubtedly taken with the purest motives; with the wish at once to connect religious with moral and literary education, and at the same time not to run the risk of wounding the peculiar feelings of any sect, by catechetical instruction, or comments which might tend to subjects of polemical controversy. But it seems to have been overlooked, that the principles of the Roman catholic church (to which, in any system intended for general diffusion throughout Ireland, the bulk of the pupils must necessarily belong) were totally at variance with this principle; and that the indiscriminate reading of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment, by children, must be peculiarly obnoxious to a church which denies, even to adults, the right of unaided private interpretation of the sacred volume, with respect to articles of religious belief.”
“Shortly after its institution, although the society prospered and extended its operations under the fostering care of the legislature, this vital defect began to be noticed; and the Roman catholic clergy began to exert themselves with energy and success against a system to which they were on principle opposed, and which they feared might lead in its results to proselytism, even although no such object were contemplated by its promoters. When this opposition arose, founded on such grounds, it soon became manifest that the system could not become one of national education.”
“The commissioners of education in 1824-5, sensible of the defects of the system, and of the ground, as well as the strength of the objection taken, recommended the appointment of two teachers in every school, one protestant and the other Roman catholic, to superintend separately the religious education of the children; and they hoped to have been able to agree upon a selection from the Scriptures that might have been generally acquiesced in by both persuasions. But it was soon found that these schemes were impracticable; and, in 1828, a committee of the house of commons,[57] to which were referred the various Reports of the commissioners of education, recommended a system to be adopted, which should afford, if possible, a combined literary, and a separate religious education, and should be capable of being so far adapted to the views of the religious persuasions which prevail in Ireland, as to render it, in truth, a system of National education for the poorer classes of the community.”
The letter next points out, that on the composition of the board will in a great degree depend the obtaining of public confidence, and the success of the measure; and it is then declared to be the intention of government—