thirds of their estates: a law which was again revived in that of Henry VIII.'; as, like all others of this nature, the former had been evaded. In the time of James I., the entire lands of all absentees were vested in the crown'. In 1715, the Irish parliament taxed the pensions, salaries, &c. of all absentees four shillings in the pound, which tax was afterwards repealed, not because the principle was disapproved of, but because the dispensing power with which the crown was invested had rendered it a nugatory measure. In 1773, even the government there was so impressed with the evils it occasioned, that a tax of two shillings in the pound was proposed on the real estates of all absentees: the measure, however, was lost by a small majority. Enough, I think, has been advanced to show, that to legislate on this matter would be no innovation.

§ XII. (1.) The first proposition I venture to make is the following:

I would have the legislature pass a law, by which the great English owners of Irish estates should be empowered to cut off the entail of their Irish property, in favour of the junior branches of their family, on condition that those on whose behalf it should be done should be residents in the country, otherwise their interest, thus created, to revert back to the heir at law. For example, I would enable an Earl Fitzwilliam to will his Irish property, under such limita

tion, to one or more of his younger sons, any legal obstacle to the contrary notwithstanding.

(2.) When I first conceived this idea, as an easy and natural remedy for that form of absenteeism which is the least, if at all, criminal, namely, where the individual has property in both islands, concerning the mode of dealing with which case there has always been considerable difficulties expressed; I imagined it to have been an original thought, and one which would be hailed even by such absentees themselves, as affectionate fathers, and not very liable to objection on the part of generous brothers. But I am happy to resign all claim to originality for the superior gratification of being enabled to clothe the proposition with the weight due to ancient and far better authority. I find that Dobbs, a true Irish patriot, mentioned so highly by Archbishop Boulter, and now so often referred to, proposed the same thing, under the name of what he calls an act of Gravelkind, and with precisely the same object.

(3.) I can anticipate but one material objection to this proposition, and that will, after due examination, be surrendered, as founded in ignorance and error. It might be argued, were the theory of population I am opposing true (indeed it is so asserted), that these noble estates, thus divided, would ultimately be parcelled out into insignificant shares, and the rank of the family at length lost by such an expedient. To this it might be answered, that the law of entail might be resumed, regarding estates when so divided, as strictly as had been the case before. But, independently of

this, the objection is entirely imaginary and fallacious. In allusion to the peerage, I have already remarked that the tendency, in great families in possession of large properties, is not to undue multiplication, but to extinction, and that to a very extraordinary degree. A striking proof of the practical errors into which the modern notion upon population betrays its adherents, has recently occurred in the arguments in the French chambers against their law of descent (something like our Kentish law of gavelkind), founded on the geometric theory of human increase; whereas, had the speakers adverted to the statistics of their country, they would have found that the births of France are fewer now than they were half a century ago, and that the increase of the inhabitants is therefore solely attributable to the increased longevity of the country; consequently, as far as the principle of population had to do with the matter, property there must have a tendency to accumulation, instead of division. At all events, as it respects the rank alluded to-the absentee owners of Irish possessions, nothing can be clearer than its constant tendency to diminish. One fact only will sufficiently confirm the interesting principle already alluded to on this point, and it is this:-since the Union, in so short a period as twenty-six years, thirty-two of the Irish peerages, existing at that time, have become extinct.

(4.) In following up this idea, three important parties would be essential gainers. First, the Irish nation, in behalf of whom the proposition is made, amongst whom the income of such (which naturally

belongs to them) would be expended. Second, the empire; which would not then have to sustain so many younger branches of noble and wealthy families, as is now the case. Third, the individuals to whom such property would descend;-while the very persons at whose apparent expense this beneficial arrangement would be effected, still in possession of all that rank and affluence could possibly bestow, would be sufferers in imagination only; nor even in imagination for we may well believe that the generous elder branches of these great families would participate in the satisfaction and pleasure with which such a regulation would be regarded by every parent worthy of the name.

§ XIII. (1.) My next and far more important proposition in favour of Ireland, is, that a reformed system of poor-laws should be instantly established, founded upon the humanie principle, but avoiding the. errors, of those of England, in being more completely adapted to the altered circumstances of the times; that there, as here, wealth should be compelled to assist destitute poverty, in proportion to its means ; but that, dissimimilar to our practice, that assistance should, in all cases, excepting in those of actual incapability from age or disease, be connected with labour 1.

But, in making this proposition, it seems necessary that I should enter into a short defence of the principle, especially as it is so much assailed by our poli

This was not only the original law, but the early practice. (See Dalton's Country Justice, chap. xx.)

tical economists, who unanimously and vehemently resist its introduction into Ireland, and who, however differing upon other points, unite in their endeavours to vilify the national charity preparatory to its destruction even here. Mr. Malthus speaks authoritatively upon the occasion, in that, as he somewhere says, he has reflected much upon the subject: on that ground I may likewise claim to be heard, as I have not only thought upon it through life, but have voluntarily engaged in the duties the system imposes, as well as in those of other institutions in connexion with it; and have come to a diametrically opposite conclusion: not maintaining that it has not been abused, is not abused, and will not in future be abused (for against what institution, however divine, might not the same charge be urged?-could Christianity itself stand the test of such an unfair ordeal?) but contending that, in its principle, it is founded in justice and mercy, and that, in its operation, it is a universal benefit to the community.

(2.) In proceeding, therefore, to a short defence of the system of a legal provision for the poor, I shall not occupy the entire limits to which I mean to restrict myself, in refuting the obviously frivolous and false objections which are so often urged against it, and which serve to prove that it is unassailable excepting by odious misrepresentations. Always forgetting, or otherwise culpably misrepresenting the description of poverty and distress, to the relief of which so great a proportion of the sums raised is appropriated; many choose to regard the national charity as solely occupied in supporting and maintaining able-bodied