Skip to main content

Full text of "The legacy of past years; a study of Irish history"

See other formats 


THE  LEGACY  OF  PAST  YEARS 


THE    LEGACY    OF 
PAST  YEARS 

A  STUDY  OF  IRISH  HISTORY 


BY  THE   EARL   OF  DUNRAVEN,  K.P. 

AUTHOR  OF  "THE  OUTLOOK  IN  IRELAND,"  ETC. 


LONDON 

JOHN  MURRAY,  ALBEMARLE  STREET,  W. 

1911 


DK 
<\\\ 

628729         X    a 


PREFACE 

MY  endeavour  in  the  following  pages  is  to 
delineate  the  incidents  in  Irish  history  which, 
if  studied  in  an  impartial,  candid,  and  critical 
spirit,  give,  as  it  seems  to  me,  an  answer  to  the 
perennial  question,  "  Why  is  it  that  the  Realm  is 
no  richer  for  Ireland  ?"  My  object  is  that,  as  the 
average  Englishman  and  Irishman  cannot  study 
for  themselves  the  history  of  the  relations  between 
England,  or  Great  Britain,  and  Ireland,  extending 
as  it  does  over  a  period  of  some  700  years,  a 
short  sketch  of  events  taken  in  relation  with  the 
circumstances  existing  at  the  time  may  help  to 
dispel  passion  and  prejudice,  and  may  enable  those 
who  desire  it  to  see  both  sides  of  the  question  and 
to  form  a  sound  judgment  upon  it. 

I  make  no  claim  to  original  research  nor  to  the 
writing  of  history.  I  have  merely  set  out  the 
salient  facts  that  have  moulded  Irish  character 
and  have  affected  the  destinies  of  Ireland,  and  in 
doing  so  I  have  tried  to  hold  an  even  balance 
and  to  portray  them  with  an  impartial  pen.  Ex- 
cellent and  truth-telling  works  have  been  written 


vi  PREFACE 

on  the  subject  of  Irish  history,  but  others — and 
perhaps  the  most  popular  on  that  account — are 
hopelessly  biassed,  and  some  display  an  ignorance 
that  is  mischievous  in  the  extreme.  I  have  before 
me  a  book,  otherwise  valuable,  which  is  thus 
seriously  marred.  In  writing  of  the  inadequate 
relief  given  during  the  Great  Famine  of  1846-47, 
the  author  states  that  relief,  such  as  it  was,  was 
given  by  favour,  and  that  Catholics  were  deliber- 
ately excluded,  and  he  cites  as  the  authority  for 
so  monstrous  a  charge  the  accounts  he  had  heard 
from  emigrants  to  the  United  States  who  had 
gone  through  the  horrors  of  the  Famine.  Poor, 
ignorant,  starved,  and  most  miserable  peasants, 
what  could  they  know  about,  or  speak  of,  except  the 
awful  horrors  they  had  undergone;  and  yet,  on 
such  hearsay  evidence,  and  without  any  further 
examination,  the  Government  of  the  time  is 
branded  with  an  iniquity  so  gross.  To  heighten 
the  case  against  the  British  Government,  the  same 
author  tells  us  that — "  The  cultivation  of  the  Indian 
corn  or  maize  became,  shortly  after  the  Famine,  an 
important  industry  for  the  poorer  classes  of  the 
West  Coast  of  Ireland,  with  every  prospect  of 
becoming  as  valuable  an  article  of  food  as  the 
potato,  but  that,  in  common  with  every  industry 
blighted  by  the  English  Government,  this  im- 
portant staple  was  lost."  To  plant  the  Bog  of 
Allen  with  pineapples  and  bananas  would  be  as 
profitable  as  to  cultivate  maize  on  the  western  sea- 


PREFACE  vii 

board  or  in  any  part  of  Ireland.  The  idea  is 
absurd,  and  to  make  a  charge  against  the  English 
Government  for  blighting  the  industry  is  much 
worse  than  absurd.  Manifestly  ridiculous  accusa- 
tions tend  to  deprive  well-founded  charges  of  all 
validity.  Gross  exaggeration  takes  away  from  the 
strength  and  justice  of  the  case  that  can  be  truth- 
fully made  out.  Many  excellent  works  suffer  from 
a  similar  cause,  and  perhaps  naturally,  for  it  is 
difficult  for  an  Irishman  brooding  over  the  wrongs 
of  his  country  to  attain  absolute  detachment  of 
mind.  It  is  a  pity,  for  accounts  overcoloured 
fail  as  a  means  for  opening  the  eyes  of  the  English 
people  to  a  true  conception  of  the  Irish  problem, 
and  serve  only  to  obscure  the  truth  and  create 
misunderstanding. 

MISUNDERSTANDINGS  AND  IGNORANCE. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  little  that  the  average 
Englishman  gleans  from  the  little  that  he  reads  of 
Irish  history  from  English  sources  leads  him  to  a 
still  greater  misconception  of  the  truth.  "  Why  is 
it  that  Irishmen  get  on  so  well  in  the  Colonies  and 
in  the  United  States,  but  are  so  hopelessly  im- 
possible in  their  own  country  ?"  is  the  question  for 
ever  on  the  lips  of  Englishmen ;  and  it  is  passing 
strange  that  a  people,  logical  and  justly  credited 
with  common-sense,  invariably  attribute  the  con- 
dition of  Ireland  to  the  contiguity  of  a  melancholy 
ocean,  or  to  any  cause,  however  recondite,  which 


viii  PREFACE 

does  not  reflect  upon  themselves.  It  rarely,  if 
ever,  occurs  to  them  to  trace  effect  to  its  natural 
and  true  cause — misgovernment.  If  Irish  history 
were  better  known  to  the  English  people,  I  make 
bold  to  affirm  that  their  moral  sense  would  be 
shocked,  for  they  are  a  just  people.  They  would 
be  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  instinct  of 
self-preservation  does  not  justify  their  conduct  in 
the  past,  that  the  crucifixion  of  Ireland  was  not 
necessary  for  the  salvation  of  England.  If  they 
would  trace  present  effects  to  their  causes,  they 
would  realize  the  necessity  of  exceptional  measures 
for  the  betterment  of  Ireland,  for  they  are  a 
practical  people.  Both  moral  sense  and  common 
sense  would  combine  in  urging  remedial  treatment 
for  Ireland  as  the  first  duty  of  statesmen  if  the 
people  only  understood.  Ignorance  is  what  stands 
in  their  way,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the 
people  of  Ireland  and  of  the  Irish  throughout  the 
world.  If  they  would  not  allow  traditional  ani- 
mosity to  blind  their  eyes,  if  they  would  force 
themselves  to  acknowledge  that  every  question  has 
two  sides,  and  that  both  must  be  fairly  considered, 
they  would  come  to  a  better  understanding  of 
history  and  of  the  English,  for  the  Irish  are  a  just, 
a  kindly,  and  a  forgiving  people.  For  the  future 
of  Ireland,  and,  as  1  think,  for  the  future  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  Empire,  it  is  necessary  that  the 
English  and  the  Irish  should  understand  each  other 
better,  and  it  is  in  the  hope  of  dispelling  common 


PREFACE  ix 

ignorance,  and  of  creating  a  better  common  feeling, 
that  these  pages  have  been  compiled. 

Nomenclature  presents  a  serious  difficulty.  How 
should  the  inhabitants  of  Ireland  be  described  ? 
What  is  to  be  understood  by  "  Irish  "  and 
"  English "  ?  and  how  are  we  to  discriminate 
between  them  in  Elizabethan  or  Cromwellian 
days  ?  Two  or  three  races  had  occupied  Ireland 
before  the  invasion  of  the  Milesians,  or  Gaels. 
If  by  "Irish"  the  "Gaels"  are  connoted,  the 
term  becomes  inappropriate  after  the  Scandi- 
navian settlements,  and  increases  in  inapplicability 
after  each  wave  of  Anglo-Norman,  Elizabethan, 
and  Puritan  Planters.  Though  the  Gaelic  strain 
was  so  strong,  subtle,  seductive,  and  persistent  as 
to  colour  and  absorb  all  other  strains,  the  term 
"  Gaelic  "  does  not,  ethnologically,  describe  the  race 
during  the  period  under  review  in  the  following 
pages.  As  a  rule,  I  have  applied  the  term  "  Irish  " 
to  all  native  born,  whether  of  mixed  blood  or  not, 
who  had  come  under  the  influence  of  Gaelic  law, 
custom,  language,  and  civilization;  and  the  term 
"  English  "  to  those  new-comers  who  had  not  come 
under  that  influence. 

IRELAND'S  PAST  GREATNESS. 

Gaelic  civilization  is,  and  is  likely  to  remain  for 
some  time,  a  subject  of  controversy.  A  critical 
analysis  of  culture  and  civilization  in  Ireland  at 
various  epochs  has  yet  to  be  undertaken,  and  much 


x  PREFACE 

spade-work  in  preparation  requires  to  be  done.  In 
ancient  Ireland  the  sense  of  nationality  expressed 
itself  in  law,  art,  literature,  and  science.  The  raids 
of  the  Scandinavian  Vikings,  though  destructive, 
were  but  temporary,  and  produced  no  serious  effects ; 
but  the  deliberate  effort  to  obliterate  nationality 
by  the  destruction  of  everything  that  represented 
it,  persisted  in  for  generations,  came  near  to 
trampling  out  all  traces  of  past  culture  in  Ireland. 
Irish  learning,  art,  and  science  sought  and  found 
asylum  on  the  Continent  in  Italy  and  France,  and 
research  into  the  past  must  be  made  in  localities 
far  removed  from  the  native  land  of  those  scholars 
who,  driven  from  Ireland,  carried  knowledge  and 
tradition  with  them.  Devoted  Irishmen  strove,  at 
the  risk  of  their  hunted  lives,  to  preserve  at  home 
the  memory,  at  any  rate,  of  former  greatness,  and 
were  assisted  by  a  few  enlightened  men  among  the 
English ;  but  it  was  not  until  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  that  serious  attempts  were  made 
by  antiquarians  and  historians  to  recover  and  piece 
together  the  scattered  fragments  of  Irish  annals 
written  from  the  Irish  point  of  view.  For  hundreds 
of  years  the  only  records  accessible  to  the  public 
were  written  by  ministers  and  agents  of  Tudor 
Sovereigns  bent  on  wiping  out  all  signs  of  Irish 
nationality,  or  by  "  Planters  "  and  "  Undertakers  " 
all  interested  in  the  fiction  that  the  depth  of  vice, 
ignorance,  and  barbarism  in  which  the  Irish  wal- 
lowed placed  them  outside  the  canons  of  humanity 


PREFACE  xi 

of  even  a  rough  and  cruel  age.  Such  a  mass  of 
purely  ex-parte  statement  is  difficult  to  move,  and 
though  much  good  work  has  been  done  during  the 
last  century,  much  remains  to  be  done  in  the  way 
of  research,  co-ordination,  and  comparison  before 
the  case  for  native  civilization  can  be  authorita- 
tively proved.  Nevertheless,  the  historical  evidence 
in  existence,  corroborated  as  it  is  by  archaeological 
research,  by  the  rich  finds  of  works  of  art,  and  by 
the  persistent  recurrence  in  later  days  of  the  early 
Gaelic  type  in  ornamentation  and  design,  is  suf- 
ficient at  least  to  show  that,  though  the  picture  of 
Gaelic  civilization  may  be  overcoloured  by  Irish 
apologists,  it  is  far  truer  to  life  than  the  present- 
ment to  be  derived  from  the  accounts  of  those 
English  apologists  who  seek  justification  for  the 
policy  and  actions  of  England  in  the  theory  of  a 
hopelessly  degraded  Celtic  race. 

Treating  the  subject,  as  I  have  done,  in  sections 
— wars,  rebellions,  destruction  of  trade,  growth  of 
parliamentary  institutions,  and  landlordism — some 
repetition  was  inevitable.  I  trust  it  may  be 
excused. 


CONTENTS 

PART  I 

ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  REBELLIONS 

PAOC 

THE    EARLY    CONDITION    OF    IRELAND  -  -  -  1 

INFLUENCE    OF    ROMAN    CIVILIZATION  -  -  -4 

IRELAND    BEFORE    THE    CONQUEST  -  -  6 

POPE  ADRIAN  IV.'s  GIFT  -  -  -  9 

IRELAND'S  REAL  CONDITION  -  -13 

ANNIHILATIONS  UNDER  THE  TUDORS  -  -  -  17 

IRELAND  ON  ITS  DEFENCE  -  -  -  20 

CAUSES  OF  DISCORD       -  -  -  23 

THE    ELIZABETHAN    PERSECUTIONS  -  -  -  26 

A    RECORD    OF    TREACHERY  -  -  -  29 

IN  THE  PATH  OF  THE  "  CONQUERORS  "  -  -  -  32 

IRELAND'S  LAND  HUNGER  -  -  -  35 

"DEFEND  ME  AND  SPEND  ME"  -  -  -  38 

THE    BROKEN    FAITH    OF   THE    CROWN  -  -  -  40 

CHARLES    I.    AND    THE    "  GRACES  "  -  -  44 

AGRARIAN    AND    RACIAL    TROUBLES  -  -  -  47 

ENGLISH    AND    IRISH    CONTRASTED  -  -  -  53 

THE    ANNIHILATION    OF    CROMWELL  -  -  -  58 

AFTER    THE    RESTORATION  -  -  -  63 

WARS    -                                      -  -  -  66 

RISINGS  AND  REBELLIONS  -  -  -  67 

THE  REBELLION  OF  '98  -             -  -  .  -  71 

WOLFE  TONE'S  POLICY    -  -  -  -  74 

THE    ORANGE    SOCIETY     -  -  -  .  77 

THE    SEEDS    OF    REBELLION                -  -  -  -  84 

IRELAND    AND    INVASION  -  gg 

Xiii 


xiv  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

AN  HONEST  GENERAL^  CONFESSION  -  87 

PROTESTANT  REBELS       -  89 

STORY  OF  THE  REBELLION  OF  '98  -  93 

FAILURE  IN  ULSTER      -  -  94 

INCIDENTS  IN  WICKLOW  AND  WEXFORD    -  96 

CLOSE  OF  THE  REBELLION          -  -  99 

CAUSES  OF  DEFEAT       -  -  101 

LATER  SPORADIC  RISINGS             -  -              -  105 

THE  RELIGIOUS  WEDGE  -  -  106 

ABSENCE  OF  RELIGIOUS  PERSECUTION       -  109 

THE  "MERE  IRISH"      -             -             -  111 

PART  II 

DESTRUCTION,  DEGRADATION,  AND  REVIVAL 

IRELAND'S    MISFORTUNES  -  114 

THE  VIKINGS  IN  IRELAND  115 

1  ENGLISH  MISCONCEPTIONS  -  117 

'WAR  ON  IRISH  INDUSTRY  - 

"CONQUEST"  BY  THE  IRISH       -  - 

IRELAND'S  STRUGGLE  FOR  TRADE  - 

FAULTS  OF  THE  TIMES  -  -  127 

PENAL  LAWS  AGAINST  CATHOLICS  -  129 

FREEDOM AND  A  REVIVAL  -  134 

PART  III 
IRELAND'S  PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

THE    RULE    OF    ECCLESIASTICS         -                  -  -                   -  137 

NON- REPRESENTATIVE    ASSEMBLIES  -  142 

FIRST   PARLIAMENTARY    UNION    WITH    ENGLAND        -  145 

THE  HEAVY  HAND  OF  IRISH  PARLIAMENTS  -  147 

SWIFT'S  PROPAGANDA     -  -  149 

THE  VOLUNTEERS  AND  FREEDOM  OF  TRADE  -  151 

GRATTAN'S  VICTORY  FOR  IRELAND  -  155 

AN  ILLUSIVE  INDEPENDENCE       -             -  -            -157 


CONTENTS  xv 


PAGE 


AN    "  INDEPENDENT "    IRELAND    -  -  161 

FRICTION  BETWEEN  ENGLAND  AND  IRELAND  -  164 

PITT'S  VIEWS  ON  FEDERATION     -  -  166 

EARLY  IRISH  PROJECTS  FOR  UNION  -  168 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  THE  UNION      -  -  171 

OPPOSITION    TO    THE    UNION  -  173 

THE    UNION    AND    ITS    CONSEQUENCES  -  177 

THE    CONSTITUTIONAL    ISSUE  -  180 

POPULAR    OPINION    AS    TO    UNION  -  -  183 

THE    FINAL    ACT  -  185 

UNREDEEMED    PLEDGES    -                   -  -                   -                   -  189 


PART  IV 

EMIGRATION,  CONFISCATION,  LAND  TENURE, 
LANDLORDISM 

LAND    TENURE    -  -  -  196 

CONTENTMENT    OF    THE    PEASANTRY  -  200 

iTHE    LONG    PARLIAMENT^    CONFISCATIONS  -  202 

THE    ENGLISH    AND    IRISH    LAND    SYSTEMS  -  204 

THE    POSITION    OF    THE    LANDOWNERS  -  207 

AN    EIGHTEENTH- CENTURY    RECORD  -  -  208 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  "  MIDDLEMAN  "  -  -  210 

THE  TAINT  OF  ASCENDANCY       -  -  -  213 

THE  FORTY-SHILLING  FREEHOLDER  -  -  215 

THE  GREAT  FAMINE  OF  1846-47  ...  £18 

IRISH  RELIEF  AND  ENGLISH  ECONOMICS  ...  221 

THE  RUIN  OF  THE  LANDED  GENTRY       ...  223 

ENGLAND'S  FATAL  ERROR  -  -  -  225 

THE  FAMINE  AND  FREE  TRADE  -  ...  227 

HOME  RULE  AND  AGRARIANISM  -  ...  228 

MODERN  LAND  LEGISLATION  ... 

WYNDHAM  ACT  OF  1903  - 

THE  LANDLORDS  :  HISTORY*^  VERDICT      -  234 

POLITICS  AND  THE  LAND  -  -  .  237 


xvi  CONTENTS 

PART  V 
CONCLUSION:   IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

PAOK 

ERRORS    IN   ENGLISH    HISTORY       -  -  243 

THE    MORAL    OF    PAST   MISTAKES  -                                       -  247 

THE    POLICY    OF    "CONQUEST"       -                                     -  -  249 

FRUITS    OF   IRISH   UNITY  -  251 

THE    FIRST   DUTY  :    COMPLETION    OF    LAND    PURCHASE  -  254 

NECESSITY   FOR   POLITICAL    REFORM              ...  256 

NO  DESIRE  FOR  INDEPENDENCE  -  -  258 

IRELAND'S  LONG  PROTEST  AGAINST  UNION  •  261 

REPEAL  OF  THE  UNION  IMPOSSIBLE                      -  -  263 

IS  FEDERATION  DESIRABLE  ?  -  266 

BRITAIN'S  NEED  OF  DEVOLUTION  -  269 

A  FEDERATED  EMPIRE  -  -  271 

COLONIAL  AND  AMERICAN  SENTIMENT     -  -  273 

THE  CINDERELLA  OF  THE  FAMILY  -  275 

INDEX              -              -              -              -              -  -  279 


THE  LEGACY  OF  PAST  YEARS 

PART  I 

ANNIHILATIONS,   WARS,    REBELLIONS 

THE  EARLY  CONDITION  OF  IRELAND. 

"  THE  Irish  Question  "  is  always  with  us  in  some 
form  or  other,  and  always  will  be  until  the  people 
of  Great  Britain  understand  better  than  they  do 
the  responsibility  that  rests  upon  them  for  the 
condition  of  Ireland,  the  people  of  Ireland  realize 
the  extent  to  which  they  are  responsible,  and  the 
people  of  the  United  Kingdom  as  a  whole  learn  to 
take  a  wider  and  juster  view  of  Anglo-Irish  history. 
Knowledge  is  necessary,  and  when  a  consistent 
constructive  policy  based  upon  that  knowledge  is 
adopted  and  pursued,  the  Irish  Question  will  be 
set  at  rest.  Time  and  again  the  despairing  ques- 
tion has  been  raised,  "  Why  is  the  King's  realm  no 
richer  for  Ireland  ?"  The  answer  is  a  simple  one. 
The  object  of  statesmanship  has  never  been  to  en- 
courage, or  even  to  permit,  Ireland  to  enrich  and 
develop  herself;  but  has  ever  been  to  impoverish 


2         ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

and,  if  possible,   efface  Ireland   in  the  supposed 
interests  of  England  and  Great  Britain. 

That  policy,  pursued  with  unflinching  and  ruthless 
perseverance  for  so  many  centuries,  failed  in  one 
respect.  The  vitality  of  the  native  race  proved  too 
strong.  It  could  not  be  obliterated.  Ireland  has 
not  been  converted  into  so  many  English  counties. 
She  remains,  not  a  geographical  expression  merely, 
but  the  home  of  a  distinct  people.  But  in  another 
direction  it  merits  the  crown  of  unadulterated 
success.  Ireland  has  been  reduced  to  a  condition 
of  unparalleled  poverty,  not  only  in  material  wealth, 
but  in  every  quality  that  makes  for  prosperity  and 
progress,  with  the  inevitable  result  that  she  is  a 
misery  to  herself  and  a  burden  instead  of  a  benefit 
to  those  who  have  made  her  what  she  is.  To  the 
mistaken  policy  pursued  by  England  is  due  the  fact 
that  the  King's  realm  is  no  richer  for  Ireland. 

To  realize  the  truth  of  this  thesis,  some  acquaint- 
ance with  at  least  the  outlines  of  history  is  needful. 
What  does  the  average  British  elector  know  about 
real  Irishmen  or  the  real  Ireland  ?  Very  little. 
He  probably  looks  upon  Ireland  as  a  distressful 
country,  always  a  burden  to  him,  and  at  times  a 
wellnigh  intolerable  nuisance;  and  he  attributes 
this  condition  of  things  to  certain  racial  character- 
istics, or  to  any  cause  except  the  true  one — the 
fatal  effects  of  centuries  of  misrule. 

An  exhaustive  history  of  Ireland  remains  to 
be  written.  My  object  in  the  following  pages 


EARLY  IRISH  HISTORY  3 

is  to  present  the  more  prominent  episodes  in  Irish 
history,  culled  impartially,  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  from  standard  works,  in  such  a  shape 
as  may  give  the  English,  Scotch,  and  Welsh 
reader  some  insight  into  the  causes  of  Irish  discon- 
tent. Such  an  epitomized  presentment  of  the  case 
may  be  of  service  to  Irish  readers  also,  for  Irish 
history  as  read  by  them,  derived  as  it  is  from  the 
chronicles  of  a  tortured  people,  is  naturally  apt  to 
be  overcoloured  and  unfair.  Action  is  often  attri- 
buted to  mere  cruelty,  which,  though  we  now 
recognize  it  as  perniciously  unwise,  was  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  canons  of  the  time  and  the 
customary  methods  employed  by  rulers  in  dealing 
with  communities  that  came  under  their  control. 

Of  Irish  history  before  the  so-called  "  conquest " 
I  do  not  propose  to  speak,  except  to  the  extent  of  a 
few  words  on  civilization  later  on  ;  but  certain  facts 
must  be  mentioned  and  must  be  constantly  borne 
in  mind  if  any  clue  is  to  be  found  leading  the 
student  through  the  maze  of  seeming  complexities 
obscuring  Irish  history  to  some  understanding  of 
the  Irish  problem  as  it  now  presents  itself,  and  of 
the  Irish  character. 

During  many  centuries  the  development  of  the 
Gaels  in  Ireland  was  purely  internal ;  no  external 
forces  wrought  upon  or  influenced  the  civilization 
that  they  gradually  evolved.  Ireland  derived 
nothing  from  England,  and,  what  is  of  infinitely 
more  importance,  Ireland  alone  among  all  Western 


4         ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

communities  never  felt  the  direct  influence  of 
Rome.  Though  Agricola  planned  an  invasion,  no 
Roman  soldier  set  foot  on  Irish  soil,  no  tinge  of 
Roman  jurisprudence  or  of  the  Roman  conception 
of  society  and  of  the  State  coloured  the  civilization 
of  Ireland.  The  Roman  system  was  highly  cen- 
tralized, practical,  material.  Nationality  was  ex- 
pressed by  law  emanating  from  a  central  authority, 
sanctioned  by  a  powerful  executive  residing  in  the 
same  authority.  Religion,  learning,  science,  art — 
all  that  may  be  comprehended  in  the  term  "  culture  " 
— were  matters  of  comparative  indifference  to  the 
central  authority.  Statute  law  and  the  executive, 
so  far  as  its  authority  extended,  constituted  the 
State.  To  the  Irish  Gaels  the  conception  of  what 
constitutes  a  nation  was  totally  different.  Nation- 
ality, according  to  their  ideal,  consisted  of  com- 
munity of  thought  developing  into  common  law, 
custom,  religion,  learning,  science,  and  art,  all 
resting  upon  a  purely  democratic  basis.  Govern- 
ment, the  central  executive  authority,  was  a  matter 
of  comparative  indifference  to  them.  The  Irish 
system  was  decentralized  to  the  last  degree.  It 
was  an  eesthetic  or  spiritualized  system — a  number 
of  communities  executively  independent,  but  knit 
together  by  ties  of  common  culture. 

INFLUENCE  OF  ROMAN  CIVILIZATION. 

Ireland  culled  from  Gaul  what   she  needed  of 
Roman  civilization.     She  took  what  she  required  in 


CULTURE  INDIGENOUS  5 

the  arts  and  handicrafts,  and  improved  upon  them. 
They  came  within  the  sphere  of  her  natural  activi- 
ties ;  but  she  rejected  Roman  jurisprudence,  Roman 
centralization,  and  the  whole  Roman  conception  of 
the   State,   as  utterly  repugnant   to   her  ideal  of 
nationality.     The    feudal    system    rested    on    the 
theory  that  all  land  was  vested  in  the  Sovereign. 
The  Irish  tribal  system  was  based  on  the  assump- 
tion that  all  land  was  vested  in  the  people.     If 
these  great  central  facts — that  the  Roman  Empire 
left  no  mark  in  Ireland,  that  the  waves  of  Teutonic 
invasion  under  which  that  Empire  was  submerged 
never  broke  over  Ireland,  that  the  Irish  conception 
of  the  State  was  purely  indigenous  and  the  anti- 
thesis of  the  Roman  conception  upon  which  the 
feudal  systems  of  the  early  and  middle  ages  were 
based — be  kept  steadily  in  view,  they  will  account 
for  much  that  may  otherwise  seem  unaccountable 
in  Irish  history.     They  explain  the  devotion  of  the 
people  to  learning,  art,  and  all  that  beautifies  life — 
common  culture  was  the  essence  and  evidence  of 
their  nationality ;  and  they  account  for  the  honours 
accorded   to   men   proficient   in  all   the  works  of 
peace,  who  ranked  as  the  equals  of  Princes  and 
Kings.     The  tenacity  with  which  the  people  clung 
to  their  own  land  tenure,  law,  and  custom  is  not 
strange,  seeing  that  the  whole  system  sprung  from 
themselves  and  was  part  of  themselves  ;  nor  is  their 
devotion  to  bards  and  genealogists,  who  chronicled 
every  trivial  event  and  every  circumstance,  however 


6         ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

small,  that  had  to  do  with  almost  every  plain  and 
mountain,  sea  and  river,  tree  and  rock,  over  the 
whole  island.  It  was  all  intimate  to  them.  In 
common  law,  common  custom,  common  language, 
community  of  literature,  science,  and  art,  all  derived 
from  themselves,  their  nationality  found  expres- 
sion. Such  an  ideal  is,  it  must  be  admitted,  a 
very  noble  one.  Rooted,  deep  and  broad,  in  the 
mental  fibre  of  every  man,  woman,  and  child 
throughout  the  whole  island,  it  created  a  sense  of 
nationality  absolutely  imperishable,  and  of  a  char- 
acter that  kept  the  light  of  religion  and  learning 
burning  brightly  at  home,  and  rekindled  it  in 
Britain  and  on  the  Continent  after  the  fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  a  society 
of  confederated  communities  held  together  only  by 
such  spiritualized  ties,  and  very  loosely  compacted 
in  all  other  respects,  found  itself  unable  to  preserve 
national  independence  when  subject  to  attack  by  a 
system  highly  systematized  and  centralized  in  all 
the  material  aspects  of  life. 

IRELAND  BEFORE  THE  CONQUEST. 

Irish  chroniclers  devoted  themselves  largely,  as 
was  very  natural,  to  recording  episodes  of  tragic 
importance — wars,  raids,  and  occurrences  of  that 
kind — and  it  has  become  a  vulgar  belief  that  Ireland 
was  the  scene  of  perpetual  internecine  war.  That 
is  a  great  exaggeration  and  an  obvious  one, 
for  no  people  could  have  advanced  so  far  as 


WAR  AND  NATIONAL  LIFE  7 

did  the  Irish  in  all  the  ways  of  peace  if  battle, 
murder,  and  sudden  death  had  been  their  daily  lot. 
What  sort  of  conception  of  modern  life  would 
an  inhabitant  of  Mars  derive  from  the  perusal  of 
one  of  our  daily  papers  ?  He  would  see  a  long 
catalogue  of  wars,  earthquakes,  famines,  murders, 
strikes,  riots,  crime  of  all  kinds,  and  he  would  be  over- 
come with  horror  at  the  awful  condition  of  society 
in  which  we  most  precariously  live.  So  it  is  in  refer- 
ence to  the  ancient  history  of  Ireland.  Not  many 
of  those  who  write  about  it  have  critically  examined 
and  weighed  the  facts ;  they  have  been  content  to 
take  native  records  of  deeds  of  violence  as  accu- 
rately depicting  the  whole  existence  of  the  people. 
Albeit  the  picture  of  national  life  thus  formed  is 
overcoloured  and  to  that  extent  false,  it  neverthe- 
less rests  upon  a  foundation  of  fact.  The  tribal 
system  was  a  federation  of  communities  pre- 
cariously held  together  by  outward  material  ties, 
though  indissolubly  united  by  spiritual  or  aesthetic 
ties.  In  one  aspect  of  life  the  septs  were 
antagonists,  but  in  the  other  aspect  of  life  con- 
federates. They  were  frequently  at  war,  but  in  the 
midst  of  wars  the  great  national  assemblies,  feasts, 
and  fairs  went  on  uninterrupted. 

Kings  there  were,  overlords  of  the  whole 
island ;  but  as  a  rule  their  authority  was  more 
nominal  than  real.  They  reigned,  but  they  did  not 
govern.  Province  fought  against  province,  tribe 
against  tribe,  sept  against  sept,  and  at  the  same  time 


8         ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

judges,  poets,  and  learned  men  were  welcome  in 
any  part  of  Ireland,  from  whatever  part  of  Ireland 
they  came.  Out  of  this  chaos  Ireland  would  un- 
doubtedly have  emerged.  Some  overlord  would 
have  arisen  sufficiently  powerful  to  subdue  internal 
dissensions,  to  consolidate  his  rule  and  found  a 
lasting  dynasty.  But  no  such  saviour  of  society 
appeared  in  time,  and  when  Henry  II.  landed, 
Ireland  was  not  a  community  organized  for  defence. 
He  found  a  people  in  the  tribal  state,  with  no 
conception  of  the  unity  of  a  nation  for  material 
purposes — a  community  without  an  executive  centre 
or  cohesion,  a  people  divided  among  themselves, 
and  consequently  an  easy  prey.  All  through  the 
wars  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Elizabeth,  Ireland  suffered 
under  the  same  inevitable  disadvantage  of  her 
decentralized  tribal  system.  Allegiance  and  devo- 
tion to  the  nation  were  allegiance  and  devotion  to 
a  very  exalted  and  noble  ideal,  but  to  an  abstraction. 
Allegiance  and  fidelity  to  the  chief  were  personal  and 
imperative.  The  chief  was  the  war  leader.  It  was 
a  question  of  my  chief  right  or  wrong,  not  of  my 
country  right  or  wrong.  The  chieftainship  was 
elective.  It  tended,  it  is  true,  to  become  hereditary, 
but  nevertheless  deposition  in  the  event  of  inca- 
pacity was  easy.  Freedom  from  personal  blemishes 
was  essential ;  and  personal  courage  and  capacity  to 
maintain  and  improve  the  position  of  the  clan  were, 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  desirable  qualities  which 
could  only  be  demonstrated  by  actual  experience  in 


HENRY  II.'S  CLAIM  9 

the  conduct  of  war.  Such  a  condition  of  society 
did  not  tend  to  national  solidarity,  and  the  spiritual- 
ized ideal  of  nationality,  though  imperishable, 
failed  as  an  effective  element  in  overcoming  the 
centrifugal  results  of  tribalism,  and  in  uniting  the 
people  in  common  resistance  to  a  common  foe. 

POPE  ADRIAN  IV.'s  GIFT. 
Henry  claimed  the  sovereignty  of  Ireland  by 
virtue  of  a  deed  of  gift  from  the  Pope,  Adrian  IV. 
Some  writers  have  questioned  the  issue  of  that 
Bull;  but  the  evidence  on  the  other  side  is  so 
strong  that  the  authenticity  of  the  document  is,  I 
think,  generally  admitted.*  Whether  the  Bull  was 
genuine  or  a  forgery  is,  in  one  sense,  a  matter  of 
no  importance.  Before  the  days  of  Henry  covetous 
glances  had  been  thrown  towards  Ireland,  "  a  land 
very  rich  in  plunder  and  famed  for  the  good  tem- 
perature of  the  air,  the  fruitfulness  of  the  soil,  the 
pleasant  and  commodious  seats  for  habitation,  and 
safe  and  large  ports  and  havens  lying  open  for 
traffic,"  and  invasion  would  certainly  have  taken 
place  with  or  without  the  sanction  of  the  Pope. 
But  in  another  sense  the  authenticity  of  the  Bull 
is  important,  both  on  account  of  the  reasons  given 

*  H.  W.  C.  Davis  decides  in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
Bull  of  Adrian  IV.,  and  points  out  that  three  letters  of  his 
successor,  Alexander  III.,  written  in  1172,  show  that  Rome 
approved  of  the  invasion  of  Ireland  ("England  under  the 
Normans  and  Angevins  "). 


10       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

for  its  issue  and  of  the  question  of  title  involved. 
On  the  supposition  that  Henry's  object  was  to 
exterminate  vice  and  explain  true  Christianity  to 
uncivilized  and  ignorant  tribes,  a  note  was  struck 
that  has  been  continuously  sounded  in  justifica- 
tion of  England's  action  towards  Ireland.  The 
sovereignty  conferred  by  the  assumption  by 
Henry  VIII.  of  the  title  of  "  King "  instead  of 
Lord,"  with  the  consent  of  a  Parliament  con- 
vened for  the  purpose,  was  of  a  purely  nominal  char- 
acter ;  and  if  Ireland  was  not  deeded  to  Henry  II. 
by  the  Pope,  or  if  the  Pope  was  not  competent  to 
make  the  gift,  no  justification  can  be  found  for 
describing  the  Tudor  wars  as  "  rebellions,"  and  no 
excuse  offered  for  the  barbarity  with  which  they 
were  waged.  As  the  Bull  of  Adrian  IV.  is,  if 
genuine,  a  turning-point  in  Irish  history,  and  as 
the  evidence  is  at  any  rate  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
assumption  of  genuineness,  the  text  of  the  Bull 
may  be  given  in  full. 

Bull  of  Pope  Adrian  IV.  to  King  Henry  II. 
of  England,  granting  him  liberty  to  take  pos- 
session of  Ireland. 

"  Adrian,  Bishop,  servant  of  the  servants  of  God, 
to  our  well- beloved  son  in  Christ,  the  illustrious 
King  of  the  English,  health  and  apostolical  bene- 
diction. 

"Your  Highness  is  contemplating  the  laudable 
and  profitable  work  of  gaining  a  glorious  fame  on 


A  GIFT  FROM  ROME  II 

earth,  and  augmenting  the  recompense  of  bliss  that 
awaits  you  in  heaven,  by  turning  your  thoughts, 
in  the  proper  spirit  of  a  Catholic  Prince,  to  the 
object  of  widening  the  boundaries  of  the  Church, 
explaining  the  true  Christian  faith  to  those 
ignorant  and  uncivilized  tribes,  and  exterminating 
the  nurseries  of  vices  from  the  Lord's  inheritance. 
In  which  matter,  observing  as  we  do  the  maturity 
of  deliberation  and  the  soundness  of  judgment 
exhibited  in  your  mode  of  proceeding,  we  cannot 
but  hope  that  proportionate  success  will,  with  the 
Divine  permission,  attend  your  exertions. 

"  Certainly  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  Ireland 
and  all  the  islands  upon  which  Christ,  the  Son  of 
Righteousness,  hath  shined,  and  which  have  received 
instruction  in  the  Christian  faith,  do  belong  of  right 
to  St.  Peter  and  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  as  Your 
Grace  also  admits.  For  which  reason  we  are  the 
more  disposed  to  introduce  into  them  a  faithful 
plantation,  and  to  engraft  among  them  a  stock 
acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God,  in  proportion  as  we 
are  convinced  from  conscientious  motives  that  such 
efforts  are  made  incumbent  on  us  by  the  urgent 
claims  of  duty. 

"  You  have  signified  to  us,  son  well  beloved  in 
Christ,  your  desire  to  enter  the  island  of  Ireland 
in  order  to  bring  that  people  into  subjection  to 
laws,  and  to  exterminate  the  nurseries  of  vices  from 
the  country ;  and  that  you  are  willing  to  pay  to 
St.  Peter  an  annual  tribute  of  one  penny  for  every 


12       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

house  there,  and  to  preserve  the  ecclesiastical  rights 
of  that  land  uninjured  and  inviolate.  We  there- 
fore, meeting  your  pious  and  laudable  desire  with 
the  favour  which  it  deserves,  and  graciously 
according  to  your  petition,  express  our  will  and 
pleasure  that,  in  order  to  widen  the  bounds  of  the 
Church,  to  check  the  spread  of  vice,  to  reform  the 
state  of  morals  and  promote  the  inculcation  of 
virtuous  dispositions,  you  shall  enter  that  island 
and  execute  therein  what  shall  be  for  the  honour 
of  God  and  the  welfare  of  the  country.  And  let 
the  people  of  that  land  receive  you  in  honourable 
style  and  respect  you  as  their  Lord.  Provided 
always  that  ecclesiastical  rights  be  uninjured  and 
inviolate,  and  the  annual  payment  of  one  penny 
for  every  house  be  secured  for  St.  Peter  and  the 
Holy  Roman  Church. 

"  If,  then,  you  shall  be  minded  to  carry  into 
execution  the  plan  which  you  have  devised  in  your 
mind,  use  your  endeavour  diligently  to  improve 
that  nation  by  the  inculcation  of  good  morals ; 
and  exert  yourself,  both  personally  and  by  means 
of  such  agents  as  you  employ  (whose  faith,  life,  and 
conversation  you  have  found  suitable  for  such  an 
undertaking),  that  the  Church  may  be  adorned 
there,  that  the  religious  influence  of  the  Christian 
faith  may  be  planted  and  grow  there,  and  that  all 
that  pertains  to  the  honour  of  God  and  the  salva- 
tion of  souls  may,  by  you,  be  ordered  in  such  a 
way  as  that  you  may  be  counted  worthy  to  obtain 


IRISH  CULTURE  13 

from  God  a  higher  degree  of  recompense  in  eternity, 
and  at  the  same  time  succeed  in  gaining  upon  earth 
a  name  of  glory  thoughout  all  generations." 

IRELAND'S  REAL  CONDITION. 

It  is  impossible  to  accept  for  a  moment  the 
description  of  Ireland  as  portrayed  in  this  famous 
Bull.  Conquerors,  colonists,  planters,  whether 
Danes,  Anglo-Normans,  Elizabethan  or  Crom- 
wellian  English,  conformed  in  an  incredibly  short 
time  to  the  habits  of  the  native  Irish,  adopting 
their  language,  dress,  pastimes,  system  of  law  and 
land  tenure,  methods  of  warfare,  manners  and 
customs  in  trade,  commerce,  and  all  the  phases  of 
social  life.  The  new-comers  became  more  Irish 
than  the  Irish.  Had  the  people  been  mere  ignorant 
savages,  sunk  in  sloth,  irreligion,  and  vice,  such  a 
change  could  not  by  any  possibility  have  taken 
place.  Moreover,  it  is  well  known  that  from  the 
fifth  to  the  tenth  century  Ireland  excelled  in  piety 
and  learning.  Her  missionaries  spread  all  over 
Britain,  Gaul,  and  Northern  Europe.  She  had 
developed  an  architecture  of  her  own ;  relatively 
to  many  other  nations  she  was  far  advanced  in 
learning  and  in  the  arts,  and  she  had  a  considerable 
trade.  Civilization  and  progress  were  checked  for 
a  time  by  the  Scandinavian  raids,  but  for  a  time 
only.  The  Danes,  like  everybody  else,  became 
incorporated  with  the  nation,  settling  in  seaport 
towns,  paying  tribute  to,  or  exacting  tribute  from, 


14       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

the  native  chiefs.  A  great  revival  took  place 
in  the  twelfth  century.  Trade  and  commerce 
flourished  exceedingly.  With  the  exception  of 
such  necessaries  of  life  and  manufacture  as  salt 
and  Spanish  iron  ore,  nearly  the  whole  of  a  large 
import  trade  consisted  of  luxuries  for  the  consump- 
tion of  the  rich,  testifying  to  the  volume,  nature, 
and  variety  of  the  home  manufactures  and  raw 
produce  exported  in  exchange.  The  trade  was 
carried  in  native  ships.  It  was  the  actual  and 
potential  wealth  of  a  fairly  civilized  people,  not  the 
poverty  of  naked  savages,  that  attracted  the  Plan- 
tagenet  Sovereigns  and  the  hosts  of  adventurers 
that  flocked  to  Ireland. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  a  country  which  had 
attained  to  such  a  height  of  prosperity  could  have 
sunk  to  the  lowest  depths  of  barbarism  at  the  time 
Adrian  IV.'s  Bull  was  issued.  The  fact  probably  is 
that  it  was  framed  on  insufficient  and  faulty  evi- 
dence. The  Pope  was  an  Englishman,  and  may  have 
been  prejudiced  in  favour  of  the  King  of  England. 
It  was  not  an  easy  matter  in  those  days  to  ex- 
amine into  allegations  concerning  the  spiritual, 
moral,  and  material  welfare  of  a  people  situated  so 
far  from  Rome.  Doubtless  many  garbled  state- 
ments and  untruthful  accounts  were  submitted  to 
the  Pope,  and  accepted  without  critical  examination 
on  the  spot.  Moreover,  substantial  reasons  for  the 
interference  of  Rome  must  have  existed.  Ireland 
was  to  acknowledge  financial  obligations  to  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL  CUSTOM  15 

Holy  See,  and  a  tribute  to  St.  Peter  of  one  penny 
annually  for  every  house  in  Ireland  is  twice  stipu- 
lated in  the  Bull.     How  far  Ireland  had  differed 
in  matters  theological  or  in  Church  discipline  is  a 
matter  apart  from  my  purpose ;  but  I  may  point 
out  that  Ireland's  first  conflict  with  the   outside 
world  was  in  connection  with  ecclesiastical  custom. 
Ireland    received   with    Christianity  the   Eastern 
tradition   and   custom.     Two  great  Apostles  and 
great  men — St.  Columcille,  who  converted  Scot- 
land and  England,  and  who  came  within  measur- 
able distance  of  founding  a  peaceful  federation  of 
Scots,  Picts,  and  Saxons  ;  and  Columbanus,  who 
laboured  so  successfully  in  Gaul — used  the  Eastern 
tonsure  and  observed  the  Eastern  date  of  Easter. 
In  the  matter  of  custom  Ireland  was  with  difficulty 
brought  into  line.     The  dead  temporal  Empire  of 
Rome  had   bequeathed   to   its   spiritual  successor 
the  old  Imperial  idea  that  everything  outside  the 
Empire  was  remote,  barbarous,  and  savage.    During 
the  national  revival  that  took  place  after  the  over- 
throw of  Scandinavian  power  in  1015,  the  Church 
in  Ireland  threw  off  the  authority  of  Canterbury. 
The  Church  in  England  was  directly  under  the 
authority  of  Rome,  and  the  Church  in  Ireland  had 
been  under  the   authority  of  Canterbury.     It   is 
probable  that  the  difficulty  experienced  in  inducing 
the  Church  in  Ireland  to  adopt  Western  custom 
and    dates,    and    the    independence    of    England 
claimed  by  the  Primate  of  Armagh,  account  fully 


16       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

for  the  desire  of  successive  Popes  to  see  Ireland 
brought  under  English  rule.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
it  would  appear  that  when  Henry  invaded  Ireland 
under  sanction  of  the  Papal  Bull  his  commission 
was  recognized  by  the  Church.  He  was  welcomed 
by  the  hierarchy,  though  not  by  the  people,  and 
the  native  chiefs  who  resisted  him  found  themselves 
arrayed  against  the  forces  of  his  knights  and  men- 
at-arms,  supported  by  the  moral  influence  of  the 
Church. 

Henry  did  not  effect  the  conquest  of  Ireland, 
He  received  the  homage  of  filibustering  Barons 
who  had  preceded  him,  and  of  a  few  native  chiefs  ; 
and  if  wise  methods  had  been  pursued,  it  is  likely 
enough  that  the  overlordship  of  the  King  of 
England  would  have  been  gradually  and  quietly 
acquiesced  in.  Henry  was  a  far-sighted  man,  and 
with  sufficient  opportunity  he  might,  on  the  sub- 
stratum of  the  existing  land  tenure,  law,  and  custom, 
have  laid  a  foundation  on  which  Ireland  could  have 
built  herself  up  in  amity  with  England ;  but  time 
was  lacking  to  him.  Very  shortly  after  the  inva- 
sion of  Ireland  "in  the  proper  spirit  of  a  Catholic 
Prince  "  by  this  "  son  well  beloved  in  Christ "  "  the 
illustrious  King  of  the  English "  was  ordered  to 
France  to  make  expiation  for  the  murder  of 
Thomas  a  Becket. 

The  expedition  of  Henry  II.  has  been  styled  a 
conquest ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  did  not  effect  a 
permanent  occupation  or  settlement  of  any  kind. 


A  NOMINAL  CONQUEST  17 

and  the  purely  nominal  character  of  the  con- 
quest may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  three 
centuries  later  English  rule  was  confined  to 
Dublin  and  a  little  district  not  thirty  miles  broad 
surrounding  it. 

ANNIHILATIONS  UNDER  THE  TUDORS. 
Though  Ireland  had  reached  a  comparatively  high 
level  of  civilization  in  culture,  recognized  law  and 
custom,  trade,  manufacturing  and  commerce,  she 
had  not,  at  the  time  of  the  Anglo-Norman  settle- 
ments, emerged  from  the  tribal  state.  No  man  had 
arisen  of  sufficient  strength  to  found  and  perpetuate 
a  lasting  dynasty,  and  weld  the  people  into  a  nation 
acting  under  one  head ;  nor  did  the  Anglo-Norman 
invasion  alter  this  primitive  condition  of  affairs. 
The  principal  men  among  them  acquired  vast 
territories  by  marriage  or  by  the  sword,  and  by  the 
sword  they  held  them,  adopting  Irish  law  and 
custom  and  becoming  more  Irish  than  the  Irish 
themselves.  They  fought  each  other,  they  fought 
the  native  chiefs ;  and  the  native  chiefs  fought  each 
other  and  fought  the  Anglo-Normans. 

The  fact  that  the  King  of  England  became  the 
overlord  of  Ireland  made  but  little  difference.  His 
authority  was  for  a  long  time  confined  to  the  Pale 
in  theory,  and  in  practice  was  not  very  definitely 
asserted  even  there.  It  was  slowly  shrinking  up  to 
the  time  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  it  was  not  until  the 
reign  of  that  monarch  that  a  determined  effort  was 

2 


18       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

made  to  subdue  the  country  by  means  of  a  settled 
policy,  which  was  carried  out  with  ruthless  vigour  by 
his  great  successor,  Queen  Elizabeth.  The  object 
was  the  introduction  of  "shiring  "  —to  substitute  the 
ownership  of  the  Crown  for  the  ownership  of  the 
people  in  the  land  and  the  imposition  of  feudal 
taxes  at  the  will  of  the  Sovereign  in  lieu  of  tribal 
dues  at  the  will  of  the  people ;  and  the  policy 
pursued  was  to  achieve  this  end  gradually  and 
cautiously  by  dealing  with  Ireland  piecemeal  and 
by  stirring  up  strife  among  native  chiefs  and  Anglo- 
Norman  lords.  In  pursuance  of  this  policy  the 
Earl  of  Kildare  was  declared  attainted  in  1536,  and 
the  greater  part  of  Leinster  was  confiscated.  In 
1570  Shane  O'Neill  was  declared  an  outlaw,  and 
the  greater  part  of  Ulster  was  forfeited,  and  in  1586 
the  same  fate  befell  the  greater  part  of  Munster— 
the  territory  of  the  Earl  of  Desmond.  The  method 
employed  was  the  extermination  of  the  native  race 
by  the  sword  and  by  the  destruction  of  all  means 
of  subsistence,  and  the  ruin  of  all  commerce  and 
trade.  There  was  no  war  in  the  modern  sense  of 
the  term.  It  was  not  a  struggle  between  England 
and  Ireland,  or  between  rival  Sovereigns.  There 
was  no  Ireland  to  struggle  against,  and  no  Irish 
King,  though  two  great  native  leaders  might,  under 
more  favourable  circumstances,  have  aspired  to  that 
dignity,  and  might  have  secured  it. 

These  wars  are  usually  styled  rebellions.    I  know 
not  why,  for  in  truth  there  is  little  justification  for 


EXTERMINATION  NOT  WAR        19 

the  term.  Rebellion  is  an  attempt  to  overthrow 
some  ruler,  or  dynasty,  or  definite  form  of  actual 
government.  English  rule  in  Ireland  was  little 
more  than  nominal.  The  claim  of  the  Sovereign 
of  England  to  the  sovereignty  of  Ireland  rested 
upon  a  Papal  Bull  not  accepted  by  the  people  of 
Ireland.  It  was  not  justified  by  effective  posses- 
sion, and  in  resisting  it  the  native  chiefs  were  not 
acting  in  rebellion.  They  were  endeavouring  to 
preserve  an  independence  that  had  not  been  wrested 
from  them.  The  wars  of  Elizabeth,  and  those  of 
preceding  reigns,  consisted  of  a  series  of  campaigns 
against  native  chiefs  in  various  parts  of  the  country 
—campaigns  in  which  native  chiefs  and  the  great 
Anglo-Norman  families  freely  participated,  aiding 
the  forces  of  the  Queen  or  those  of  the  so-called 
rebellious  chiefs,  with  a  strict  impartiality  founded 
upon  their  conception  of  the  course  which  was  most 
likely  to  be  advantageous  to  themselves.  The 
rebellion  of  Tyrone  may  be  cited  as  an  example. 
Shane  O'Neill,  in  his  struggle  for  supremacy  in 
Ulster,  which  he  actually  acquired,  had  arrayed 
against  him  the  English  forces  of  the  Deputy 
(Lord-Lieutenant),  the  great  Anglo-Norman  lords 
Clanricarde,  Desmond  and  others,  his  neighbours 
the  O'Reillys,  O'Donnells,  Maguires,  and  his  own 
brother.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  re- 
bellion of  Desmond,  when  fertile  Munster  was 
depopulated  and  utterly  laid  waste.  Ormond  was 
opposing  Desmond,  Clanricarde  assisting  him ; 


20       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

native  chiefs  were  arrayed  on  either  side,  fighting 
sometimes  on  one  side  and  sometimes  on  the  other. 
The  Elizabethan  wars  were  not  dynastic  or  racial 
in  the  sense  of  being  waged  by  England  against 
Ireland ;  but  they  were  racial  in  their  main  object, 
the  destruction  of  the  Irish  race,  an  end  which, 
it  was  craftily  thought,  could  be  best  attained  by 
encouraging  the  Irish  to  destroy  each  other.  Nor 
were  they  wars  of  religion.  Queen  Mary,  a  zealous 
Catholic,  took  care  to  keep  the  Church  lands  in 
her  hands,  and  showed  little  consideration  for  the 
"mere  Irish,"  carving  two  counties  out  of  the 
territories  of  native  chiefs.  Besides,  it  is  admitted 
by  Roman  Catholic  historians  that  Elizabethan 
persecutions  were  directed  against  enemies  to  her 
sovereignty  and  not  against  Roman  Catholics  as 
such.  Many  Irish  Catholics  served  with  her  forces. 

IRELAND  ON  ITS  DEFENCE. 

The  real  cause  of  war  was  twofold.  Ireland 
was  looked  upon  as  a  menace  to  England,  not  on 
account  of  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  the 
Irish,  but  because  Ireland  offered  splendid  strate- 
gical advantages  to  France  and  Spain,  and  in  order 
to  ensure  against  a  foreign  lodgment  in  Ireland  the 
complete  subjugation  of  the  country  was  determined 
upon.  The  wars  may  be  deemed  of  a  religious 
character  in  that  they  were  waged  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  Catholic  Ireland  being  invaded  by 
Catholic  Spain  and  France.  It  cannot  be  pre- 


ENGLISH  MOTIVES  21 

tended  that  the  necessity  felt  by  England  to 
protect  herself  by  the  complete  subjugation  of 
Ireland,  and  her  desire  to  bring  that  island  under 
English  law,  tenure,  and  custom,  was  unnatural  or 
illegitimate,  when  judged  by  the  moral  standards 
which  then  prevailed  and  the  possible  dangers 
which  confronted  English  rulers.  England,  a  com- 
paratively small  and  weak  kingdom,  was  entering 
upon  a  titanic  struggle  with  the  greatest  Empire  of 
the  day.  The  Reformed  Religion  was  struggling 
for  its  life.  English  Catholics  had  been  absolved 
from  their  allegiance  to  a  heretic  Sovereign.*  Self- 
preservation  is  the  first  of  all  laws,  and  England 
felt  herself  justified  in  acting  upon  it. 

But  self-preservation  was  not  the  only,  nor  even 
the  principal,  motive  for  the  wars.  Cupidity,  the 
lust  for  land,  "  land-grabbing  "  on  a  gigantic  scale, 
actuated  both  the  Sovereign  and  the  thousands  of 
armed  adventurers  who  flocked  to  Ireland.  The 
Sovereign,  coveting  the  dues  receivable  under  the 
feudal  despotic  theory  that  the  land  belonged  to  the 
Crown,  desired  to  substitute  that  system  for  the 
Irish  democratic  theory  that  the  land  belonged  to 
the  people.  The  outburst  of  the  spirit  of  adventure 
which,  reaching  its  zenith  during  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth, urged  English  captains  across  the  ocean  into 

*  The  Bull  of  Pius  V.  recites :  "  We  do  declare  her  to  be 
deprived  of  her  pretended  title  to  the  kingdom  aforesaid  .  .  . 
and  also  the  nobility,  subjects,  and  people  of  the  said  kingdom, 
and  all  others  which  have  in  any  way  sworn  to  her  to  be  for  ever 
absolved  from  any  such  oath." 


22       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

conflict  with  the  greatest  naval  power  in  the  world, 
found  a  nearer  and  more  profitable  field  in  Ireland. 

It  is  a  curious  commentary  upon  human  inexacti- 
tude that  at  a  time  when  English  writers  described 
Ireland  as  a  miserable  island  inhabited  by  half- 
naked  savages,  the  potential  wealth  of  the  country 
attracted  English  adventurers  more  powerfully 
than  did  the  untold  riches  of  the  New  World.  To 
take  the  spoils,  to  hold  the  land,  and  to  substitute 
English  for  Irish  tenure,  were  active  motives  of 
aggression — to  keep  the  land  and  to  retain  the 
native  tenure  were  the  motives  of  defence. 

The  substitution  of  English  for  Irish  tenure  was 
viewed  with  mixed  feelings  by  those  interested  in 
the  land.  To  the  Chief  Paramount  the  change 
presented  certain  advantages.  He  surrendered  the 
tribal  territory,  in  which  he  had  but  a  limited 
interest,  and  that  for  life  only,  and  received  it  back 
from  the  Crown  as  a  feudal  lord,  absolute  owner 
of  the  soil  under  the  Crown,  and  with  descent  to 
his  heirs,  which  to  many  was  a  great  consideration. 
Some  of  the  principal  Irish  chiefs  showed  but  little 
reluctance  in  handing  over  the  lands  of  their  sept, 
and  with  them  their  position  and  names  as  native 
chiefs,  and  in  receiving  the  land  back  as  a  titled 
feudatory  of  the  Crown.  But  the  subordinate 
chiefs  and  people  took  a  very  different  view.  The 
petty  chief  found  his  dignity  lowered,  his  indepen- 
dence curtailed,  and  his  material  welfare  diminished. 
The  position  of  the  tribesmen  under  native  law  and 


LOSS  OF  TRIBAL  TENURE  23 

custom  was  infinitely  superior  to  that  offered  them 
under  English  tenure,  and  the  tribesmen  and  lesser 
chiefs  were,  as  a  rule,  bitterly  opposed  to  the  action 
of  the  superior  chief  in  surrendering  their  territories 
to  the  Crown.  This  was  the  cause  of  the  rebellion 
of  Tyrone.  Conn  O'Neill  surrendered  his  vast  terri- 
tories and  received  them  back  as  Earl  of  Tyrone. 
Shane  O'Neill  protested  against  action  taken 
without  the  consent  of  the  minor  chiefs  and  people. 
The  people  and  subordinate  chiefs  supported  him, 
and  in  the  long  struggle  Ulster  was  wasted  and 
stripped  to  the  bone. 

CAUSES  OF  DISCORD. 

Speaking  broadly,  and  taking  a  general  view  of 
the  situation,  the  elements  of  discord  were  three- 
fold. The  natural  desire  of  England  to  secure  her- 
self against  foreign  enemies  by  holding  complete 
control  over  Ireland ;  the  greed  of  English  adven- 
turers seeking  for  confiscated  land  ;  the  determina- 
tion to  make  shire  land  of  tribal  land  and  obtain 
feudal  taxes  by  converting  Irish  tenure  into 
English  tenure,  and  the  vehement  resistance  of  the 
people,  who  were  much  better  off  under  the  Irish 
system. 

Throughout  all  these  hideous  times,  during 
which  the  fairest  provinces  were  wrecked  and 
ruined  by  war,  pestilence  and  famine,  to  such  an 
extent  that  the  survival  of  the  Irish  race  seems 
miraculous,  there  was  no  question  of  a  struggle 


24       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

between  England  and  Ireland  as  between  two 
embattled  nations.  Native  Irish  chiefs  and  the 
great  Anglo-Norman  lords  gave  their  aid  to  the 
foreigner  when  it  served  their  own  territorial 
aggrandizement  or  enabled  them  to  pay  off  old 
scores  against  their  neighbours.  Ireland  had  no 
identity  as  a  nation.  There  was  no  national  re- 
sistance ;  it  was  a  case  of  dog  eating  dog,  and  the 
lion  devouring  both. 

This  matter  has  been  gone  into  with  some  little 
detail,  because  the  causes  that  made  resistance  so 
desperate  and  so  futile  then  may  be  traced  in 
operation  all  through  Irish  history  up  to  the  present 
day.  Landownership  has  ever  been  the  main 
cause  of  trouble  in  Ireland,  and  disunion  her 
greatest  curse. 

The  wars  of  Elizabeth,  and  those  immediately 
preceding  her  reign,  were  conducted  with  revolt- 
ing atrocity.  But  in  common  justice  the  circum- 
stances in  which  Elizabeth  found  herself  placed 
must  be  taken  into  account. 

The  history  of  England  in  Ireland  has  been 
characterized  by  two  periods  of  exceptionally 
violent  persecution,  first  under  Elizabeth  and  later 
under  Charles  I.  and  Cromwell — persecution  so 
horrible  and  so  unjustifiable  except  by  fraud  as  to 
have  left  almost  indelible  marks  upon  both  the 
English  and  the  Irish  character.  Inherited  contempt 
for  the  Irish  born  of  arrogant  ignorance,  and 
inherited  hatred  due  in  part  to  too  narrow  a  view 


CONDITIONS  IN  EUROPE  25 

of  history,  stand  in  the  way  of  that  mutual  respect 
that  must  be  antecedent  to  complete  reconciliation 
of  the  two  peoples.  It  is  very  necessary,  therefore, 
to  cast  a  glance  at  the  conditions  in  which  England 
was  placed  before  sketching  out  the  Elizabethan 
wars  and  those  of  the  Commonwealth. 

It  is  usual  to  look  at  the  Elizabethan  wars  as 
isolated  historical  incidents  in  the  struggle  between 
England  and  Ireland,  but  they  really  form  a 
portion  of  the  story  of  Europe  during  the  centuries 
when  the  whole  continent  was  convulsed  by 
religious  war.  In  the  thirteenth  century  the 
Albigenses  were  obliterated.  A  war,  described 
by  Macaulay  as  "distinguished  even  among  wars 
of  religion  by  merciless  atrocity,  destroyed  the 
Albigensian  heresy,  and  with  that  heresy  the 
prosperity,  the  civilization,  the  literature,  the 
national  existence  of  what  was  once  the  most 
opulent  and  enlightened  part  of  the  great  European 
family."  Hundreds  were  burned  alive,  while 
thousands  perished  by  the  sword  or  the  rope.  In 
Spain  (Andalusia),  in  1481,  3,000  persons  were 
burnt  alive,  and  17,000  suffered  other  penalties. 
In  1546  Protestants  were  bitterly  persecuted  in 
Scotland  and  Germany.  All  these  facts  were  fresh 
in  men's  memories  when  in  1553  Mary,  who  sub- 
sequently married  Philip  of  Spain,  ascended  the 
throne,  and  England  came  under  the  sway  of  a 
Sovereign  who  signalized  her  ascension  by  reversing 
all  the  Acts  of  Edward  VI.  and  inaugurating  a 


26       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

period  of  Protestant  persecution.  During  her  reign 
Protestantism  was  banned.  One  Archbishop,  four 
Bishops,  and  some  300  humbler  believers  in  the 
Reformed  Religion  were  burned,  and  many  others 
died  in  prison. 

THE  ELIZABETHAN  PERSECUTIONS. 

The  ashes  of  Smithfield  were  scarcely  cold  when, 
in  1558,  Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne  determined 
to  uphold  the  Reformed  Religion.  Her  motives, 
however  interesting  in  historical  research,  need 
not  be  investigated  here.  The  persecutions  of 
Protestants  by  Mary  and  of  Catholics  by  Elizabeth 
were,  it  is  safe  to  say,  not  solely  or  principally 
directed  by  religious  zeal.  The  fact  of  value, 
however,  remains  that  Elizabeth,  in  identifying 
herself  and  England  with  the  cause  of  Protestant- 
ism, sympathized  strongly  with  the  sufferings  of 
Protestants  in  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  and 
Southern  and  Central  Germany ;  and  that  in 
championing  Protestantism  she  incurred  the  bitter 
enmity  of  all  the  great  powers,  and  especially 
of  Spain,  the  greatest  world-empire  of  those  days. 
The  Duke  of  Alva,  Lieutenant  of  King  Philip  of 
Spain,  was  carrying  red  ruin  through  the  Low 
Countries,  and  the  appeals  of  the  Dutch  for  aid 
rang  in  English  ears.  Admiral  Coligny,  together 
with  about  500  noblemen  and  gentlemen,  and 
nearly  10,000  persons  of  inferior  rank,  lured  to 
destruction  by  promise  of  safety  shamefully  vio- 


FEAR  OF  CATHOLICISM  27 

lated,  perished  in  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew 
in  Paris  alone ;  many  thousands  more  were  mas- 
sacred in  other  parts  of  the  country,  and  the  bitter 
cry  of  the  remnant  was  borne  across  the  narrow 
seas.  English  sea-captains  waged  a  sort  of  private 
war  against  Spain,  and  brought  back  tales  of  the 
horrors  of  the  Inquisition.  Catholic  Queen  Mary 
of  Scotland  harassed  England  in  the  north.  English 
Catholics  were  absolved  from  their  allegiance  to 
the  heretic  Elizabeth.  England,  a  little  power, 
insignificant  as  compared  with  Spain  or  France, 
was  fighting  desperately  for  her  independence,  her 
religion,  and  her  life.  She  stood  alone  among  a 
host  of  enemies  struggling  against  overwhelming 
odds,  and  rising  to  the  occasion,  she  held  her  own. 
In  spite  of  the  honourable  fact  that  some  of 
Elizabeth's  most  gallant  and  successful  leaders 
against  the  power  of  Spain  were  Catholics,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  under  such  circumstances 
Catholicism  became  synonymous  with  enemy,  nor 
is  it  strange  that  the  success  of  a  feeble  folk  against 
tremendous  odds  should  have  raised  natural  pride 
to  unnatural  arrogance,  and  should  have  engendered 
inordinate  contempt  for  peoples  whose  manners, 
customs,  race,  language,  and  religion  differed  from 
their  own. 

Such  were  the  political  conditions  actively 
operating  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and  they 
did  not  greatly  vary  during  the  Commonwealth. 
Religious  warfare  continued  during  the  reign 


28       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

of  James  I.,  "the  wisest  fool  in  Christendom," 
when  Catholic  Spain  continued  her  machinations 
against  England.  Protestantism  in  Europe  during 
the  reigns  of  James  I.  and  Charles  I.  was  still 
fighting  for  its  life.  After  the  execution  of 
Charles  I.,  his  eldest  son,  a  Catholic  at  heart, 
though  nominally  a  Protestant,  was  proclaimed 
King  of  Scotland  and  afterwards  of  Ireland,  where 
the  sympathies  of  the  people  were  strongly  set 
against  the  Puritan  regime.  Protestantism  was 
still  in  danger,  and  Catholic  Ireland  had  thrown  in 
her  lot  with  the  Royalists.  It  was  in  these  circum- 
stances, at  a  moment  when  England  was  still  the 
object  of  Spanish  intrigue  and  attack,  when  a  life 
and  death  struggle  with  the  Dutch  was  imminent, 
and  she  could  not  afford  to  have  enemies  on  her 
own  hearth,  that  Cromwell  set  out  with  his  army 
to  Ireland,  and  it  must  not  be  forgotten — though 
it  usually  is — that  he  afterwards  devoted  his  atten- 
tion with  equal  severity  to  Scotland  also. 

Albeit  the  Reformed  Religion  was  struggling 
against  tremendous  odds  ;  although  England  was 
menaced  by  the  most  powerful  Empire  of  those  days, 
and  the  Protestant  Queen  of  England  had  good 
cause  to  dread  Catholicism  in  arms,  and  although 
war  was  then  customarily  conducted  with  a  savage 
cruelty  repugnant  to  our  modern  ideas,  still  no 
excuse  can  be  offered  for  the  treachery  and  brutality 
employed  in  the  effort  to  extirpate  the  Irish  people. 

Deliberate  murder  under  the  pretence  of  hospital- 


TREACHERY  AND  BRUTALITY  29 

ity,  the  wholesale  slaughter  of  defenceless,  unarmed 
men,  women  and  children,  the  universal  destruction 
of  cattle,  sheep,  crops  and  all  means  of  subsistence, 
were  the  methods  deliberately  employed. 

A  RECORD  OF  TREACHERY. 

A  few  instances  must  suffice.  After  many  years 
of  struggle  peace  was  made  in  1563  between  Shane 
O'Neill  and  the  Viceroy.  Ancient  feuds  were  to 
be  forgotten,  and  all  enmity  was  to  be  laid  aside. 
As  a  token  of  goodwill  the  Viceroy  sent  a  present 
of  wine  to  O'Neill.  The  wine  was  poisoned,  and  a 
dastardly  and  very  nearly  successful  attempt  was 
made  to  murder  one  of  the  greatest  Irish  leaders 
under  the  guise  of  friendship  and  in  time  of  peace. 

Another  Viceroy,  Essex,  accepted  the  hospitality 
of  Sir  Brian  O'Neill.  After  the  banquet  the  house 
was  surrounded  by  soldiers,  O'Neill  and  his  wife 
and  brother  were  sent  to  Dublin,  where  they  were 
subsequently  executed,  and  all  their  friends  and 
retainers  were  massacred  in  cold  blood. 

Seventeen  prominent  Irish  gentlemen  were 
invited  to  supper  by  a  personal  friend  of  the 
Viceroy,  and  every  one  of  them  stabbed  to  death 
on  rising  from  the  table. 

Over  and  over  again  Viceroys  or  their  lieu- 
tenants broke  faith  with  the  native  chiefs  who 
made  their  submission.  Conditions  of  peace  were 
not  observed.  Such  violations  of  the  commonest 
canons  of  humanity  and  civilization  cannot  under 


30       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

stress  of  any  circumstances  be  condoned  ;  but  they 
fulfilled  their  purpose.  Men  who  would  have  been 
only  too  glad  to  sit  quietly  at  home  in  peace  were 
driven  into  desperate  rebellion,  and  hungry  adven- 
turers were  accommodated  with  confiscated  land. 

The  wars  against  the  Irish,  as  conducted  by 
Pelham,  Carew,  Gilbert,  Mountjoy  and  others, 
were  wars  of  extermination.  The  slaughter  of 
Irishmen  was  looked  upon  as  the  slaughter  of 
noxious  wild  beasts,  and  neither  honour  nor 
humanity  was  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  pro- 
ject of  destroying  the  native  race.  Women  and 
children  were  deliberately  butchered.  No  quarter 
was  granted,  and  crops,  cattle  and  all  means  of 
human  subsistence  were  destroyed  in  order  that 
starvation  should  account  for  the  few  who  escaped 
the  sword  or  the  flames. 

Spenser,  the  gentle  poet,  writing  of  the  wretched 
remnants  of  the  inhabitants  of  Munster,  describes 
how — "  Out  of  every  corner  of  the  woods  and  glens 
they  came  creeping  forth  upon  their  hands,  for 
their  legs  would  not  bear  them ;  they  looked  like 
anatomies  of  death ;  they  spoke  like  ghosts  crying 
out  of  their  graves ;  they  did  eat  the  dead  carrions, 
happy  where  they  could  find  them ;  yea,  and  one 
another  soon  after,  inasmuch  as  the  very  carcasses 
they  spared  not  to  scrape  out  of  their  graves." 

Holinshed  speaks  of  the  land  as  being  "  Populous, 
well  inhabited,  rich  in  all  the  good  blessings  of 
God,  being  plenteous  of  corn,  full  of  cattle,  well 


A  RAVENING  REMNANT  31 

stored  with  fish  and  other  commodities,"  before  the 
wars.  "  Now,"  he  says,  "  it  has  become  so  barren 
that  whoever  did  travel  even  from  Waterford  to 
the  head  of  Smerwick,  which  is  about  six  score 
miles,  he  would  not  meet  any  man,  woman  or  child, 
saving  in  towns  or  cities,  nor  yet  see  any  beasts 
but  the  very  wolves,  foxes  and  other  like  ravening 
beasts."  "The  people,"  he  adds,  "were  not  only 
driven  to  eat  horses,  dogs,  and  dead  carrion,  but 
also  did  devour  the  carcasses  of  dead  men."  Arch- 
bishop Usher  declares  that  women  were  accus- 
tomed to  lie  in  wait  for  a  passing  rider  and  to 
rush  out  like  famished  wolves  to  kill  and  devour 
his  horse. 

From  "Dingle  to  the  rock  of  Cashel  not  the 
lowing  of  a  cow  nor  the  voice  of  the  ploughman 
was,"  according  to  the  annals  of  the  Four  Masters, 
"  to  be  heard."  The  troops  of  Sir  Richard  Percie 
"left  neither  corn  nor  barn  nor  house  unburnt 
between  Kinsale  and  Ross.  The  troops  of  Captain 
Harvie  did  the  like  between  Ross  and  Bantry." 
The  troops  of  Sir  Charles  Wilmot,  entering  without 
resistance  a  camp  containing  only  wounded  and 
sick  men,  killed  them  all. 

The  Lord  President  speaks  with  much  satisfac- 
tion of  diverting  his  forces  to  a  part  of  Munster 
where  fugitives  were  harbouring,  and  of  harassing 
the  country,  killing  all  mankind,  burning  houses 
and  corn,  and  leaving  neither  man,  beast,  corn  nor 
cattle  behind  him. 


32       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

The  bands  of  Pelham  and  Ormond  "  killed  blind 
and  feeble  men,  women,  boys  and  girls,  sick  persons, 
idiots  and  old  people." 

IN  THE  PATH  OF  THE  "  CONQUERORS." 

In  Desmond's  country,  after  all  resistance  had 
ceased,  the  Irish  Annalists  describe  how  men  and 
women  were  forced  into  old  barns  and  burnt ;  how 
soldiers  were  used  "to  take  up  infants  on  the 
points  of  their  spears  and  to  whirl  them  about  in 
their  agony  ";  and  how  women  were  found  "  hang- 
ing on  trees  with  their  children  at  their  breasts, 
strangled  with  their  mothers'  hair."  It  was  boasted 
that  in  all  the  wide  territories  of  Desmond  not  a 
town,  castle,  village  or  farmhouse  was  unburnt,  and 
an  English  official  computed  that  in  six  months 
more  than  30,000  persons  had  been  starved  to 
death,  without  counting  those  who  had  been  hanged 
or  burnt,  or  who  had  perished  by  the  sword. 

Fain  would  one  accuse  the  Irish  annalists  of 
exaggeration,  but  the  charge  cannot  honestly  be 
made,  for  their  accounts,  horrible  as  they  are,  have 
been  fully  borne  out  by  Spenser,  Holinshed  and 
other  English  authorities. 

Such  was  the  condition  to  which  the  fairest 
province  of  Ireland  was  reduced  by  the  English, 
aided  by  Irish  hands. 

The  process  of  annihilation  was  not  confined  to 
Munster.  Ulster  suffered  in  much  the  same  way. 
Men,  women  and  children,  the  young,  the  old,  the 


THE  SWORD  AND  FAMINE  33 

strong,  the  feeble,  the  armed  and  the  unarmed, 
were  given  to  the  sword,  the  rope,  or  the  flames. 
Cattle,  crops  and  all  means  of  subsistence  were 
destroyed.  We  have  the  same  ghastly  tales  to 
read  of  children  seen  eating  their  dead  mothers' 
flesh,  or  women  lighting  fires  to  attract  children 
whom  they  murdered  and  devoured  ;  of  "  thousands 
of  poor  dead  filling  the  ditches  and  waste  places, 
their  mouths  all  green  from  eating  nettles  and 
docks  and  all  such  things  as  they  could  rend  above 
ground."  Those  who  escaped  the  sword  succumbed 
to  famine,  and  Ulster  was  subdued.  Elizabeth 
was,  with  perfect  truthfulness,  assured  that  she  had 
little  left  to  reign  over  in  Ireland  but  ashes  and 
carcasses.  It  cannot  be  wondered  at  that  such 
awful  visitations  left  behind  them  a  legacy  of  bitter 
hatred  and  revenge.  But  in  justice  it  must  be 
admitted  that  England  was  not  alone  to  blame. 
Red  ruin  followed  on  the  footsteps  of  the  native 
chiefs.  Elizabeth's  armies  were  largely  composed 
of  Irish  serving  in  the  ranks,  and  Irish  chiefs  in  all 
these  wars  fought  in  alliance  with  her  against  their 
own  countrymen  and  the  independence  of  their 
native  land.  If  Ireland  has  much  to  forgive 
England,  as  in  sooth  she  has,  Irishmen  have  also 
much  to  forgive  each  other. 

The  strange  thing  about  these  wars  of  annihila- 
tion is  their  transitory  physical,  and  enduring  moral 
effect.  It  seems  incredible  that  a  race  so  utterly 
destroyed  by  sword,  fire  and  famine  did  not  abso- 


34       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

lutely  perish,  and  that  provinces  so  devastated 
could  have  ever  recovered.  But  the  race  did  not 
perish.  In  spite  of  all,  the  native  Irish  survived, 
gathered  strength  again  and  retilled  their  wasted 
lands.  The  vitality  and  persistence  of  the  people 
is  little  short  of  miraculous.  Annihilation  was  tried, 
God  only  knows  with  what  desperate  thoroughness, 
but  it  failed. 

Though  the  wars  of  Munster  and  Ulster  did  not 
produce  enduring  physical  results,  their  moral  effects 
have  lasted  to  this  day.  This  fact,  though  at  first 
sight  it  may  seem  surprising,  in  view  of  the  com- 
parative ease  with  which  similar  outrages  in  other 
countries  have  been  forgotten,  is,  I  think,  easy  to 
account  for.  The  confiscations  which  followed 
upon  them,  concerning  which  more  will  be  said 
later  on,  must  be  taken  into  consideration.  Other 
countries — Scotland,  for  instance — have  suffered  as 
much  and  in  a  similar  way,  though  not  for  so  long. 
England  has  been  burnt  and  wasted,  and  land  has 
been  confiscated,  but  not  the  whole  soil  of  the 
country ;  and  the  confiscated  lands  were  not  granted 
to  people  alien  in  race  and  religion,  and  to  mere 
adventurers,  as  was  the  case  in  Ireland.  In  Ireland, 
submission  involved  the  conversion  of  tribal  territory 
to  shire  land — the  substitution  of  the  ownership  of 
the  Crown  for  the  ownership  of  the  people  ;  the  in- 
troduction of  the  sheriff  and  the  collector  of  feudal 
dues  and  taxes ;  the  abolition  of  Brehon  law, 
tanistry,  and  all  the  tribal  customs  and  privileges 


PHYSICAL  AND  MORAL  EFFECTS     35 

to  which  the  people  were  deeply  attached,  and  to 
which  they  tenaciously  clung.  Sentiment  was 
outraged,  and  in  wrenching  asunder  sentimental 
ties,  the  material  prosperity  of  the  people  received 
a  double  blow.  The  change  of  tenure  substituted 
the  sovereignty  of  an  unknown  personage,  with  un- 
known and  unknowable  powers  of  taxation,  for  that 
of  the  familiar  head  of  the  clan  with  powers  strict]y 
defined  by  universally  acknowledged  common  law 
and  custom ;  it  deprived  the  clansmen  of  valu- 
able rights  and  privileges  secured  to  them  under 
native  laws. 

IRELAND'S  LAND  HUNGER. 

Land  has  ever  been  the  passion  of  the  Irish,  and 
when  confiscation  took  place,  all  but  a  few  natives, 
retained  for  menial  purposes,  were  driven  off  the 
soil,  and  their  places  taken  by  strangers  in  law, 
customs,  race,  language,  and  religion.  The  ex- 
tirpation of  the  race,  the  assertion  of  sovereignty, 
and  the  acquisition  of  land,  were  the  objectives  01 
these  wars.  The  suppression  of  religion  had  really 
little  to  do  with  them,  but  the  feeling  was  wide- 
spread that  Elizabeth  aimed  at  destroying  both 
religion  and  race.  The  people  felt  themselves 
ruthlessly  crushed  in  a  struggle  for  race,  land,  and 
faith — for  everything  dear  to  them  in  connection 
with  this  world  and  the  next. 

But  what  seems  to  have  rankled  deeper  than  all 
else  in  the  minds  of  generations  of  men  was  the 


36       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

scorn  and  contempt  in  which  the  Irish  were  held. 
They  were  in  truth  looked  upon  as  mere  savages, 
if  indeed  superior  to  brute  beasts.  The  phrase, 
"  To  kill  an  Irishman  is  no  felony,"  may  have  had, 
as  Lecky  points  out,  its  origin  in  the  native  Brehon 
law,  under  which  manslaughter  \vas  purged  by 
money  payment,  but  it  had  a  deep  and  horrible 
significance.  The  estimation  in  which  the  Irish 
were  held  may  be  gathered  from  the  conduct  of 
those  martial  English  monks  who  held  it  to  be  no 
more  sin  to  kill  an  Irishman  than  to  kill  a  dog,  and 
who  would  not  refrain  from  celebrating  Mass  red- 
handed  from  the  slaughter  of  a  native.*  To  be  styled 
"  mere  Irish  "  conveyed  supreme  contempt.  It  was 
a  taunt,  and  a  taunt  without  a  shade  of  justification 
in  the  facts.  The  false  estimate  made  of  the  "  wild 
Irish  "  was  partly  due  to  ignorance,  prejudice,  and 
narrow-minded  views.  Current  accounts  in  Eng- 
land were  largely  derived  from  the  descriptions  of 
ignorant  persons  travelling  through  large  districts 
in  which  every  growing  thing,  and  nearly  every 
living  creature,  had  been  destroyed.  The  picture 

*  See  "  Lecky,"  vol.  i.,  p.  4,  n.  3.  Quoting  from  Richey's 
"  Lectures  on  Irish  History,"  second  series,  p.  69,  Richey  declares 
that  the  distinction  between  English  and  Irish  infected  even  the 
monasteries.  He  describes  the  abbeys  along  the  marches  of  the 
Pale  as  being  more  useful  as  block-houses  than  for  any  other 
purpose,  and  wonders  how  "  English  monks  could  be  found  to 
assert  that  even  if  it  should  happen  to  them,  as  it  often  did 
happen,  to  kill  an  Irishman,  they  would  not  for  that  refrain  from 
the  celebration  of  the  Mass  even  for  a  single  day." 


NATIONAL  CHARACTERISTICS      37 

was  a  false  presentment  of  the  country  as  a  whole, 
for  during  all  these  miserable  times  agriculture 
flourished  wherever  it  was  safe  from  the  wanton 
scythe  and  torch,  and  trade  and  commerce  pros- 
pered wherever  free  from  pillage  and  the  sword. 
The  arrogance  of  a  strong  and  conquering  race 
displayed  itself  in  contempt  for  language,  dress,  and 
customs  that  differed  from  their  own,  and,  more- 
over, justification  for  spoliation  was  needed.  To 
dispossess  and  slaughter  mere  savages  seemed  a 
comparatively  pardonable  offence.  Certainly  the 
Irish  were  infinitely  inferior  to  the  English  in  many 
of  the  qualities  making  for  success,  in  common 
obedience  to  a  central  authority,  in  cohesion,  in 
armament,  in  the  art  of  war,  and  in  definite  purpose 
and  discipline.  It  is  true  also  that  art  and  learning 
had  declined  and  languished  during  years  of  per- 
petual strife.  But  in  natural  characteristics,  physical 
and  moral,  in  courage,  fortitude,  endurance,  fidelity, 
and  intelligence,  in  toleration,  fair  dealing  and 
the  sense  of  justice,  the  Irish  were,  to  say  the  very 
least  of  it,  not  inferior  to  their  enemies  ;  and  many 
of  their  leaders,  notably  Hugh  O'Neill  and  Shane 
O'Neill,  showed  the  highest  military  capacity  and 
statesmanship. 

From  some  English  writers  a  true  account  of  the 
Irish  people  may  be  gathered.  An  English  "  under- 
taker," or  planter,  describing  the  people,  wrote: 
"  The  better  sorte  are  very  civil  and  honestly  given, 
the  most  of  them  greatly  inclined  to  husbandry, 


38       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC, 

hospitable  also.  Although  they  will  never  see  you 
before,  they  will  make  you  the  best  cheer  their 
country  yeildeth  for  two  or  three  days  and  take 
not  anything  therefore — they  keep  their  promises 
faithfully — they  are  quick  witted  and  of  good 
constitution  of  bodie — they  are  obedient  to 
the  laws."  And  this  description  was  given  of  the 
people  only  four  years  after  the  wasting  of  Des- 
mond and  the  confiscation  and  granting  of  land, 
amounting  to  nearly  600,000  acres,  to  English 
settlers. 

"DEFEND  ME  AND  SPEND  ME." 

According  to  the  authority  of  Sir  John  Davies, 
there  was  "  No  nation  or  people  under  the  sun  that 
doth  love  equal  or  indifferent  justice  better  than 
the  Irish,  or  will  rest  better  satisfied  with  the 
execution  thereof  although  it  be  against  themselves, 
so  as  they  may  have  the  protection  and  benefit  of 
law  when  upon  just  cause  they  may  desire  it.' 
"  Defend  me  and  spend  me  "  was,  according  to  the 
English  "  undertaker  "  mentioned  above,  a  common 
phrase  among  the  Irish.  What  might  not  have 
been  done  with  such  people  had  they  been  pro- 
perly treated  ?  Had  English  sovereignty  asserted 
itself  in  consonance  with  the  Irish  conception  of  the 
rights  of  free  men  and  with  even  an  elementary 
regard  for  justice,  fair  play,  honest  dealing  and 
humanity,  the  ravages  of  war  would  soon  have 
been  obliterated.  What  a  different  spectacle  would 


A  CREED  OF  DEFIANCE  39 

the  pages  of  history,  and  the  present  condition  of 
Ireland,  present !  But  English  policy  ran  on  very 
different  lines.  Contempt  of  the  "mere  Irish" 
coloured  it  throughout,  and  it  may  perhaps  be 
somewhat  rash  to  say  that  that  uncharitable  and 
unjustifiable  sentiment  has  entirely  died  out  among 
the  ignorant  in  England,  and  even  among  some 
who  ought  to  know  better  in  Ireland  itself. 

Land  hunger  was  the  curse  of  English  rule. 
The  deprivation  by  any  means,  fair  or  foul,  by 
force  or  fraud,  of  native  owners,  and  the  planting 
in  their  places  of  Scotch  or  English,  many  of  them 
"  the  scum  of  both  countries,"  was  its  object,  and 
it  succeeded,  with  the  result  that  the  nobles  and  all 
others  that  were  able  to  do  so  fled  the  country, 
carrying  with  them  education,  culture  and  leader- 
ship ;  but  leaving  behind  them  and  bequeathing  to 
their  children  the  seeds  of  bitter  hate. 

Such  of  the  people  as  survived  were  driven  to 
adopt  the  life  of  marauders  and  rapparees,  and, 
while  adhering  to  their  own  native  law  and  custom, 
brought  up  their  children  in  the  creed  of  defiance 
of  all  the  authority  and  law  substituted  for  them. 
Extirpation  of  the  Irish,  not  their  conduct  into 
acknowledgment  of  English  authority,  was  the 
motive  ;  and  the  means  adopted  were  indiscriminate 
slaughter,  the  wasting  of  all  substance,  the  con- 
fiscation of  land,  the  destruction  of  industries  and 
trade.  By  these  means  it  was  hoped  to  exterminate 
the  race ;  and,  lest  any  source  of  contamination 


40       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

should  remain,  stringent  penalties  and  savage 
laws  were  passed  against  intermarriage,  fosterage, 
the  use  of  Irish  names,  language,  customs  and 
law. 

"  It  was  manifest,"  says  Sir  John  Davies,  the 
Attorney-General  of  King  James,  "that  such  as 
had  the  government  of  Ireland  under  the  Crown 
of  England  did  intend  to  make  a  perpetual  separa- 
tion and  enmity  between  the  English  and  Irish, 
pretending  no  doubt  that  the  English  should  in 
the  end  root  out  the  Irish."  They  failed  signally 
in  the  latter  pretence  ;  but,  alas,  in  creating  enmity 
their  efforts  were  crowned  with  unqualified  success. 

THE  BROKEN  FAITH  OF  THE  CROWN. 

The  next  annihilation  took  place  during  the 
Commonwealth.  It  must  not,  however,  be  sup- 
posed that  Ireland  enjoyed  in  the  interval  any 
period  of  repose.  "  Land-grabbing,"  as  it  would 
now  be  called,  was  carried  on  with  the  same  rapacity 
and  by  the  same  unrighteous  means.  The  country 
was  overrun  with  greedy  adventurers.  The  in- 
famous trade  of  "  Discoverers  "  prospered  greatly.* 

*  Goldwin  Smith  writes  :  "  The  disinheritance  of  the  ancient 
race  was  carried  on  not  only  by  high-handed  violence,  but  by  a 
system  which  became  a  trade  of  the  meanest,  most  infamous 
chicane.  A  set  of  miscreants  called  '  Discoverers '  made  it  their 
business  to  spy  out  technical  flaws  in  titles  to  land,  in  order  that 
the  estates  might  be  judged  to  escheat  to  the  Crown,  from  which 
grants  of  them  were  afterwards  obtained,  in  many  instances  by 
the  informers  or  their  employers." 


«  LAND-GRABBING  "  41 

During  the  years  and  generations  of  confiscations, 
deprivations,  conquests,  re  -  conquests,  reprisals, 
restorations,  burnings  and  general  destruction, 
title  to  land  had  become  inextricably  confused. 
The  business  of  the  "  Discoverer  "  was  to  discover, 
or  invent,  some  flaw  in  title,  and  to  hale  up  un- 
fortunate proprietors  to  prove  their  rights — in  the 
vast  majority  of  cases  an  absolute  impossibility, 
however  valid  the  title  might  really  be.  Docu- 
ments, charters  and  rolls,  dated  so  far  back  as  the 
reign  of  Henry  II.,  were  ransacked,  and  trumped- 
up  charges  derived  from  them.  A  sub-trade  of 
perjury  developed,  and  where  danger  of  the  truth 
appearing  was  feared,  witnesses  were  tortured  into 
giving  false  evidence.  Contracts  and  the  plain 
word  of  the  Sovereign  were  broken.  The  most 
notable  instance,  both  on  account  of  its  magnitude 
and  inequity,  occurred  in  Connaught,  and  must 
suffice  as  an  example.  In  1585  Sir  John  Perrot, 
one  of  the  ablest,  and,  according  to  his  lights,  one 
of  the  very  few  just  and  honourable  men  who 
presided  over  Irish  affairs,  carried  out  a  measure 
for  the  settlement  of  the  Province  known  as 
"The  Composition  of  Connaught."  The  main 
features  of  the  arrangement  were  that  the  chiefs 
and  Lords,  "the  nobility  spiritual  and  temporal," 
were  to  surrender  their  titles  and  hold  their  estates 
direct  from  the  Crown  in  consideration  of  dis- 
charging certain  military  duties  and  paying  certain 
stipulated  Crown  rents ;  that  the  people,  "  the 


42       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

mean  freeholders  and  tenants,"  were  to  be  freed 
from  pecuniary  and  other  obligations  to  the  chiefs, 
and  were  to  hold  also  directly  from  the  Crown,  on 
payment  of  a  Crown  rent  fixed  at  10  shillings  a 
quarter  of  land  that  bore  "  corn  or  horn";  that 
common  land  was  to  remain  common  land,  and 
was  to  be  used  in  common  and  not  subdivided. 
The  settlement  was  in  fact  a  compromise  between 
the  Irish  tribal  and  the  English  feudal  systems.  It 
deprived  the  sept  of  the  right  of  election  of  the 
chief.  It  introduced  the  hereditary  system,  and 
confirmed  chiefs  in  the  absolute  possession  of  the 
lands  allotted  to  them.  But  it  also  confirmed  the 
people  in  the  ownership  of  their  tenancies,  and 
relieved  them  from  all  exactions  on  the  part  of  the 
chiefs.  It  secured  the  people  in  the  common  use 
of  the  common  land  of  the  sept.  It  was,  therefore, 
as  has  been  stated,  a  compromise  between  the  Irish 
and  the  Norman  systems.  Under  the  former,  the 
territory  belonged  to  the  tribe  and  was  periodically 
apportioned  between  the  chiefs  and  notables  and 
the  tribesmen,  and  the  tribesmen  elected  their  head. 
The  latter  system,  as  applied  to  Ireland,  vested  the 
whole  of  the  tribal  land  in  the  chief  under  the 
Crown,  made  the  office  hereditary  and  reduced  the 
tribesmen  to  the  condition  of  "villains,"  or  serfs. 

The  Composition  of  Connaught  was  satisfac- 
tory to  the  people,  and  generally  so  to  the  chiefs. 
The  De  Burgos  alone  resisted  it  by  force  ;  but  they 
eventually  came  in.  It  was  a  just  settlement.  It 


THE  COMPOSITION  43 

did  not  interfere  inequitably  with  the  substances 
of  the  chiefs  and  Lords.  It  created  a  peasant  pro- 
prietary. It  was  the  prototype  of  the  Land  Act  of 
1903.  It  was  a  wise  settlement.  Had  the  con- 
version of  Irish  tenure  into  the  English  tenure,  and 
the  transfer  of  allegiance  from  the  tribal  chief  to 
the  English  Crown,  been  universally  conducted 
on  these  lines,  the  history  of  Ireland  would  have 
been  very  different,  for  land  tenure,  including  the 
whole  of  Irish  law  and  custom,  has  ever  been  the 
cause  of  Irish  wars,  Irish  rebellion,  Irish  unrest, 
and  Irish  discontent. 

The  settlement  gave  peace  to  Connaught  while 
it  lasted  ;  but  it  did  not  last  long.  The  Crown,  as 
usual,  broke  faith.  The  lords  and  gentry  of  Con- 
naught  may  be  blamed  for  carelessness,  in  that, 
trusting  in  the  settlement,  they  were  content  with 
punctual  payment  of  their  dues  to  the  Crown,  and 
were  neglectful  of  the  costly  and  dilatory  process 
of  enrolling  their  surrenders  and  taking  out  their 
patents.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  defect  was  remedied 
by  King  James,  who  issued  a  commission  which 
legalized  the  surrenders  and  enrolled  the  patents, 
on  payment  of  fees  amounting  to  the  then  con- 
siderable sum  of  £3,000. 

Nevertheless,  to  gratify  the  lust  for  confiscation 
and  to  raise  money,  a  Plantation  of  Connaught 
similar  to  that  of  Ulster  was  determined  upon.  It 
was  discovered  that,  by  pure  neglect  of  the  officials 
of  the  Court  of  Chancery,  the  patents  had  not  been 


44       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

duly  enrolled  in  that  Court,  and  on  this  technical 
flaw  the  titles  to  the  whole  land  of  the  Province, 
though  guaranteed  under  the  King's  Seal,  were 
declared  to  be  invalid  and  the  land  to  be  vested  in 
the  Crown.  The  King,  however,  was  to  be  bribed. 
The  proprietors  offered  to  pay  double  their  annual 
compositions,  and  a  sum  of  £10,000  down,  for  a 
new  confirmation  of  title ;  and  as  those  payments 
were  calculated  to  be  as  much  as  the  plantation  of 
the  Province  would  have  yielded,  the  money  was 
accepted.  The  confirmation  was  not  granted,  but 
doubtless  it  would  have  been  but  for  the  death  of 
the  King. 

CHARLES  I.  AND  THE  "GRACES." 

One  last  effort  was  made  by  the  gentry  of  Ire- 
land to  purchase  justice.  One  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand  pounds — an  enormous  sum  in  those  days, 
and  considering  the  impoverished  condition  of  the 
country — was  offered  in  consideration  of  certain 
terms,  called  "  Graces."  The  most  important  of 
these  "Graces"  were  :  That  sixty  years'  undisputed 
possession  should  be  good  title  against  older  claims 
on  the  part  of  the  Crown  ;  that  the  Composition 
of  Connaught  should  hold  good ;  that  "  Popish 
recusants "  should,  without  taking  the  Oath  of 
Supremacy,  be  permitted  to  sue  for  livery  of  their 
estates  in  the  Court  of  Arches*  and  to  practise  in 

*  Livery  is  confirmation  of  title  by  the  Crown  as  overlord, 
the  same  to  be  sued  out  in  the  Court  of  Arches,  now  confined  to 
dealing  with  ecclesiastical  cases. 


THE  KING  AND  THE  GENTRY       45 

the  courts  of  law.  The  terms  of  the  landed  gentry 
were  accepted.  The  promise  of  King  Charles  I. 
was  given.  The  "  Graces "  were  transmitted  as 
instructions  to  the  Deputy  (the  Lord-Lieutenant) 
and  the  Council ;  and  the  Government  engaged 
that  the  estates  of  all  landed  proprietors  would  be 
formally  conveyed  to  them  by  the  Irish  Parliament. 
After  the  subsidies  had  been  paid,  Went  worth 
(afterwards  Lord  Strafford),in  absolute  violation  of 
the  King's  word  and  of  instructions  to  his  Deputy 
and  Council,  and  without  the  faintest  shadow 
of  excuse,  deliberately  withdrew  the  principal 
articles  of  the  "Graces,"  viz.,  the  limitation  of 
Crown  claims  by  sixty  years'  undisputed  possession, 
and  the  legality  of  the  Composition  of  Connaught. 

Thus  by  this  act  of  perfidy  the  last  hope  of  the 
landed  gentry  was  destroyed.  It  may  be  added 
that  Wentworth  and  the  King  were  at  least  im- 
partial in  their  iniquity  and  lust  for  gold.  The 
Plantation  of  Connaught  was  to  be  undertaken  to 
the  ruin  of  the  Irish  proprietors  and  in  violation  of 
a  sacred  pledge,  and  at  the  same  time  the  London 
companies  to  whom  the  county  of  Londonderry 
had  been  granted  were  sued  for  some  purely 
technical  breach  of  their  charter  and  fined 
£70,000. 

It  would  be  difficult  under  any  circumstances, 
and  it  is  impossible  in  a  sketch  such  as  this,  to 
unravel  and  analyze  the  passions  and  motives 
underlying  the  struggles  of  the  next  few  years,  and 


46       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

the  various  influences  at  work.  The  actions  of  the 
Earl  of  Cork  and  of  his  relatives  and  friends  are 
instructive.  Richard  Boyle,  the  great  Earl  of 
Cork,  was  the  most  successful  of  all  the  Elizabethan 
"  Undertakers."  He  owned  and  developed  the 
greater  part  of  Munster.  With  his  military 
tenants  he  fought  the  Irish  insurgents  with  con- 
spicuous courage  and  ability.  He  was  guardian  of 
the  young  Earl  of  Kildare,  had  him  educated  in 
England,  and  married  him  to  one  of  his  daughters, 
and  Kildare,  the  head  of  the  great  Geraldine  family, 
remained  staunch  to  the  English  cause.  It  speaks 
volumes  for  the  traditional  fidelity  of  the  Irish  that 
though  Kildare  refused  to  join  them,  they  would 
not  plunder  him.  Lady  Kildare  describes  how, 
when  they  occupied  his  town  of  Maynooth,  "  they 
used  my  lord  with  all  the  civility  in  the  world,  and 
would  say  if  his  provisions  were  all  gold  nobody 
should  touch  it."  The  head  of  the  Barry  clan, 
Lord  Barrymore,  also  married  a  daughter  of  Lord 
Cork,  and  held  throughout  with  the  English.  On 
the  other  hand,  many  of  the  Earl's  intimate  friends, 
Lord  Muskerry,  Lord  Mountgarret,  and  others, 
espoused  the  Irish  cause.  What  we  should  now 
style  a  Low  Churchman,  the  Earl  was  inclined  to 
Puritanism,  but  at  the  same  time  he  was  intensely 
loyal  to  the  King.  To  uphold  the  planters — the 
work  of  his  life — against  the  dispossessed  Irish  was 
the  mainspring  of  his  action,  and  when  the  King 
made  peace  with  the  Irish  the  old  man  sickened 


WAR  ON  CATHOLICISM  47 

and  died.  His  son,  Lord  Ossory,  became  recon- 
ciled with  Cromwell,  and  supported  Richard 
Cromwell  in  the  government  of  Ireland  as  long 
as  he  could.  Finding  Cromwell's  position  hope- 
less, he  wrote  inviting  Charles  II.  to  land  in 
Cork.  The  vicissitudes  of  this  one  family  may 
serve  to  give  some  idea  of  the  confusion  existing  in 
Ireland. 

AGRARIAN  AND  RACIAL  TROUBLES. 

As  had  been  almost  invariably  the  case  in  Ire- 
land, the  main  causes  of  trouble  were  agrarian  and 
racial.  The  Irish,  whether  of  native  or  Anglo- 
Norman  extraction,  had  learned  by  bitter  experi- 
ence that  no  reliance  could  be  placed  upon  the 
covenants  of  Kings.  They  saw  that  another 
determined  effort  was  to  be  made  to  deprive  them 
of  their  lands,  even  if  held  under  good  title  from 
the  Crown,  and  thus  to  root  out  the  Irish  race  ;  and 
as  the  objects  of  Parliament  became  clearly  defined, 
they  realized  that  Catholicism  was  also  to  be  de- 
stroyed. Submission,  good  behaviour,  legal  title, 
bribery,  had  availed  them  nothing,  and  recourse  to 
arms  seemed  the  only  course  to  pursue.  But  they 
embarked  upon  it  with  great  reluctance.  They 
were  Royalists,  and  in  most  instances  devotedly 
attached  to  the  Crown;  but  the  policy  of 
Charles  I. — carried  out  with  such  determination  by 
his  deputy,  Wentworth — to  make  himself  the  abso- 
lute ruler  of  Ireland  as  a  step  to  establishing  a 


48       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

despotism  in  England  and  enabling  him  to  defy 
Parliament,  and  the  determination  to  obtain  money 
by  any  means,  however  nefarious,  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  that  purpose,  eventually  drove  loyal 
men  into  rebellion. 

On  October  22,  1641,  Ulster  broke  out  into  a 
war  of  reprisals,  into  a  desperate  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  people  to  regain  the  lands  from  which 
they  had  been  expelled. 

The  struggle  was  agrarian  there,  and  took  on  a 
religious  appearance  solely  because  the  ousted  were 
of  the  Catholic  and  the  planters  of  the  Protestant 
faith.  Panic,  consequent  upon  a  conspiracy  to 
massacre  all  the  Protestants,  has  been  alleged  in 
extenuation  of  the  savage  brutality  of  the  soldiers 
and  of  the  inhuman  orders  issued  by  their  com- 
manders. Such  was  not  the  object  of  the  rebellion, 
and  the  accounts  of  massacres  were  grossly  ex- 
aggerated. 

It  has  been  asserted  by  historians,  so-called,  that 
in  two  years  300,000  Protestants  were  murdered  in 
cold  blood  or  destroyed  in  some  other  way,  or 
expelled  from  their  houses.  No  murders  or  mas- 
sacres are  even  alleged  to  have  taken  place  in 
walled  towns.  Three  hundred  thousand  is  ten 
times  the  number  of  Protestants  living  outside  of 
walled  towns,  and  exceeds  by  one-third  the  total 
number  of  Protestants  living  in  all  Ireland. 

According  to  the  very  best  authorities,  the  total 
number  of  murders  was  about  8,000.  No  reason 


AGRARIANISM  IN  ULSTER          49 

whatever  exists  for  supposing  that  the  destruction 
of  Protestantism  was  the  objective  of  the  Ulster 
rising.  It  was  purely  agrarian.  Religion  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  was  a  desperate  attempt 
on  the  part  of  landless,  starving  people  to  repossess 
themselves  of  their  lands,  and  as  the  planters  on 
those  lands  were  Protestants,  Protestants  suffered. 
It  was  to  some  extent  racial  also.  The  Scotch 
planters  were  not  at  first  molested.  Speaking  of 
the  whole  insurrection,  Clogy  says  :  "  The  Irish 
hatred  was  greater  against  the  English  nation  than 
against  their  religion.  The  English  and  Scotch 
Papists  suffered  with  the  others.  The  Irish  sword 
knew  no  difference  between  a  Catholic  and  a 
heretic." 

If  ever  people  had  a  just  cause  of  quarrel  it  was 
the  people  of  Connaught,  for  they  fought  for  the 
Composition  solemnly  guaranteed  to  them,  and  for 
their  titles  in  which  they  were  legally  secured. 

Munster  very  reluctantly  drew  the  sword,  as  the 
only  possible  means  of  avoiding  confiscation  of  the 
soil  and  the  extirpation  of  religion  and  race,  and  it 
was  not  until  some  time  later  that  the  nobility  and 
gentry  of  the  Pale  were  forced  for  religious  freedom's 
sake  to  adopt  the  same  course. 

Amid  this  tumultuous  sea  of  trouble,  curious 
cross-currents  made  themselves  felt.  The  Catholics 
of  the  Pale  were  devotedly  loyal  to  the  King, 
against  whose  forces  they  fought ;  so  were  many  in 
Connaught,  and  among  them  the  most  powerful 


50       ANNIHILATIONS,  AVARS,  ETC. 

noble,  Clanricarde.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of 
Munster. 

Speaking  broadly,  in  Munster  the  struggle  was 
racial  and  agrarian.  Men  strove  to  keep  their  land 
and  thereby  to  preserve  their  existence.  In  Ulster 
it  was  agrarian  and  racial  also,  but  with  this  differ- 
ence :  men  fought  to  repossess  themselves  of  con- 
fiscated lands.  In  Connaught  it  was  agrarian  and 
legal :  men  sought  to  regain  the  Composition 
they  had  bought  and  paid  for.  In  Leinster  it 
was  agrarian  and  racial,  but  within  the  Pale 
religious. 

As  the  power  of  the  King  waned  and  the  power 
of  Parliament  waxed,  religion  entered  more  into 
the  struggle.  Lands  in  Ireland,  which  had  been 
by  fraud  and  legal  fiction  declared  forfeited  by  the 
King,  were  put  up  and  sold,  by  public  auction,  by 
the  Parliament  to  speculators  and  adventurers  in 
London.  The  design  to  destroy  the  race  by  con- 
fiscation and  plantation  was  evident  to  all,  and  that 
it  was  the  fixed  intention  of  Parliament  to  destroy 
Catholicism  became  also  plain.  Thus  race,  religion, 
and  land  were  all  involved,  and  every  element  that 
can  add  bitterness  to  human  strife  was  brought  into 
play.  Into  the  harrowing  details  of  the  struggle  it 
is  unnecessary  to  go  at  length.  Atrocities  were 
committed  on  both  sides,  but  both  sides  were  not 
equally  guilty.  Slaughter  was  the  rule  on  one 
side ;  it  was  the  exception  on  the  other.  The 
English  troops  were  disciplined  men  under  control, 


THE  IRISH  "REBELS"  51 

and  when  massacres  were  committed  by  them 
it  was  in  accordance  with  orders.  The  Irish 
"Rebels,"  though  comprising  some  disbanded 
soldiers,  were  on  the  whole  little  better  than  an 
undisciplined,  ill-armed,  half-starved  rabble,  suffer- 
ing under  intolerable  injustice,  and  when  outrages 
were  committed  by  them  it  was  contrary  to 
orders. 

Ormond  burnt  a  great  tract  of  the  Pale,  17  miles 
long  by  25  miles  broad,  and  because  he  would  have 
saved  the  houses  of  those  gentlemen  who  made 
their  submission,  was  rebuked  and  peremptorily 
ordered  to  make  no  exceptions.  Sir  William  Cole 
reports  the  exploits  of  his  regiment  in  Ulster  in  the 
pithy  sentence — "  Starved  and  famished  of  the 
vulgar  sort,  whose  goods  were  seized  on  by  this 
regiment,  7,000." 

Munster  was  perfectly  quiet  until  driven  into 
rebellion  by  savage  and  promiscuous  slaughter 
under  St.  Leger,  who  boasted  that  he  would  revenge 
in  Munster  the  crimes  that  had  been  committed  in 
Ulster.  A  great  number  of  people,  the  inhabitants 
of  several  villages,  who  had  taken  refuge  on  a  hill 
covered  with  thick  furze,  were  surrounded  by  Sir 
Arthur  Loftus,  who  had  the  furze  fired  on  all  sides, 
and  the  whole  of  the  people — men,  women,  and 
children — were  burnt  or  killed. 

Genera]  Preston  speaks  of  the  soldiers — "De- 
stroying by  fire  and  sword  men,  women,  and 
children,  without  regard  to  age  or  sex."  "The 


52       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

soldiers,"  says  Carte,  "  in  executing  the  orders  of  the 
Justices,  murdered  all  persons  promiscuously." 

By  Acts  of  Parliament  passed  in  England  and  in 
Scotland  no  quarter  was  to  be  given  to  the  Irish 
who  came  to  England  to  the  King's  aid.  Great 
numbers  of  Irish  soldiers  were,  in  consequence, 
butchered  on  the  field  or  in  prisons.  Those  taken 
at  sea  were  tied  back  to  back  and  flung  into  the 
waves.  Eighty  women  and  children  were  in  one 
day  thrown  over  a  bridge  and  drowned  in  Scotland, 
their  sole  offence  being  that  they  were  the  wives 
and  children  of  Irish  soldiers.  The  same,  and  more, 
inhuman  orders  were  ruthlessly  carried  out  in 
Ireland. 

Even  in  Leinster,  where  assuredly  no  massacre 
of  Protestants  had  taken  place,  the  orders  issued  to 
the  soldiers  were  not  only  to — "kill  and  destroy 
rebels  and  their  adherents  and  relievers,  but  to 
burn,  waste,  consume,  and  demolish  all  the  places, 
towns,  and  houses  where  they  had  been  relieved 
and  harboured,  with  all  the  corn  and  hay  therein, 
and  also  to  destroy  all  the  men  there  inhabiting 
capable  of  bearing  arms." 

Would  to  Heaven  the  actualities  of  war  had 
been  confined  even  to  those  brutal  instructions  that 
ordered  the  destruction  of  all  human  sustenance 
and  of  men  unarmed  but  capable  of  bearing  arms, 
but  they  were  not.  Women  were  not  spared,  nor 
small  children,  and  the  saying  in  justification,  "  that 
nits  will  make  lice,"  came  into  use. 


IRISH  ATROCITIES  53 

ENGLISH  AND  IRISH  CONTRASTED. 
That  the  Irish  were  guilty  of  excesses  is  un- 
doubtedly true ;  but  there  is  this  to  be  said — the 
murders  and  horrible  atrocities  attributable  to  them 
were  the  acts  of  undisciplined,  frantic  men,  and 
were  almost  invariably  contrary  to,  and  not,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  English  troops,  in  accordance 
with  the  orders  of  their  leaders.  Exceptions 
occurred.  Sir  Phelim  O'Neill,  though  at  first 
humane,  was  guilty  at  last  of  acts  of  barbarous 
cruelty.  After  an  unsuccessful  attempt  on  the 
castle  of  Augher,  he  ordered  all  the  English  and 
Scotch  in  three  parishes  to  be  killed,  and  in  breach 
of  the  terms  of  the  Capitulation  of  Armagh,  killed 
100  persons,  burnt  the  town  and  cathedral,  fired  the 
villages  and  houses  in  the  neighbourhood,  and  mur- 
dered many  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes.  Lecky,  it 
is  true,  considers  these  statements  to  be  exag- 
gerated, and  advances  in  evidence  the  fact  that 
English  prisoners  were  found  alive  in  the  Irish 
camp  when  Owen  Roe  O'Neill  assumed  command 
of  it.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  terrible  atrocities 
were  committed.  We  hear  of  forty  or  fifty  Protes- 
tants in  Fermanagh  being  persuaded  to  apostatize, 
and  then  murdered ;  of  two  houses  crammed  with 
English  and  Scotch  being  burnt,  and  all  within 
them  ;  of  eighty  persons  of  both  sexes  being  thrown 
over  the  bridge  of  Portadown,  and  as  many  more  at 
Corbridge ;  and  other  and  similarly  ghastly  stories 
might  be  told. 


54       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  action  of  the  Irish  leaders 
contrasts,  to  their  infinite  honour,  with  that  of  the 
captains  of  the  English  forces.  Even  Sir  Phelim 
O'Neill,  whose  crimes  are  mentioned  above,  was  at 
the  outset  actuated  by  humanity.  He  did  not  rise, 
as  he  declared  by  a  Proclamation,  against  the  King, 
"  or  for  the  hurt  of  any  of  his  subjects,  either  of  the 
English  or  Scotch  nation,  but  only  for  the  defence 
and  liberty  of  ourselves  and  the  Irish  natives  of  this 
kingdom,"  and  he  pronounced  the  penalty  of  death 
to  any  of  his  followers  who  committed  outrages. 

O'Reilly  showed  humanity  and  good  faith 
throughout.  When  Belturbet  surrendered  to  him, 
he  sent  1,500  persons  out  of  the  town  under  escort 
to  Dublin.  Such  of  the  English  as  placed  them- 
selves under  his  protection  were  conveyed  into  safe 
quarters,  and  those  who  were  in  necessity  were  fed 
and  clothed.  The  castle  of  Cloghoughter  sur- 
rendered to  him  on  honourable  terms,  which  were 
scrupulously  observed.  The  Protestant  Bishop 
Bedell  was  allowed  to  succour  and  shelter  numbers 
of  poor  Protestants  at  a  time  when  the  whole 
country  was  in  the  hands  of  the  rebels,  and  even- 
tually he  and  his  family  and  about  1,200  Protes- 
tants were  sent  under  escort  to  the  English  garrison 
at  Drogheda.  "The  rebels,"  says  Bedell's  biog- 
rapher, who  was  with  him,  "  were  very  civil  to  us 
all  the  way." 

Numbers  of  Protestants  were  sheltered  by  the 
mother  of  Sir  Phelim  O'Neill.  The  distressed  and 


OUTRAGE  DENOUNCED  55 

plundered  English  were  sent  in  great  numbers 
under  convoy  to  Dublin,  Belfast,  and  other  walled 
towns.  Owen  Roe  O'Neill,  who  superseded  Sir 
Phelim  O'Neill,  expressed  the  utmost  horror  of  the 
outrages  his  predecessor  had  permitted.  He  sent 
all  the  English  prisoners  in  safety  to  Dundalk ;  he 
enforced  discipline,  promptly  punished  outrage,  and 
openly  declared  he  would  sooner  join  the  English 
than  allow  outrages  to  go  unpunished. 

In  Connaught,  Clanricarde  and  the  leading 
gentry,  whether  of  English  or  Irish  origin,  strove 
strenuously  to  prevent  devastation,  not  always  suc- 
cessfully, for  100  English  were  brutally  murdered 
at  Shrule  Bridge.  When  Galway  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  rebels,  two  Protestant  Bishops  and 
about  400  English  were  allowed  to  depart  with 
their  effects — "  The  great  care  taken  for  the  security 
thereof,  as  well  as  of  their  persons,  being  acknow- 
ledged by  them." 

When  Waterford,  Clonmel,  Carrick  Magryffid 
were  taken,  there  was  neither  massacre  nor  plunder. 
When  Birr  fell,  the  garrison  and  others,  800  in  all, 
were  suffered  to  leave  in  perfect  safety. 

In  Munster,  when  Lord  Mountgarret,  driven  by 
the  cruelties  and  excesses  of  St.  Leger,  eventually 
took  up  arms,  he  used  every  effort  to  prevent 
outrage,  and  successfully  so  far  as  bloodshed  was 
concerned,  though  not  as  regards  plunder ;  for,  as 
Carte  relates,  "it  was  not  possible  for  him  to  pre- 
vent the  vulgar  sort,  who  flocked  after  him,  from 


56       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

plundering  both  English  and  Irish,  Papist  and 
Protestant,  without  distinction."  "  The  gentlemen 
of  Munster,"  says  the  same  historian,  "were  exceed- 
ingly careful  to  prevent  bloodshed  and  to  preserve 
the  English  from  being  plundered."  And  that  they 
were  in  earnest  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Four 
officers  were  hanged  for  not  having  prevented  some 
murders,  and  a  gentleman  found  plundering  was 
shot  dead  by  Lord  Mountgarret. 

Lord  Clanricarde  speaks  of  the  crime  committed 
in  Ulster  with  the  utmost  abhorence.  "  I  believe 
it  is  the  desire  of  the  whole  nation,"  he  says,  "  that 
the  actors  of  those  crying  sins  should,  in  the 
highest  degree,  be  made  examples  of  to  all  posterity." 
Emphatic  language  for  a  Roman  Catholic  in  re- 
bellion against  the  English  Parliament  to  use. 
But  perhaps  the  case  of  Irish  humanity  is  best 
summed  up  in  the  action  taken  by  a  synod  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Hierarchy  and  Clergy  held  at 
Kilkenny  in  May,  1642,  some  time  after  the  English 
Parliament  had  decreed  the  extirpation  of  Cathol- 
icism in  Ireland.  They  declared  war  against  the 
English  Parliament  for  the  defence  of  the  Catholic 
religion  and  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Royal 
prerogative  to  be  just  and  lawful.  They  directed 
a  well-authenticated  inventory  to  be  made  of  the 
murders,  burnings  and  other  cruelties  committed  by 
their  Puritan  enemies,  and  solemnly  excommuni- 
cated all  Catholics  who  should  be  guilty  of  such 
acts.  They  ordered  that  the  whole  army  should 


THE  TRUCE  OF  1643  57 

take  the  sacrament  once  a  month  and  always  before 
battle.  In  the  instructions  they  issued  to  General 
Preston  it  was  ordered  that  strict  martial  law 
should  prevail,  that  rapes  and  insults  should  be 
promptly  punished,  that  special  care  should  be 
taken  in  camp  and  on  the  march,  "  to  preserve  the 
husbandmen,  victuallers,  and  all  others  of  His 
Majesty's  subjects  from  the  extortions,  pressures, 
violences,  and  abuses  "  of  the  soldiers. 

Such  was  the  spirit  displayed,  and  such  were  the 
orders  issued  on  the  one  side.  In  contrast  with 
the  spirit  and  instructions  animating  and  emanating 
from  the  other,  they  form  a  more  than  sufficient 
rebuke  to  the  ignorant  insolence  that  stigmatized 
the  Irish  as  an  inferior  race. 

The  war  was  not,  as  I  have  endeavoured  to 
show,  of  a  religious  character  in  its  inception. 
Doubtless,  fear  of  the  extirpation  of  Catholicism 
affected  the  whole  country  to  some  extent,  and 
was  the  sole  cause  of  the  rising  within  the  Pale ; 
but  the  main  causes  were  national,  racial  and 
agrarian  at  first.  After  the  declaration  of  the 
English  Parliament  decreeing  the  extirpation  of 
Catholicism,  religion  naturally  became  a  more 
serious  factor,  increasing  in  importance  as  the 
Parliament  gained  strength. 

A  truce  was  signed  between  the  King  and  the 
confederated  Catholics  in  1643,  but  complete  recon- 
ciliation between  the  Irish  and  the  Loyalists  was 
not  effected  until  1649.  It  was  a  barren  peace,  for 


58       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

Irish  and  English  Loyalists  alike  went  down  under 
the  iron  determination  and  military  genius  of 
Cromwell. 

THE  ANNIHILATION  OF  CROMWELL. 

Cromwell  landed  in  Ireland  on  August  15, 
1649,*  and  in  three  years  he  and  his  successors  in 
command  brought  this  disastrous  war  to  a  close. 
The  task  was  not  a  difficult  one,  and  it  was  pur- 
sued with  vigour.  The  settlement  with  the  King, 
protracted  over  many  years  by  the  mistaken 
action  of  the  Papal  envoy,  had  been  too  long 
delayed  to  allow  of  much  concentration  among 
Loyalists.  Ireland  was  split  into  innumerable  fac- 
tions. There  was  no  cohesion  among  leaders,  nor 
did  any  settled  principle  animate  them  or  their 
troops. 

Ormond  and  the  Confederate  Catholics  were  at 
loggerheads.  He  was  for  the  King,  but  was  more 
in  sympathy  with  the  Puritans  than  with  the 
Catholics  in  the  matter  of  toleration  for  their 
religion.  O'Neill  was  in  command  of  the  Con- 
federate forces  in  Ulster  and  Connaught,  Preston 
in  Leinster,  Lord  Muskerry,  after  superseding 
Glamorgan,  in  Munster.  Lord  Inchiquin  with  a 
strong  Parliamentarian  force  ravaged  Munster 
almost  at  will.  Fierce  animosities  arose  be- 
tween Munster  and  Ulster,  the  Munster  officers 

*  Cromwell  left   Ireland  in  May,   1650,  and  from  that  date 
responsibility  rests  upon  his  successors  in  command. 


"  THE  PESTILENTIAL  PEACE  "      59 

declaring  that  they  would  sooner  join  Inchiquin 
or  Ormond  or  the  Turks,  than  be  enslaved  by 
O'Neill. 

The  Parliamentarian  General  Jones  disastrously 
defeated  Preston  in  Leinster ;  and  Inchiquin  was 
equally  successful  in  Munster.  In  the  north  O'Neill 
held  his  own,  but  the  Ormond  faction,  jealous  of 
him,  joined  hands  with  Inchiquin  and  made  a 
"  cessation,"  or  peace,  with  him.  O'Neill  published 
a  proclamation  against  the  cessation,  and  the  Papal 
Nuncio  also  denounced  it,  and,  summoning  such 
Bishops  as  he  could,  issued  a  decree  of  excom- 
munication against  the  "framers  and  abettors  of 
the  pestilential  peace."  Other  Catholics,  Lord 
Castlehaven,  Fennell — a  member  of  the  supreme 
Council — and  eight  Bishops  declared  the  decree  of 
the  Nuncio  null  and  void,  and  proclaimed  O'Neill  a 
rebel. 

In  1649  five  armies,  some  Loyalists,  some  Parlia- 
mentarians, under  Inchiquin,  Claiiricarde,  Preston, 
Jones  and  Munroe,  advanced  against  O'Neill,  who, 
however,  held  his  own. 

The  General  Assembly  declared  O'Neill  to  be 
beyond  the  reach  of  pardon,  and  O'Neill  replied  by 
a  declaration  that  the  General  Assembly  no  longer 
represented  the  Catholic  Confederates.  Ormond, 
who  had  returned  to  Ireland  as  Lord-Lieutenant, 
and  the  General  Assembly,  declared  the  Papal 
Nuncio  a  rebel.  Such  was  the  chaotic  condition  of 
Ireland.  Violent  animosities  between  what  may 


60       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

be  termed  the  old  Irish  in  the  North  and  the  new 
Irish  in  the  South  broke  out. 

Men  were  fighting,  some  for  the  King,  some  for 
Parliament,  some  for  religion,  some  to  hold  their 
lands,  some  to  get  the  land  of  others,  and,  in  pur- 
suance of  whatever  sentiment  predominated,  were 
perfectly  ready  at  any  time  to  change  sides. 
Inchiquin,  a  Parliamentarian,  and  Ormond,  a 
King's  man,  pushed  Monk,  the  General  of  the 
Parliament,  hard  in  the  North.  Monk  begged  for, 
and  received,  aid  from  O'Neill.  Many  of  the  walled 
towns  refused  to  admit  Loyalist  garrisons. 

Of  this  medley  Cromwell  and  his  successors  in 
command  made  short  work. 

It  is  certainly  not  within  my  province  to  attempt 
to  analyze  the  character  of  this  extraordinary  man. 
His  objects  in  Ireland  were  practically  the  same 
as  those  of  his  predecessors,  and  his  methods  were 
the  same.  In  some  respects,  indeed,  he  contrasts 
favourably  with  the  Captains  who  served  under 
Queen  Elizabeth  and  Charles  L,  for  he  was  humane 
where  humanity  did  not  conflict  with  his  religious 
convictions ;  and  he  was  a  strict  disciplinarian. 
His  first  action  in  Ireland  was  to  prohibit  all 
plundering  and  outrages  on  the  part  of  the  soldiers  ; 
but  if  he  discountenanced  outrage  and  cruelty  in 
detail,  he  practised  them  wholesale  with  a  vengeance. 

He  was  a  fanatic  like  Philip  of  Spain,  and,  like 
him,  he  pursued  what  he  deemed  his  mission  with 
ruthless  ferocity.  Philip  thought  himself  appointed 


PROTESTANT  FANATICISM          61 

to  stamp  out  Protestantism,  and,  through  his  agent, 
the  Duke  of  Alva,  waded  through  the  Netherlands 
up  to  his  neck  in  blood.  Cromwell  thought  him- 
self appointed  to  stamp  out  Roman  Catholicism, 
and  shrank  from  nothing  to  accomplish  that  end. 
Nothing  in  history  can  exceed  in  horror  the  sieges, 
captures,  and  massacres  of  Drogheda,  Wexford, 
and  other  places.  Nothing  can  excel  in  thorough- 
ness the  manner  in  which  the  land  was  wasted  by 
famine,  fire,  and  sword. 

By  the  close  of  the  war  in  1652,  between  one- 
third  and  one-half  of  the  population  had  perished. 
Famine  was  universal.  The  stock,  which  had  been 
valued  at  four  millions,  had  sunk  to  half  a  million. 
Corn  had  risen  in  price  from  twelve  to  fifty 
shillings  a  bushel.  Travellers  might  ride  twenty  or 
thirty  miles  without  seeing  a  trace  of  human  life ; 
and  wolves,  rendered  ferocious  by  feeding  on  human 
flesh,  prowled  in  numbers  close  to  the  walls  of 
Dublin.  There  was  no  food  wherewith  to  feed  the 
remnant  of  the  population,  and  leave  was  granted 
to  able-bodied  men  to  quit  the  country,  and  some 
thirty  or  forty  thousand  expatriated  themselves. 
Destitute  men,  boys,  girls,  and  young  women  were 
shipped  off  to  the  West  Indies  and  sold,  such  as 
survived  the  voyage,  to  planters  for  a  term  of 
years. 

CROMWELL'S  RECORD. 

The  devastations  of  war  and  of  religious  per- 
secution, however  cruel,  might  in  time  have  been 


62       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

forgotten.  It  is  the  wholesale  confiscations  follow- 
ing upon  the  war  that  has  placed  an  indelible 
brand  upon  the  name  of  Cromwell  in  Irish  hearts. 

Apart  from  religion,  the  war  was  a  speculation. 
Money  was  supplied  by  adventurers  for  the  conduct 
of  the  war,  for  which  value  was  to  be  received  in 
land.  The  Roman  Catholic  religion  and  the  minis- 
trations of  the  Church  were  absolutely  prohibited, 
and  in  that  respect  Catholics  alone  suffered  ;  but 
the  confiscations  were  carried  out  with  strict  im- 
partiality. Native  Irish,  Anglo-Norman  Irish, 
Anglo-Saxon  Irish,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  were 
all  deprived  of  their  land.  Practically  the  whole  of 
the  soil  of  Leinster,  Munster,  and  Ulster  was  con- 
fiscated and  planted  with  adventurers  and  with 
Puritan  soldiers,  who  were  given  land  in  lieu  of  pay. 

The  remnant  of  the  Irish  people,  rich  and  poor, 
high  and  low,  Protestant  and  Catholic,  without 
reference  to  race,  origin  or  religion,  and  without 
considering  whether  they  had  or  had  not  been  in 
arms,  were  driven  into  Connaught  as  a  "  reserve." 
One  hundred  of  the  nobility,  including  Ormond, 
were  condemned  to  death  and  the  forfeiture  of  the 
whole  of  their  estates.  Other  landowners  who  had 
at  any  time,  in  any  way,  aided  the  King  or  rebels 
against  the  Parliament,  were  deprived  of  their 
estates,  but  were  promised  land  to  the  value  of  one- 
third  of  them  in  Connaught;  but  if  they  had 
served  above  the  rank  of  Major  they  were  banished. 

Those  "  Papists  "  who,  during  the  whole  of  the 


CROMWELL'S  SETTLEMENT         63 

long  war,  had  manifested  "  constant  good  affection 
towards  the  Parliament" — they  must  have  been 
very  few — were  deprived  of  their  estates,  but  were 
promised  land  in  Connaught  to  the  value  of  two- 
thirds  of  them.  The  confiscation  was  practically 
universal.  A  few  harmless  necessary  ploughmen 
were  suffered  to  remain  upon  the  forfeited  lands ; 
the  rest  of  the  population  were  herded  into  Con- 
naught  or  driven  oversea. 

AFTER  THE  RESTORATION. 

The  Restoration  did  little  to  restore  the  rightful 
owners  to  the  soil.  The  Cromwellian  settlement 
was  too  complete.  England  would  not  have 
tolerated  the  forcible  expulsion  of  vast  numbers  of 
English  planters,  and,  moreover,  the  King  would 
have  suffered  pecuniarily  from  the  loss  of  crown 
rents.  Some  futile  attempts  at  justice  were  made  ; 
but,  to  use  the  words  of  Ormond — "  If  the  adven- 
turers and  soldiers  must  be  satisfied  .  .  .  and  if  all 
that  accepted  and  constantly  adhered  to  the  Peace  of 
1648  be  restored  .  .  .  there  must  be  new  discoveries 
made  of  a  new  Ireland,  for  the  old  will  not  serve  to 
satisfy  these  engagements."  It  is  perhaps  needless 
to  say  that  the  Irish  Loyalists  went  to  the  wall 

Thus  ended  the  second  and  last  campaign  of 
annihilation.  In  objects,  character,  and  results  it 
resembled  the  first,  which  took  place  during  the 
reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  The  intention  in  both 
cases  was  to  root  out  the  native  race  and  their  re- 


64       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

ligion.  The  methods  employed — battle,  murder  and 
sudden  death,  plague,  pestilence  and  famine — were 
identical,  and  the  results  were  the  same — failure. 

The  race  survived  the  wars  of  Elizabeth  and  it 
survived  the  wars  of  Cromwell,  but  as  an  enfeebled 
race.  Those  who  could  do  so  settled  in  foreign 
countries.  The  bulk  of  them  sought  refuge  in 
unfamiliar  corners  of  their  native  land.  A  few 
remained  upon  the  soil  they  had  once  owned,  little 
better  than  mere  serfs  tilling  the  ground.  And 
religion  and  love  of  learning  survived.  The  only 
consolations  left  to  the  unfortunate  people — their 
religion,  their  traditions,  their  culture — were  rigidly 
proscribed ;  but  of  those  consolations  they  were 
not  entirely  deprived.  With  magnificent  self- 
devotion,  and  to  their  eternal  credit,  bishops, 
priests,  and  schoolmasters  continued  their  ministra- 
tions. Hunted  like  foxes  among  the  rocks,  ban- 
ished, killed,  and  tortured,  they  gave  their  lives  for 
their  flocks,  and  kept  alive  the  flickering  flame  of 
their  religion.  Nor  was  the  undying  spark  of 
nationality  ever  quite  extinguished. 

Nothing  in  history  is  more  marvellous  than  the 
vitality  and  assimilative  power  of  the  Irish.  The 
few  that  remained  among  the  planters  speedily 
captured  their  captors  ;  the  newcomers  invariably, 
and  in  a  very  short  space  of  time,  became  indis- 
tinguishably  Irish.  The  rich  lands  in  Munster 
especially  were  thickly  settled  with  Puritan  soldiers, 
and  yet  within  a  very  few  years  the  descendants  of 


IRISH  VITALITY  65 

these  men  were  up  in  arms  fighting  for  the  Catholic 
King  James. 

The  danger  of  English  planters  becoming  Irish- 
ized   was   early   foreseen.      In  the   reign   of  Ed- 
ward  III.   it   was   enacted  that  any  Englishman 
marrying  an  Irishwoman  should  forfeit  his  estates 
and  be  disembowelled  while  alive  and  hanged  ;  but 
even  so  bloodthirsty  a  law  was  of  no  avail.     The 
most   stringent    laws    against    intermarriage    and 
fosterage   proved   useless.     A   petition   of    Crom- 
wellian  officers  complained  that  many  thousands  of 
the  descendants  of  the   English  who   came  over 
under  Elizabeth  "had  become  one  with  the  Irish 
as  well  in  affinity  as   idolatry,"  and   stated   that 
many  of  them  "  had  a  deep  hand  "  in  the  rising  of 
1641.     The  poet  Spenser  advocated  the  destruction 
of  the  Irish  by  a  process  of  systematic  starvation. 
His  grandson  was  expelled  from  house  and  property 
by  Cromwell  as  an  Irish  Papist.     Forty  years  after 
the  settlement  of  Cromwell's  Puritans  it  was  re- 
ported  that    "many   of  the   children   of  Oliver's 
soldiers  in  Ireland  cannot  speak  one  word  of  Eng- 
lish."    It  was  noticed  that  only  seven  years  after 
the  Battle  of  the  Boyne  many  of  William's  soldiers 
had  lapsed  into  Catholicism. 

The  absorbing  qualities  of  Ireland  were  in- 
vincible. The  native  Irish  proved  indestructible, 
and  in  their  main  object — the  obliteration  of  the 
race — the  wars  of  annihilation  failed. 


66       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

WARS. 

The  Civil  War  was  a  civil  war  pure  and  simple, 
and  was  practically  identical  in  character  and 
results  in  Ireland  and  in  England.  It  was  remark- 
able in  Ireland  mainly  for  the  heroic  defence  of 
Londonderry  in  the  north  by  the  Williamites,  the 
equally  heroic,  but  unsuccessful,  defence  of  Ath- 
lone  in  the  centre,  and  of  Limerick  in  the  south  by 
the  Jacobites,  by  the  ignoble  treachery  displayed 
by  Parliament  in  violating  the  Treaty  of  Limerick, 
and  by  the  gallantry  of  the  troops  and  the  want  of 
gallantry  on  the  part  of  King  James  at  the  decisive 
battle  of  the  Boyne.  The  surrender  of  Limerick 
in  1691  brought  the  war  practically  to  an  end. 

It  was,  as  was  perfectly  natural,  followed  by 
forfeitures  and  attainders,  and  by  a  further  volun- 
tary exodus  of  the  best  Irish  blood.  Twelve 
thousand  troops,  officers  and  men,  followed  Sars- 
field  abroad  after  the  Capitulation  of  Limerick,  and 
served  with  the  greatest  distinction  in  Russia, 
Austria,  Spain,  and  France,  but  principally  in 
France,  where  they  formed  the  famous  "  Irish 
Brigade."  It  is  computed  that  something  like 
100,000  of  the  best  of  the  Irish  left  their  native 
land  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war  and  in  the  years 
following,  and  generally  adopted  a  military  career 
in  foreign  lands.  The  military  history  of  Irishmen 
— and  it  is  a  glorious  one — must  be  sought  far 
from  their  native  land.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that 


PEACE  IN  IRELAND  67 

the  Irish  Brigade,  which  for  generations  fought  so 
gallantly  against  the  forces  of  England  abroad 
whenever  occasion  offered,  eventually  became  in- 
corporated in  the  English  army.  True  to  the 
principles  and  traditions  of  their  Jacobite  fore- 
fathers, who  for  King  and  conscience'  sake  left 
their  native  land  for  ever  to  serve  in  France,  the 
Irish  Brigade  had  no  sympathy  with  the  French 
Revolution.  With  very  few  exceptions  they 
ranged  themselves  against  it ;  and  when  in  1794 
the  Duke  of  Portland  invited  the  Duke  of  Fitz- 
james,  with  the  Regiment  of  the  Marshal  de  Ber- 
wick and  the  Irish  Brigade  to  join  the  British 
forces  on  the  same  footing  as  they  had  held  in  the 
service  of  the  King  of  France,  the  offer  was  ac- 
cepted. Thus,  after  a  most  honourable  and  glorious 
career  of  103  years,  the  separate  existence  of  the 
Irish  Brigade  was  brought  to  a  close. 

RISINGS  AND  REBELLIONS. 

For  a  century  or  more  after  the  Civil  War 
Ireland  enjoyed  comparative  peace,  but  a  peace 
that  was  not  due  to  prosperity  and  content. 
Ireland  slept  from  sheer  exhaustion,  and  her 
slumbers  were  broken  by  many  fitful  dreams. 
Bands  of  landless,  homeless,  broken  men  —  rap- 
parees  and  tories — infested  the  country,  preying 
upon  the  descendants  of  the  planters,  with  the 
connivance  and  sympathy  of  those  of  the  old  stock 
who  remained  in  menial  capacities  upon  the  soil. 


68       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

The  penal  laws  were  in  full  force.  These  dis- 
abling enactments  were  not  exceptional.  They 
were,  in  fact,  quite  consistent  with  the  customary 
attitude  of  dominant  towards  subjugated  races  ; 
but  in  the  case  of  Ireland  they  were  unjustifiable, 
odious,  and  utterly  unwise.  Unjustifiable,  because 
no  attempt  was  made  in  Ireland  to  disturb  the 
new  dynasty ;  odious,  because  they  were  aimed  at 
completing  the  material,  intellectual,  and  moral 
degradation  of  the  Irish  people ;  unwise,  because 
the  degradation  of  Ireland  was  bound  to  react 
prejudicially  upon  England.  They  were  not  entirely 
successful  in  accomplishing  material  ruin.  Social 
disabilities  did  not  very  grievously  affect  the 
masses  of  the  people,  and  their  action  upon  the 
upper  classes  was  mitigated  by  the  connivance 
of  those  for  whose  supposed  benefit  they  were 
enacted.  The  Protestant  gentry  were  better  than 
their  laws,  and  Catholic  landowners  frequently 
retained  their  properties,  and  Catholic  parents 
often  secured  the  education  of  their  children  by 
friendly  agreement  with  their  Protestant  neigh- 
bours, who  privately  held  the  land  in  trust  for 
them,  and  assisted  them  in  evading  the  cruel  educa- 
tional laws.  And  the  penal  laws  as  a  proselytizing 
agent  were  a  failure.  In  one  respect  only  were 
they  successful.  They  depraved  the  nation,  and 
vitiated  all  the  springs  of  public  life.  They 
degraded  the  Catholic  gentry.  Many  of  them 
emigrated.  Those  that  remained  fell  into  apathy 


THE  PLANTATION  OF  ULSTER     69 

and  despair.  The  people  were  deprived  of  their 
natural  leaders.  The  systematic  oppression  of 
Catholicism  and  encouragement  of  Protestantism 
embittered  differences  of  class  and  creed.  Catholics, 
reduced  to  a  servile  submission,  and  forced  to  rely 
upon  fraud  and  deceit,  lost  their  self-respect  and 
independence.  Protestants  were  taught  to  look 
upon  themselves  as  a  superior  and  justly  favoured 
class,  rightly  entitled  to  ascendancy.  The  penal 
laws  demoralized  the  whole  people. 

The  condition  of  the  country  was  deplorable. 
The  confiscations  had  produced  a  class  of  great 
absentee  owners,  who  let  their  lands  to  middle- 
men, who  sublet  them  to  other  middlemen,  until 
frequently  four  or  five  profits  were  made  out  of 
the  land  before  the  miserable  cottier  who  tilled  it 
could  derive  any  benefit. 

The  suffering  was  not  confined  to  the  original 
expropriated  owners  and  tillers  of  the  soil ;  it  was 
universal.  The  Plantation  of  Ulster  was  thoroughly 
accomplished.  The  province  became  "  shire"  land. 
The  Crown  granted  large  tracts  to  "  Undertakers," 
who  undertook  to  divide  them  into  farms,  to  build 
houses,  drain,  provide  schools  and  arms,  and  let  the 
holdings  on  suitable  leases  and  at  reasonable  rents. 
The  tenants  held  them  under  a  sort  of  military 
tenure.  As  the  necessity  for  armed  defence 
diminished  and  leases  fell  in,  a  tendency  to  ignore 
the  original  tenure,  and  to  treat  the  descendants  of 
the  original  planters  as  tenants  at  will,  manifested 


70       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

itself.  Rents  were  raised,  farms  were  let  to  the 
highest  bidder,  and  the  highest  bidder  was  a  poor 
"  Papist "  descendant  of  the  original  occupier  of 
the  land.  The  expropriating  planter  became  expro- 
priated in  his  turn,  and  in  his  turn  resorted  to 
burning  the  goods  and  driving  the  cattle  of  those 
who  supplanted  him.  Through  the  folly,  greed, 
or  iniquity  of  some  of  the  representatives  of  the 
original  "  Undertakers,"  a  land  war  set  in  that 
lasted  a  considerable  time.  The  circumstances  of 
the  peasantry  all  over  Ireland  were  wretched. 
Many  died  of  starvation,  many  emigrated. 

The  destruction  of  the  trades  of  the  country,  for 
the  supposed  benefit  of  British  manufacturers, 
ruined  great  numbers  of  fairly  well-to-do  people  ; 
and  a  strong  stream  of  emigration  of  Ulster 
Presbyterians  set  in  to  North  America,  and  lasted 
for  many  years. 

Pasture  was  rapidly  taking  the  place  of  tillage, 
to  the  displacement  of  labour.  Common  lands 
were  enclosed  and  taken  from  the  people.  Tithes 
were  a  universal  grievance.  The  rich  men — the 
great  graziers  and  cowkeepers,  the  only  occupiers 
in  the  kingdom,  according  to  Arthur  Young,  who 
had  any  considerable  substance — were  exempt  from 
tithes,  which  fell  exclusively  and  with  crushing 
weight  upon  the  poor  cottier  struggling  to  make  a 
bare  living  out  of  a  wretched  potato-patch.  Where 
tithes  were  not  appropriated  to  laymen  they  were 
paid  to,  in  many  cases,  non-resident  clergy.  In 


SECRET  SOCIETIES  71 

either  event,  the  poor  Catholic  peasant,  starving  on 
his  little  holding,  paid  compulsorily  for  the  support 
of  the  religion  in  which  he  did  not  believe,  and 
contributed  voluntarily  out  of  his  poverty  to  the 
support  of  the  religion  in  which  he  did  believe.  The 
whole  state  of  society  was  rotten  to  the  core,  and  the 
condition  of  the  people  miserable  in  the  extreme. 

Such  circumstances  produced  their  inevitable  re- 
sults. Where  desperate  men  can  get  no  redress  for 
legitimate  grievances  they  resort  to  illegitimate  com- 
bination and  outrage.  Secret  societies,  "  White- 
boys,"  "  Oakboys,"  «  Hearts  of  Steel,"  and  many 
others  sprang  up  all  over  the  country.  Some  were 
directed  mainly  towards  securing  "  tenant  right " 
in  Ulster,  others  against  the  enclosure  of  commons 
and  the  conversion  of  tillage  into  pasture ;  others, 
again,  against  tithes  and  other  wrongs.  The  secret 
societies  became  very  formidable,  and  committed 
many  atrocities  of  a  brutal  kind.  The  Whiteboys 
became  for  a  time  a  power  over  large  districts  in 
the  South.  They  marched  about  like  small  armies, 
sometimes  so  many  as  500  foot  and  200  horse,  level- 
ling fences,  mutilating  cattle,  issuing  orders,  and  en- 
forcing obedience  by  brutal  punishment.  The  Hearts 
of  Steel  became  equally  formidable  in  the  North. 

THE  REBELLION  OF  '98. 

Such  was  the  general  condition  of  the  country 
when  the  faint  rumblings  of  the  storm  that  burst 
and  spent  itself  in  1798  might  have  been  heard. 


72       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

The  rising  of  1798  was  a  rebellion.  I  have 
demurred  to  the  use  of  that  term  in  reference  to  the 
wars  of  Elizabeth,  as  inapplicable  to  resistance  to 
authority  endeavouring  to  assert  itself;  but  it  is 
applicable  to  '98,  for  whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  equities  and  wisdom  of  that  rising,  it  was  un- 
questionably an  attempt  to  overthrow  constituted 
authority.  It  is  very  difficult  in  a  short  sketch  to 
analyze  the  causes  which  led  to,  and  the  conse- 
quences produced  by,  the  rebellion  of  '98.  Even 
Lecky,  that  most  painstaking  of  historical  explorers, 
fails  to  trace  a  definite  thread  through  the  tangle 
of  those  times,  and  an  outline  of  predominant 
tendencies  is  all  that  can  be  attempted  here. 

During  the  ten  or  fifteen  years  preceding  the 
rebellion  the  condition  of  the  country  had  vastly 
improved.  Whiteboyism  was  suppressed.  Pros- 
perity was  rapidly  advancing  under  the  guidance  of 
a  native  Parliament,  wise  and  strong ;  but,  never- 
theless, the  misery  which  I  have  sketched  out  pre- 
disposed the  people  to  discontent.  This  feeling  of 
discontent,  unrest,  and  vague  desire  for  change  was 
greatly  stimulated  by  two  causes,  which  must 
never  be  lost  sight  of  in  considering  the  predis- 
posing factors  of  the  case — namely,  the  American 
War  of  Independence  and  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. Neither  revolution  nor  republicanism  are 
naturally  congenial  to  the  Irish  character,  which 
revolts  against  violent  measures,  and  inclines  to 
monarchical  or  some  individualized  form  of  rule. 


IRELAND  AND  AMERICA  73 

But  the  War  of  Independence  and  the  French 
Revolution  appealed  to  Irish  imagination  under 
peculiar  circumstances.  Owing  to  the  suicidal 
folly  of  Great  Britain  in  destroying  Irish  industries 
and  persecuting  Nonconformists,  an  emigration, 
very  large  in  proportion  to  population,  had  set  in 
from  Protestant  Ulster.  Many  thousands  of  sturdy 
and  intelligent  Presbyterians  had  settled  in  the 
North  American  Colonies,  and  many  Irish  had  found 
a  new  home  in  the  West  India  Islands.  The 
Declaratory  Act  relating  to  the  American  Colonies, 
which  was  passed  after  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp 
Act,  and  which  was  objected  to  by  the  Colonies, 
was  practically  the  same  as  the  Declaratory  Act, 
asserting  the  right  of  the  British  Parliament  to 
legislate  for  Ireland,  to  which  Ireland  objected. 

The  publications  of  Molyneux  hi  defence  of  Irish 
liberty  became  the  text-book  of  American  freedom. 
Chatham  declared  that  on  the  colonial  question 
Ireland  to  a  man  was  with  America,  and  he  might 
have  added,  that  in  America  every  Irishman  was 
with  the  revolting  Colonies.  Irishmen  from  north 
and  south,  Protestant  and  Catholic,  flocked  to  the 
standard  of  Washington,  raised  troops,  held  high 
command,  fought  gallantly,  and  gave  freely  of  their 
lives  and  substance.  Eight  Irishmen  signed  the 
Declaration  of  Independence. 

Catholic  Ireland  had  long  looked  to  France  as  a 
possible  deliverer  from  the  house  of  bondage,  and 
the  achievements  of  the  French  Revolution  as  the 


74       ANNIHILATIONS,  AVARS,  ETC. 

lighter  of  human  wrongs  and  the  champion  of  the 
poor  and  oppressed  against  caste  and  privilege, 
appealed  so  strongly  to  the  imagination  of  the 
populace  as  to  outweigh,  for  a  time,  their  horror  at 
the  outrages  accompanying  the  Revolution,  and 
their  racial  dislike  of  republicanism. 

Thus  events  in  North  America  and  in  Europe 
operated  strongly  upon  the  mind  of  Ireland.  Nor 
were  other  elements  of  disturbance  wanting. 
The  rival  factions  of  "  Peep-of-Day  Boys "  and 
"  Defenders  "  in  Ulster  originated  in  some  private 
quarrels,  but  speedily  took  on  a  religious  character, 
and  spread  over  the  whole  country.  The  Peep- 
of-Day  Boys,  all  Protestants,  and  mainly  Presby- 
terians, professed  merely  to  enforce  the  law  for  the 
disarmament  of  Catholics,  but  used  this  profession 
as  a  pretext  for  violence  and  aggression  of  all 
kinds.  The  Defenders  were  exclusively  Catholics, 
and  their  profession  was  merely  self-defence ;  but  in 
this  case  also  the  profession  led  to  a  sort  of  religious 
war.  The  Peep-of-Day  Boys  were  eventually  ab- 
sorbed by  the  Orangemen,  and  the  Defenders 
became  merged  in  the  ranks  of  the  United  Irish- 
men. 

WOLFE  TONE'S  POLICY. 

In  1791  the  famous  society  of  "  United  Irish- 
men "  was  founded  in  Belfast  by  Wolfe  Tone. 
Wolfe  Tone  was  in  religion  a  Protestant,  in  politics 
an  ardent  democrat  saturated  with  the  principles 
of  the  French  Revolution.  He  was  a  man  of  con- 


THE  "UNITED  IRISHMEN'  75 

siderable  ability,  but  with  a  judgment  warped  by  a 
hatred  of  England  so  bitter  and  so  deep-rooted  as 
to  be,  to  use  his  own  words,  "rather  an  instinct 
than  a  principle."  His  avowed  object  was  reform, 
but  it  is  probable  that,  from  the  first,  he  had 
complete  separation  in  view.  He  came  to  loathe 
the  Irish  Parliament,  deeming  it  incapable  of 
reform,  unnational,  under  English  influence,  and 
favourable  to  the  connection  with  Great  Britain. 
He  believed  Ireland  to  be  capable  of  existence 
as  an  absolutely  independent  republic,  and  he 
sought  to  achieve  that  independence  by  means 
of  a  coalition  of  Presbyterians  and  Catholics.  In 
despite  of  his  democratic  principles,  he  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  quite  able  to  divest  him- 
self of  Protestant  ascendancy,  for  he  proposed 
means  whereby  a  possible  majority  of  Catholics 
in  a  reformed  House  of  Commons  was  to  be 
avoided. 

The  aims  of  the  Society  were  more  moderate 
than  those  of  its  founder.  They  may  be  gathered 
from  a  memoir  drawn  up  after  the  rebellion  by 
Thomas  Emmet  and  others,  in  which  they  posi- 
tively stated  that  the  question  of  separation  was 
not  at  first  so  much  as  agitated  among  them  ;  that 
a  considerable  period  elapsed  before  a  conviction 
that  parliamentary  reform  could  not  be  attained 
without  a  revolution  led  them  timidly  and  reluc- 
tantly to  republicanism ;  and  that  even  after  many 
of  the  members  had  become  republicans  the  whole 


76       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

body  would  have  stopped  short  and  would  have 
been  satisfied  with  reform. 

The  growth  of  the  Society,  consisting  at  first  of 
36  members  in  Belfast,  was  rapid.  A  branch  was 
immediately  formed  in  Dublin,  with  Simon  Butler, 
a  brother  of  Lord  Mountgarret,  as  chairman,  and 
Napper  Tandy  as  secretary ;  and  the  Society 
speedily  spread  over  the  whole  country,  absorbing 
other  and  minor  associations  in  its  course.  But 
the  stronghold  of  the  Society  always  remained  in 
Belfast,  and  all  the  leaders  and  principal  men 
were  Protestants. 

The  "  United  Irish  "  movement,  originally  purely 
political,  organized  and  controlled  by  educated  men 
for  political  objects,  underwent  a  great  change 
through  its  absorption  of  Defenderism.  How  two 
elements  so  essentially  antagonistic  ever  became 
amalgamated  is  one  of  many  insoluble  mysteries  of 
Irish  history.  Defenderism,  originally  a  society 
for  mutual  protection,  developed  into  a  sort  of 
religious  anti-Protestant  association,  and  finally 
into  a  secret  organization  bound  by  secret  oath, 
working  under  hidden  direction,  and  attracting  to 
itself  some  of  the  worst  elements  in  Irish  society. 
It  was  composed  exclusively  of  the  lower  and  more 
ignorant  Catholic  peasantry,  and  became  the  organ 
and  exponent  of  discontent. 

United  Irelandism  was,  on  the  contrary,  mainly 
Protestant,  and  was  led  by  educated  men  to  achieve 
a  political  object,  namely,  parliamentary  reform.  It 


A  COUNTER  MOVEMENT  77 

desired  above  all  things  to  put  an  end  to  dissension 
between  Catholic  and  Protestant,  and  the  leaders, 
Wolfe  Tone  and  Napper  Tandy,  did  their  utmost 
to  control  the  religious  element  in  Defenderism,  but 
without  much  success.  The  pledge  taken  by  United 
Irishmen  was  merely — "To  obtain  an  impartial 
and  adequate  representation  of  the  Irish  nation  in 
Parliament."*  Yet,  in  spite  of  these  radical  differ- 
ences, the  United  Irishmen  absorbed  Defender- 
ism,  admitted  Defenders  within  their  ranks,  and 
became  polluted,  with  the  inevitable  disastrous 

results. 

THE  ORANGE  SOCIETY. 

In  1795  the  Orange  Society  was  founded.  The 
ground  had  been  prepared  for  it  by  the  conflicts 
between  Peep-of-Day  Boys  and  Defenders  which 
constantly  took  place,  in  spite  of  the  strenu- 
ous efforts  of  Lord  Charlemont  and  the  gentry  to 
prevent  them.  A  quarrel  arose  about  some  Pro- 
testant school  near  Dundalk,  in  connection  with 
which  a  ghastly  crime,  which  exasperated  men  to 
madness,  was  committed.  The  residence  of  the 
Protestant  schoolmaster,  a  man  named  Berkeley, 

*  The  conclusion  of  the  text  ran  as  follows  :  "  And  as  a  means 
of  absolute  and  immediate  necessity  in  the  establishment  of  this 
chief  good  of  Ireland,  I  will  endeavour  as  much  as  lies  in  my 
ability  to  forward  a  brotherhood  of  affection  and  identity  of 
interests,  a  communion  of  rights  and  an  union  of  power  among 
Irishmen  of  all  religious  persuasions,  without  which  every  reform 
in  Parliament  must  be  partial,  not  national,  inadequate  to  the 
wants,  delusive  to  the  wishes,  and  insufficient  for  the  freedom 
and  happiness  of  this  country." 


78       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC, 

was  broken  into  by  forty  or  fifty  men.  They  cut 
out  his  tongue,  cut  off  his  fingers  and  stabbed  him  ; 
mangled  his  wife  in  the  same  way  and  horribly 
mutilated  a  boy  of  thirteen,  and  marched  tri- 
umphantly away  with  lighted  torches. 

Reprisals  and  outrages  on  either  side  culminated 
in  a  riot  that  might  be  almost  dignified  by  the 
name  of  battle,  at  a  place  called  the  Diamond, 
near  Armagh,  where  the  Catholic  Defenders  were 
defeated  with  the  loss  of  twenty  or  thirty  men. 
Immediately  after  this  the  Orange  Society  was 
formed.  *The  Society  was  created  for  mutual  de- 
fence, for  the  maintenance  of  the  laws  and  peace 
of  the  country,  and  for  the  defence  of  the  King  and 
his  heirs — "  so  long  as  he  or  they  support  the  Pro- 
testant ascendancy."  Such  objects  would  not  at 
that  time  have  been  deemed  unusual.  Societies 
for  the  commemoration  of  William  of  Orange  and 
of  his  achievements  were  common  in  England, 
Scotland  and  Ireland.  Celebrations  of  the  Battles 
of  the  Boyne  and  Aughrim  and  of  the  Defence  of 
Londonderry  were  held  without  provoking  ani- 
mosity. The  volunteers,  during  the  short  period 
when  in  that  national  movement  sectarian  strife 
was  obliterated,  held  their  principal  annual  assembly 
round  the  statue  of  King  William  in  Dublin  on  the 
anniversary  of  his  birthday,  decked  with  Orange 
emblems.  But  the  Orange  Society  very  soon 
changed  its  aspect  and  became  an  engine  of  active 
aggression.  The  Peep-of-Day  Boys  joined  it  and 


THE  WHIG  CLUB  79 

captured  it ;  and  just  as  the  spirit  of  Defenderism 
poisoned  United  Ireland,  so  did  the  venom  of  Peep- 
of-Day  Boyism  inoculate  and  pollute  the  Orange 
Society. 

Within  three  months  after  the  Battle  of  the 
Diamond,  Lord  Gosford  and  the  principal  magis- 
trates of  the  county,  with  one  exception  all  Pro- 
testants, met  at  Armagh  to  consider  the  state  of 
the  country.  They  found  that  the  Catholics  of 
Armagh  were  "grievously  oppressed  by  lawless 
persons  unknown,  who  attack  and  plunder  their 
houses  by  night  unless  they  immediately  abandon 
their  lands  and  habitations,"  and  they  did  their  best 
to  put  a  stop  to  such  an  intolerable  state  of  things. 
But  neither  the  law  nor  the  efforts  of  the  gentry 
were  of  much  avail.  Outrages  continued,  and  some 
thousands  of  poor  Catholics  were  driven  to  take 
refuge  in  Connaught. 

The  feeling  on  both  sides  was  very  bitter,  and  it 
is  to  the  transference  of  that  bitterness  to  the 
Orange  and  United  Irishmen  Societies,  by  their 
absorption  of  the  Peep-of-Day  Boys  and  Defenders, 
that  the  violence  displayed  in  the  rebellion  is  to  be 
attributed  to  some  extent. 

In  the  Irish  Parliament  the  independent  members 
were  mainly  Whig.  In  1789  the  Whig  Club  was 
formed,  including  the  Duke  of  Leinster,  Lord 
Charlemont,  Lord  Shannon,  and  some  ten  other 
peers,  and  a  large  number  of  the  principal  county 
gentlemen,  among  them  Grattan  and  Ponsonby. 


80       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

Their  object,  as  Grattan  afterwards  explained,  was 
— "  To  obtain  an  internal  reform  in  Parliament,  in 
which  they  partly  succeeded,  and  to  prevent  the 
Union,  in  which  they  failed."     The  club  was  Whig 
in  that  it  advocated  certain  cautious  moves  towards 
reform,  but  essentially  Conservative  in  that  it  was 
opposed  to  anything  like  rapid  change.     Grattan 
especially   loathed   the   levelling    theories    of   the 
French  Revolution.    He  held  consistently  through- 
out his  career  that  Ireland  was,  of  all  countries,  the 
most  unfit  for  democratic  principles,  and  that  the 
safety  and  welfare  of  the  country  depended  upon 
the  control  and  direction  of  its  affairs  resting  in  the 
hands  of  Irish  property — that  is,  in  the  hands  of  the 
country  gentry.     His  mental  attitude  is  difficult  to 
define.     The  great  majority  of  the  landed  class,  in 
whose  governing  qualities  he  implicitly  believed, 
being  Protestant,  he  was  naturally  inclined  towards 
Protestant  ascendancy.     But  his  opinions  under- 
went some  change.     He  desired  to  remove  all  dis- 
qualifications   affecting   Catholics.      He    strongly 
maintained  that  religious  belief  should  not  form 
the  dividing  line  of  politics  or  exclusion,  and  even- 
tually championed  the  cause  of  complete  Catholic 
emancipation.  *    The  Whig  Club  was  the  antithesis 
of  the  United  Ireland  men. 

*  In  a  speech  of  February  20,  1782,  he  says:  "We  cannot 
give  the  people  of  Ireland  a  common  faith,  but  we  can  give  them 
a  common  interest.  .  .  .  The  question  is  whether  we  shall 
grant  Roman  Catholics  the  power  of  enjoying  estates,  whether 


INDEPENDENT  CATHOLICS         81 

During  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
Catholics  became  dumb  under  the  laws  and  proscrip- 
tions that  oppressed  them.  The  better-off  and  more 
energetic  among  them  emigrated  and  settled  abroad, 
to  the  great  loss  of  their  native  land ;  those  who 
remained  at  home  fell  into  a  somnolent  state  of 
hopeless  apathy  ;  but  in  the  latter  half  of  the  cen- 
tury they  began  to  pluck  up  courage,  and  in  1759 
the  Catholic  Association  was  formed,  and  a  Com- 
mittee appointed  in  Dublin  to  create  an  indepen- 
dent Catholic  opinion  and  to  watch  over  the 
interests  of  the  whole  body.  After  the  failure  of 
reform  in  1783,  the  Committee  became  quite  in- 
active, and  finally  broke  up  in  1791,  when  Lord 
Kenmare  and  some  sixty  of  the  principal  gentry 
formally  seceded  from  it.  The  cause  of  the  split 
was  political  and  tactical.  The  seceders,  who 
may  be  termed  the  Conservative  element,  con- 
sisting of  the  prelates  and  Catholic  nobility  and 
gentry,  headed  by  Lord  Kenmare,  were  content  to 
move  slowly,  and  desired  to  leave  the  removal  of 
disabilities  to  the  Legislature.  But  the  majority 

we  shall  be  a  Protestant  settlement  or  an  Irish  nation,  whether 
we  shall  throw  open  the  gates  of  the  temple  of  liberty  to  all  our 
countrymen,  or  whether  we  shall  confine  them  in  bondage  by 
penal  laws.  ...  So  long  as  we  exclude  Catholics  from  natural 
liberty  and  the  common  rights  of  men  we  are  not  a  people.  We 
may  triumph  over  them,  but  other  nations  will  triumph  over  us. 
...  As  the  mover  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights,  I  would  be 
ashamed  of  giving  freedom  to  but  six  hundred  thousand  of  my 
countrymen,  when  I  could  extend  it  to  two  millions  more." 

6 


82       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

were  for  more  strenuous  action.  The  Catholic 
commercial  interest  had  of  late  years  greatly  in- 
creased ;  it  preponderated  on  the  Committee. 
Large  numbers  of  the  Committee  were  employed 
in  trade.  They  were  strongly  imbued  with  the 
democratic  spirit ;  they  urged  more  active  measures, 
and  they  were  supported  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
population  generally. 

In  1794  the  coalition  between  Pitt  and  the  Duke 
of  Portland's  section  of  the  Whigs  took  place,  and 
Lord  Fitzwilliam  was  appointed  Lord-Lieutenant 
of  Ireland.  The  whole  general  policy  of  concilia- 
tion, including  Catholic  emancipation,  was  ap- 
proved of  by  the  Cabinet,  but  for  various  reasons 
the  Government  desired  to  go  slow.  Fitz William's 
instructions  were  to  the  effect  that  it  was  undesir- 
able that  emancipation  should  be  immediately  put 
forward  as  a  Government  measure,  but  that  if  he 
found  the  Catholics  determined  to  press  the  matter, 
he  was  to  give  it  cordial  support  on  behalf  of  the 
Government.  The  Lord  -  Lieutenant  found  the 
country  in  a  deplorable  condition,  and  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  a  full  measure  of  reform  was  both 
just  and  necessary.  He  wrote  of  the  "shameful 
want  of  protection  "  afforded  to  the  poorer  classes 
and  of  their  disaffection,  owing  to  grievances  that 
could  be,  and  ought  to  be,  redressed.  He  reported 
— "  That  not  to  grant  cheerfully  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  all  the  Catholics  wish  will  not  only  be 
exceedingly  impolitic,  but  perhaps  dangerous  " ;  and 


FITZWILLIAM'S  POLICY  83 

he  was  right.  All  classes  of  Catholics  were  united 
in  pressing  for  relief,  and  the  Protestants  as  a  body 
were  perfectly  ready  to  concede  all  that  was  asked. 
But  Fitzwilliam  found  himself  blocked  by  that 
solid  mass  of  officialdom  and  vested  interest  that 
has  ever  opposed — and,  alas  !  successfully — wise 
efforts  for  reform.  "  The  Castle  "  hated  him  with 
a  bitter  hatred.  He  was  forbidden  by  his  instruc- 
tions to  remove  the  Chancellor  (Lord  Clare).  He 
did  remove  John  Beresford,  and  incurred  the  wrath 
of  a  family  and  faction  that  had  obtained  a  prac- 
tical monopoly  of  Government  offices  and  patron- 
age. To  make  head  against  the  iron  will  of  the 
Chancellor  and  the  machinations  of  men  monopo- 
lizing all  places  of  profit  and  having  enormous 
influence  in  England,  Fitzwilliam  required  the 
whole-hearted  and  active  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment. He  did  not  get  it.  To  inquire  whether 
the  Government  had  any  real  intention  of  granting 
reforms,  or  whether  they  reversed  their  policy, 
being  actuated  by  the  belief  that  a  separation 
between  Catholics  and  Protestants  must  be  main- 
tained and  promoted  in  order  to  bring  about  the 
legislative  union  they  already  contemplated,  or 
influenced  by  the  intrigues  of  the  place-holding 
faction,  or  by  other  causes,  would  be  out  of  place 
in  this  essay.  It  is  immaterial  also  to  consider 
the  ostensible  reasons  given  for  Fitzwilliam's  recall, 
The  lamentable  facts  are  that  the  Government 
deceived  the  Viceroy  and  the  people  about  emanci- 


84       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

pation,  and  that  Fitzwilliam  was  recalled.  With 
Lord  Fitzwilliam  went  Ireland's  last  chance  of 
weathering  the  storm  ;  the  high  hopes  of  all  classes, 
legitimately  entertained,  were  dashed  to  the  ground. 
The  people  were  goaded  into  desperation  by 
despair  of  obtaining  reform  by  constitutional 
means.  Civil  war  became  inevitable,  and  on  the 
heads  of  the  British  Government  the  responsibility 
must  rest,  for  by  cheerful,  timely  concession  of 
reforms  they  knew  to  be  just  they  could  have  con- 
ciliated the  people,  and  have  taught  them  to  rely 
upon  constitutional  methods  of  seeking  redress. 
The  postponement  for  thirty-five  years  of  emancipa- 
tion, granted  then  in  deference  to  violence,  taught 
the  people  to  believe  that  in  violence  alone  could 
a  remedy  for  legitimate  grievances  be  found. 

THE  SEEDS  OF  REBELLION. 

To  sum  up  as  well  as  may  be.  What  was  the 
situation  ?  A  country  denuded  of  the  best  blood, 
brain,  bone  and  muscle.  A  peasantry  starving  in 
extreme  misery,  ground  to  powder  by  extortionate 
rents  under  an  abominable  middleman  system. 
Roman  Catholics  labouring  under  social,  political, 
civil,  and  religious  disabilities,  and  in  despair  of 
obtaining  relief  by  constitutional  methods.  The 
whole  population,  Protestant  as  well  as  Catholic, 
clamouring  against  tithes.  The  Presbyterian  North 
resenting  the  persecution  of  Nonconformists,  and 
deeply  impressed  by  the  War  of  American  Inde- 


CONDITIONS  OF  SOCIETY  85 

pendence.  The  principles  of  the  French  Revolution 
permeating  the  whole  country.  A  Conservative 
spirit  dominating  the  Parliament  while  a  demo- 
cratic principle  operated  among  the  people.  The 
United  Ireland  Society  striving  to  get  Catholic 
and  Protestant  to  join  in  favour  of  reform,  but, 
when  that  failed,  with  the  object,  on  the  part  of 
the  leaders,  at  any  rate,  to  achieve  independence  as 
a  republic  ;  the  Orange  Society,  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  the  monarchy  and  the 
Constitution  ;  and  both  these  societies  permeated 
and  poisoned  by  the  crude  religious  animosities  of 
Defenders  and  Peep-of-Day  Boys. 

Such  were  the  unstable  conditions  of  society- 
conditions  lending  themselves  to  an  outbreak  which 
was,  I  think  it  must  be  admitted,  looked  upon  with 
a  favourable  eye  by  the  British  Government. 
Whether  the  Government  deliberately  provoked 
the  Rebellion  is  a  matter  which  it  does  not  con- 
cern me  to  discuss ;  but  of  this  there  can  be  no 
doubt :  the  change  of  policy  in  respect  of  emanci- 
pation and  reform  made  the  rising  inevitable. 
The  Government  had  all  the  strings  within  their 
hands.  Informers  kept  them  accurately  posted  as 
to  every  move.  Affairs  had  arrived  at  a  state  that 
made  an  explosion  inevitable.  It  was  thought 
better  that  it  should  occur  and  clear  the  air.  There 
is  little  doubt,  I  think,  that  the  Government  was 
desirous  that  matters  should  come  to  a  head. 


86       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

IRELAND  AND  INVASION. 

As  usual  in  Irish  affairs,  many  cross-currents  of 
miscalculated  strength,  and  running  in  unforeseen 
directions,  existed.  Rebellion  without  external 
help  would  have  been  futile.  France  was  ready 
enough  to  help  ;  she  naturally  coveted  the 
strategical  advantages  of  a  foothold  in  Ireland, 
and  an  independent  Ireland  would  have  deprived 
Britain  of  the  Irish  soldiers  and  sailors  she  so 
largely  relied  upon.  But  France  doubted  the 
genuineness  of  the  intended  rebellion,  and  pro- 
posed rebellion  first  and  assistance  afterwards. 
On  the  other  hand,  Wolfe  Tone  thought  French 
invasion  a  necessary  preliminary  to  successful  rebel- 
lion. "  I  will  stake  my  head,"  he  wrote,  "  there 
are  500,000  men  who  would  fly  to  the  standard 
of  the  republic.  The  whole  Catholic  peasantry 
of  Ireland,  above  three  millions  of  people,  are  to 
a  man  eager  to  throw  off  the  English  yoke." 

He  seems  to  have  been  much  mistaken  in  this 
estimate  of  the  temper  of  the  people.  Though 
willing  enough  to  rebel,  they  had  no  great  fancy 
for  invasion.  To  join  an  invading  force  would 
be  fighting  against  Ireland,  a  very  different  thing 
from  fighting  against  English  misrule  in  Ireland. 
The  ill-fated  expedition  to  Bantry  Bay  under 
Hoche  accomplished  nothing,  but  it  demonstrated 
two  facts.  Scarcely  any  French  naturalized 
Irishmen  formed  part  of  it,  and  the  gentry  and 


A  MOCK  REBELLION  87 

peasantry   showed   themselves  patriotic   in   resist- 
ing it. 

Though  the  Rebellion  is  usually  described  as  '98, 
it  might  be  more  correctly  spoken  of  as  '97,  for  in 
that  year  Ireland  was  considered  to  be  in  a  state 
of  insurrection,  and  the  process  of  disarmament 
commenced. 

AN  HONEST  GENERAL'S  CONFESSION. 

In  1797  General  Sir  Ralph  Abercromby  was 
appointed  Commander-in-Chief.  The  selection 
was  a  good  one  if  good  towards  Ireland  was  meant, 
for  Abercromby,  besides  being  an  experienced  and 
distinguished  soldier,  was  well  acquainted  with 
Ireland.  The  task  he  had  to  perform  was  a  double 
one — to  guard  against  foreign  invasion  and  to 
preserve  internal  peace.  He  came  to  the  very 
proper  conclusion  that  on  the  former  object  the 
regular  troops  should  be  employed,  and  that  with 
the  latter  the  civil  authority,  assisted  only  when 
absolutely  necessary  by  the  military,  ought  to  deal. 
On  the  condition  of  the  country  he  came  to  a 
conclusion  very  different  to  that  formed  by  the 
Lord-Lieutenant  and  the  Government.  "There 
must  be  some  change,"  he  wrote,  "  or  the  country 
will  be  lost.  The  late  ridiculous  farce  acted  by 
Lord  Camden  and  his  Cabinet  must  strike  every- 
one. They  have  declared  the  country  in  rebellion 
when  the  orders  of  His  Excellency  might  be  carried 
over  the  whole  kingdom  by  an  orderly  dragoon,  or 


88       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

a  writ  executed  without  any  difficulty,  a  few  places 
in  the  mountains  excepted."  He  found  the 
military  forces  in  a  condition  of  ineffectiveness  and 
complete  insubordination.  The  general  officers 
preceding  him  he  described  as  cherishing  "  plots 
and  conspiracies."  "  Instead  of  attending  to  their 
duty  and  the  discipline  of  their  troops,  they  are," 
he  said,  "acting  as  politicians  or  justices  of  the 
peace."  The  military,  he  declared,  were  utterly 
out  of  hand,  and  he  issued  general  orders  on  the 
subject,  in  which  he  described  the  army  as  being; 
"  in  a  state  of  licentiousness  which  must  render  it 
formidable  to  everyone  but  the  enemy."  Even 
after  the  issue  of  those  orders,  he  declared  that 
"houses  had  been  burned,  men  murdered,  others 
half  hanged,"  and  many  other  outrages  committed 
by  the  troops.  He  inveighed  strongly  against  the 
cruelties  perpetrated  in  the  process  of  disarmament. 
"  Within  these  twelve  months,"  he  wrote,  "  every 
crime,  every  cruelty  that  could  be  committed  by 
Cossacks  or  Calmucks  has  been  transacted  here." 
While  allowing  fully  for  exaggeration  on  the  part 
of  a  man  and  a  soldier  whose  instincts  of  humanity, 
justice,  and  discipline  were  outraged  by  what  he 
saw,  two  conclusions  must  be  arrived  at.  Ireland 
was  being  subjected  to  a  reign  of  military  terror, 
and,  whether  deliberately  or  not,  the  people  were 
being  forced  into  open  revolt.  If  General  Aber- 
cromby  could  have  had  his  way,  there  was  still  a 
chance  of  averting  rebellion.  But  he  was  not  to 


ABERCROMBY  RECALLED  89 

have  his  way.  He  encountered  the  same  opposi- 
tion that  had  crushed  Lord  Fitzwilliam,  and  he 
shared  the  same  fate.  He  was  forced  to  resign, 
and  his  place  was  given  to  General  Lake,  who 
had  made  himself  notorious  in  connection  with 
house-burnings  and  other  outrages  perpetrated  by 
the  troops.  A  month  later  the  Rebellion  broke 
out. 

PROTESTANT  REBELS. 

By  1797  the  United  Irish  Society  had  developed 
into  a  military  organization,  with  the  avowed 
object  of  enrolling,  drilling,  and  arming  recruits  for 
a  revolution.  The  principal  leaders  were  Thomas 
Emmet,  a  lawyer  of  some  distinction  ;  Arthur 
O'Connor,  a  man  of  wealth  and  high  social 
position  ;  William  James  McNevin  ;  Oliver  Bond, 
a  rich  woollen  draper,  son  of  a  Dissenting  minister 
in  Donegal ;  Richard  McCormick,  who,  with 
McNevin,  represented  the  Catholic  element  on  the 
directory ;  and  Lord  Edward  Fitzgerald,  brother 
of  the  Duke  of  Leinster,  on  whom  the  supreme 
military  command  was  to  have  devolved.  With 
the  exception  of  McCormick  and  McNevin,  all 
were  Protestants. 

Early  in  1798  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  was  sus- 
pended and  martial  law  proclaimed  in  various 
disaffected  districts.  Shortly  afterwards,  nearly  the 
whole  country  was  placed  under  martial  law.  The 
Government  was  kept  fully  acquainted  by  informers 
with  the  plans  of  the  rebel  directories  and  succeeded 


90       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

easily  in  counteracting  them.  Some  of  the  leaders 
fled  the  country.  Many,  including  Lord  Edward 
Fitzgerald,  were  arrested,  and  the  Rebellion  as  a 
preconcerted  combined  movement  completely  failed. 
In  many  districts  it  was  squashed  before  any  very 
serious  outbreak  occurred,  and  it  attained  formidable 
dimensions  only  in  Wicklow  and  Wexford. 

It  would  be  harrowing  to  go  into  details,  and 
it  is  not  my  province  to  endeavour  to  apportion 
blame.  The  merciless  floggings,  the  tortures  of 
the  pitch  cap,  the  house-burnings  and  murders 
committed  by  the  soldiers,  militia  and  yeomen, 
drove  the  rebels  to  emulate  them  in  retaliation ; 
the  excesses  of  the  rebels  drove  the  troops  to  savage 
revenge.  But  in  common  justice  two  facts  must 
be  remembered.  The  rebels  were  an  undisciplined 
mob  ;  and  the  house-burnings  and  needless  cruelty 
practised  upon  the  people  in  the  process  of  disarma- 
ment preceded  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  by  some 
time.  Let  the  dead  past  bury  its  dead.  The  ac- 
counts of  the  Rebellion  occupy  a  page  of  Irish 
history  unexampled  in  horror,  and  upon  which  no 
Irishman  can  wish  to  dwell.  Yet  it  had  its  re- 
deeming features,  and  like  all  Irish  episodes  it  was 
full  of  anomalies  and  contradictions.  The  savagery 
on  both  sides  was,  as  I  believe,  largely  due  to 
panic.  Protestants  believed  that  the  murder  of  all 
Protestants  and  the  destruction  of  their  religion 
was  the  object  of  the  rising.  Catholics  were  as 
firmly  convinced  of  the  existence  of  a  fabulous 


HORRORS  OF  THE  REBELLION     91 

Orange  oath  to  massacre  all  Catholics  and  extirpate 
their  religion.  In  Wexford  and  Wicklow  religious 
fanaticism  dominated  the  movement.  The  rebels 
were  mainly  an  ill  -  armed  rabble  of  Catholic 
peasants.  Priests,  goaded  to  madness  by  the  dese- 
cration of  their  churches  and  the  cruelties  inflicted 
on  their  flocks,  led  them  into  action,  crucifix 
aloft.  Horrible  massacres,  mainly  of  Protestants, 
took  place  in  Scullabogue  Barn  and  on  Wexford 
Bridge.  And  yet  the  main  body  of  the  rebels, 
after  the  capture  of  Enniscorthy,  elected  Bagenal 
Harvey,  an  influential  Protestant  landlord,  to  lead 
them,  and  another  Protestant,  Keogh,  a  retired 
officer  in  the  English  Army,  who  had  served  in  the 
American  War,  was  left  in  command  of  Wexford 
when  the  rebel  army  quitted  it. 

The  chapels  in  Wexford  and  the  neighbourhood 
were  crowded  with  Protestants  seeking  refuge,  and 
priests  in  Wexford  were  "  employed  from  morning 
to  night "  endeavouring  to  secure  Protestants  who 
came  to  them  for  protection. 

That  in  the  anarchy  and  confusion  that  prevailed 
private  malice  was  frequently  gratified  is  doubtless 
true ;  but  examples  of  affection  shown  by  tenants 
to  their  landlords,  by  old  servants  to  their  former 
masters,  by  poor  people  who  had  received  some 
little  act  of  kindness,  were  frequent  also.  Pro- 
testant ladies  passed  unmolested  to  visit  and  succour 
their  imprisoned  relatives  through  ranks  of  ignorant, 
undisciplined  pikemen. 


92       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

The  war  may  appear  to  have  been  largely  of 
a  religious  character.  "If  you  go  home  and  turn 
Christians,"  the  Wexford  rebels  would  say  to 
Protestants,  "you  will  be  safe  enough."  But 
religion  was  not  the  motive.  In  the  South  the 
rebels  were  mainly  Catholics,  in  the  North  almost 
entirely  Protestants  ;  all  over  the  country  Catholics 
in  the  southern  and  western  militia  and  yeomanry 
rank  and  file  fought  the  rebels  with  desperate 
courage.  The  truth  is  that  in  the  Rebellion  of  '98, 
as  in  all  former  rebellions,  wars,  and  exterminations, 
religion  was  inextricably  mixed  up  with  politics 
and  land.  Below  everything  else  the  idea  of  re- 
possessing themselves  of  land  their  forefathers  had 
held,  and  getting  back  Ireland  for  themselves, 
possessed  the  minds  of  the  poor  peasantry  who 
filled  the  rebel  ranks. 

This  fact  is  brought  out  in  an  interesting  letter 
from  a  certain  Mrs.  Adams.  She  had  an  infirm 
father  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Wexford,  and  a 
brother  who  had  gone  mad  from  terror  in  Wexford 
Gaol,  and  she  must  have  had  full  opportunity  of 
forming  a  judgment.  "  I  shall  ever  have  reason," 
she  writes,  "to  love  the  poor  Irish  for  the  many 
proofs  of  heart  they  have  shown  during  this  dis- 
turbed season ;  particularly  as  they  were  all  per- 
suaded into  a  belief  that  they  were  to  possess  the 
different  estates  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  country, 
and  that  they  had  only  to  draw  lots  for  their 
possession." 


MILITARY  EXCESSES  93 

STORY  OF  THE  REBELLION  OF  '98. 

The  Rebellion,  as  I  have  said,  entirely  missed  fire 
as  a  concerted  movement.  Munster  and  Connaught 
remained  perfectly  quiet,  and  the  rising  assumed 
comparatively  small  proportions  in  the  central  parts 
of  the  island.  In  Queen's  County  an  unsuccessful 
attack  was  made  on  Monastereven,  and  on  the 
same  day  some  1,000  or  1,500  rebels  attempted  to 
surprise  the  town  of  Carlow,  but  were  repulsed 
with  very  heavy  loss  ;  and  a  body  of  some  3,000 
rebels  was  routed  and  scattered  at  Haggardstown 
by  a  detachment  of  militia  and  a  small  force  of 
yeomanry.  Shortly  after  another  rebel  body, 
reckoned  at  4,000  men,  was  routed  in  Meath  by  a 
force  of  some  400  yeomanry. 

In  Kildare  the  rebels,  who  had  entrenched  them- 
selves with  considerable  military  skill,  were  dis- 
lodged and  defeated  by  the  City  of  Cork  Militia, 
and  a  large  force  encamped  near  the  Curragh  of 
Kildare,  under  a  leader  named  Perkins,  made  terms 
of  surrender  with  General  Dundas,  and  to  the 
number  of  2,000  dispersed. 

In  that  part  of  Ireland  the  rising  is  more 
notable,  perhaps  for  the  indecent  haste  with  which 
military  executions  took  place  than  for  anything 
else.  Two  examples  illustrating  numerous  cases 
must  suffice.  Sir  Edward  Crosby  was  tried  by 
a  court-martial  for  participating  in  the  attack  on 
Carlow,  of  which  only  one  member  was  of  higher 


94       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

rank  than  that  of  captain,  and  was  condemned. 
He  was  a  parliamentary  reformer  of  the  school  of 
Grattan.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  he 
was  a  United  Irishman  or  a  Republican,  and  he 
certainly  took  no  part  in  the  attack.  The  only 
real  charge  against  him  was  that  he  must  have 
known  of  the  attack  and  did  not  give  notice  of  it. 
The  court-martial  was  held,  however,  when  men 
were  crazy  with  fear.  Crosby  was  given  an  hour 
to  prepare  his  defence,  and  he  had  no  counsel.  He 
was  hanged  and  decapitated,  and  his  head  was  fixed 
on  a  spike  outside  Carlow  Gaol. 

A  Protestant  clergyman  named  Williamson  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  rebels.  Owing  to  the  interces- 
sion of  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  they  spared  his  life 
and  preserved  him  as  a  prisoner.  He  was  recaptured 
by  the  Loyalists,  who  at  once  proceeded  to  hang 
him  without  trial.  Fortunately,  his  brother-in-law 
was  an  officer  in  the  regiment,  and  saved  his  life. 

FAILURE  IN  ULSTER. 

The  Rebellion  was  a  complete  failure  in  Ulster, 
where  it  originated.  It  broke  out  on  June  9  in 
the  counties  of  Antrim  and  Down,  and  was  quickly 
suppressed.  An  attack  was  made  on  the  town  of 
Antrim  by  a  force  of  some  3,000  or  4,000  men,  but 
they  were  repulsed  with  a  loss  of  from  200  to  400, 
and  broke  up  and  dispersed.  The  rebels  displayed 
conspicuous  courage.  They  were  led  by  Henry 
Joy  McCracken,  one  of  the  original  founders  of  the 


EVENTS  IN  ULSTER  95 

United  Irish  Society.  He  was  subsequently  taken, 
and  tried  and  executed  at  Belfast.  Lord  O'Neill 
was  killed  in  this  action.  The  little  towns  of  Ran- 
dalstown  and  Ballymena  were  occupied  for  a  short 
time  by  the  rebels,  but  there  was  no  heart  in  the 
movement,  and  an  offer  of  pardon  to  all  those  who 
surrendered  their  arms,  with  the  exception  of  the 
leaders,  led  to  a  complete  dispersion.  In  County 
Down  an  indecisive  action  was  fought  on  June  9 
in  the  Barony  of  Ards.  On  the  llth  an  attack  on 
Portaferry  was  repulsed.  On  the  13th  a  large 
force,  estimated  at  5,000,  under  Henry  Munroe,  a 
Lisburn  linen-draper,  attacked  the  troops,  1,500  or 
1,600  in  number,  at  Ballinahinch.  The  rebels 
fought  with  great  courage,  but  were  finally 
repulsed  with  the  loss  of  400  or  500  men.  After 
this  an  offer  of  pardon  to  all  except  the  leaders 
who  laid  down  their  arms  and  returned  to  their 
allegiance  closed  the  Rebellion  in  Ulster.  Munroe 
was  taken,  tried,  and  hanged  at  Lisburn  before  his 
own  house,  and,  it  is  said,  before  the  eyes  of  his 
wife  and  mother. 

The  notable  facts  about  the  short-lived  rising  in 
Ulster  are  that  it  was  free  from  the  atrocities  that 
marked  the  Rebellion  in  Wexford  and  Wicklow — 
nevertheless,  it  was  suppressed  with  equal  bar- 
barity ;  and  that  at  the  Battle  of  Ballinahinch  the 
vast  majority  of  rebels  were  Protestants,  while  the 
Monaghan  militia,  almost  exclusively  Roman  Catho- 
lics, fought  gallantly  on  the  other  side. 


96       ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

INCIDENTS  IN  WICKLOW  AND  WEXFORD. 

The  Rebellion  was  really  serious  only  in  Wicklow 
and  Wexford.  It  broke  out  on  May  26  at  Boula- 
vogue,  between  Wexford  and  Gorey,  where  a 
number  of  rebels  assembled  under  Father  John 
Murphy.  A  party  of  eighteen  or  twenty  yeomen 
hastened  to  disperse  the  assembly,  but  were 
attacked  and  scattered.  By  next  day  the  rebels 
had  acquired  considerable  force,  and  concentrated 
themselves  on  two  hills  between  Wexford  and 
Gorey,  called  Oulart  and  Kilmacthomas.  Two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  yeomen  attacked  and  dispersed  the 
rebels  on  Kilmacthomas  Hill,  though  they  were  ten 
times  as  numerous  as  their  assailants,  inflicting  a 
loss  of  about  150  men.  The  force  of  Father  John 
Murphy  on  the  hill  of  Oulart  numbered  about 
4,000.  They  were  attacked  by  110  men  of  the 
North  Cork  Militia,  who,  with  the  exception  of 
five  men,  were  annihilated.  On  the  28th  Ennis- 
corthy  was  attacked  by  a  force  of  6,000  or  7,000 
men,  the  garrison  consisting  of  300,  and  was  taken, 
the  garrison  and  Loyalists  flying  to  Wexford. 
The  rebels  attempted  no  pursuit,  but  retired,  and 
formed  their  camp  at  the  top  of  Vinegar  Hill. 
The  rebels  afterwards  moved  to  a  place  called 
Three  Rocks.  The  Wexford  garrison  sallied  out 
to  the  Three  Rocks,  hoping  to  disperse  the  rebels, 
but,  finding  a  force  of,  it  is  said,  not  less  than  16,000 
men  against  them,  retired  to  Wexford.  On  the  30th 


THE  FORTUNES  OF  WAR  97 

the  garrison  evacuated  Wexford,  and  the  town  was 
occupied  by  the  rebels.  On  the  31st  the  rebels 
quitted  Wexford,  leaving  a  garrison  under  the 
command  of  Matthew  Keogh. 

On  June  1  the  rebels  received  their  first  serious 
check.  A  body  of  some  6,000  of  them,  who  do  not 
appear  to  have  formed  part  of  those  who  had  taken 
Wexford,  attacked  the  village  of  Newtown  Barry. 
The  garrison  of  about  350  yeomen  and  militiamen 
under  Colonel  Lestrange,  fearing  to  be  surrounded 
by  superior  numbers,  retired  from  the  village. 
When,  however,  some  Loyalists  continued  to  make 
a  desperate  resistance,  the  yeomen  returned,  and, 
finding  the  rebels  dispersed,  and  engaged  in  pillag- 
ing through  the  streets,  put  them  to  flight  with 
great  loss.  On  June  3  the  rebels  made  an  attack 
on  Gorey,  which  was  entirely  successful.  At  the 
same  time,  however,  a  large  body  under  the  com- 
mand of  Bagenal  Harvey  made  an  attempt  to 
attack  New  Ross,  which  was  unsuccessful.  Both 
sides  fought  with  the  most  desperate  courage,  and 
the  slaughter  was  great,  the  rebels  losing  about 
2,000  men.  On  June  9  the  rebels,  estimated  at 
25,000  or  30,000  men,  which  is  probably  a  great 
exaggeration,  marched  from  Gorey  to  the  attack 
of  Arklow,  and  a  desperate  fight,  which  lasted 
nearly  the  whole  day,  ensued.  A  favourite  leader, 
Father  Michael  Murphy,  was  killed,  and  the  rebels 
were  forced  to  retire  to  Gorey  with  a  loss  of 
over  1,000. 

7 


98      ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

On  the  19th,  the  rebel  forces,  under  the  command 
of  Father  Philip  Roche,  were  compelled  to  retreat 
from  their  position  near  New  Ross  in  two  bodies. 
One  retired  in  the  direction  of  Vinegar  Hill ;  the 
other  made  its  way,  after  some  fighting,  to  the 
Three  Rocks  near  Wexford.  On  the  21st  Vinegar 
Hill  was  stormed  by  an  army  of  13,000  or  14,000 
men  and  taken,  the  casualties  among  the  troops 
being  less  than  100,  whilst  the  rebel  loss  was 
probably  five  or  six  times  as  great. 

Enniscorthy  was  taken  at  the  same  time,  and 
some  horrible  scenes  of  cruelty  occurred.  The 
building  which  the  rebels  had  used  as  their  hospital 
was  set  on  fire,  and  all  within  it  burnt  in  the  flames. 
It  has  been  stated,  however,  that  the  burning  was 
accidental. 

Wexford  alone  remained  in  the  hands  of  the 
rebels,  under  the  command  of  Keogh.  In  his 
laudable  efforts  to  maintain  discipline  and  order  he 
was  powerfully  supported  by  one  Edward  Roche, 
the  brother  of  Father  Philip  Roche,  the  rebel 
commander,  by  a  number  of  the  more  respectable 
inhabitants  of  Wexford,  and  many  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  priests.  They  succeeded  in  controlling 
the  mob,  often  at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  but  with 
increasing  difficulty  as  the  news  of  rebel  disasters 
became  known  and  inflamed  the  populace  to  mad- 
ness. A  large  number  of  Protestant  prisoners  were 
confined  in  Wexford  Gaol,  and  among  them  Lord 
Kingsborough,  who  was  particularly  obnoxious  to 


MASSACRE  AT  WEXFORD  99 

the  people  as  having  been  in  command  of  the 
North  Cork  Militia.  The  leader  of  the  violent 
party  among  the  rebels  was  Thomas  Dixon,  who, 
with  the  assistance  of  his  wife,  appears  to  have  been 
perfectly  indefatigable  in  inciting  the  people  to 
murder.  So  furious  had  the  mob  become  that 
even  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop,  Dr.  Caulfield, 
was  in  imminent  danger  of  being  murdered  himself, 
in  his  efforts  to  prevent  murder.  On  the  20th  the 
whole  armed  population  of  Wexford,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  guards,  was  ordered  to  march  to 
Three  Rocks  to  the  assistance  of  Father  Philip 
Roche,  who  was  encamped  there  and  who  was 
expecting  an  attack  from  General  Moore ;  and 
on  that  afternoon,  when  the  leaders  and  the  bulk  of 
the  armed  population  were  absent,  the  most  horrible 
episode  of  the  Rebellion,  the  massacre  of  Wexford 
Bridge,  took  place.  The  prisoners  were  taken  out 
of  the  gaol  in  rows  of  eighteen  or  twenty,  and 
pikemen,  piercing  them  one  by  one,  lifted  them 
writhing  in  the  air,  held  them  for  a  few  moments 
before  the  multitude,  and  then  flung  them  into  the 
river.  Ninety-seven  prisoners  were  said  to  have 
been  thus  murdered,  and  the  tragedy  was  being 
enacted  for  more  than  three  hours. 

CLOSE  OF  THE  REBELLION. 

The  end  was  now  approaching.  Three  armies 
were  on  the  march  to  Wexford,  and  the  town  was 
plainly  indefensible.  Keogh  endeavoured  to  make 


100     ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

terms  with  General  Moore  for  the  surrender  of  the 
town.  In  the  meantime  the  Battle  of  Vinegar 
Hill  was  proceeding,  and  the  defeated  rebels  were 
retiring  on  Wexford.  By  the  combined  exertions 
of  Keogh  and  the  Catholic  Bishops  and  clergy  the 
rebel  forces,  though  furious  and  demoralized  by 
defeat,  were  induced  to  leave  the  town.  Wexford 
capitulated  and  was  saved  from  the  terrible  con- 
sequences that  would  probably  otherwise  have 
ensued.  General  Moore  camped  outside  the 
town  in  order  to  save  Wexford,  but  a  small 
number  of  yeomen  and  two  companies  of  the 
Queen's  Royals  entered  without  resistance  and 
took  possession  of  the  town.  This  ended  the 
Rebellion  of  1798. 

The  insurgent  leaders  were  treated  without 
mercy.  Father  Philip  Roche,  perceiving  the  Re- 
bellion to  be  hopeless,  and  desiring  to  save  his 
troops  at  the  Three  Rocks  by  a  capitulation  similar 
to  that  accepted  from  the  rebels  at  Wexford,  came 
down  alone  and  unarmed  to  make  terms.  He  was 
seized,  dragged  off  his  horse,  and  so  ill-used  that  he 
is  said  to  have  been  scarcely  recognizable ;  he  was 
tried  by  court-martial,  and  promptly  hanged  on 
Wexford  Bridge.  Matthew  Keogh  was  also  hanged 
on  Wexford  Bridge,  his  head  cut  off,  and  fixed  on 
a  pike  before  the  court-house.  Cornelius  Grogan, 
a  country  gentleman  who  had  been  brought  into 
Wexford  immediately  after  its  surrender  to  the 
rebels,  and  Bagenal  Harvey  were  also  promptly 


HUMANITY  AT  A  DISCOUNT      101 

executed.  Theoretically,  no  doubt,  Bagenal  Harvey, 
Grogan,  and  Keogh  were  in  open  rebellion  and 
worthy  of  death,  but  all  of  them,  especially  Keogh 
and  Bagenal  Harvey,  had  from  first  to  last,  in 
imminent  danger  of  their  lives,  done  their  utmost 
to  prevent  cruelty  and  murder,  and  to  conduct  the 
war  in  a  civilized  and  humane  manner.  They  saved 
innumerable  lives,  and  it  was  surely,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  a  mistake  to  make  no  discrimination 
between  them  and  those  who  had  been  guilty  of 
horrible  atrocities.  Such  considerations,  however, 
were  not  attended  to ;  on  the  contrary,  they  seem 
to  have  been  made  use  of  against  prisoners. 

The  most  temperate  and  most  truthful  of  the 
Loyalist  historians,  Gordon,  writes  that  the  "  dis- 
play of  humanity  by  a  rebel  was  in  general  in  the 
trials  by  court-martial  by  no  means  regarded  as  a 
circumstance  in  favour  of  the  accused.  Whoever 
could  be  proved  to  have  saved  a  Loyalist  from 
assassination,  his  house  from  burning,  or  his  property 
from  plunder,  was  considered  as  having  influence 
among  the  rebels,  and  consequently  a  rebel  com- 
mander." He  relates  the  exclamation  of  one  of  the 
rebels :  "  I  thank  my  God  that  no  person  can  prove 
me  guilty  of  saving  the  life  or  property  of  any- 
one." 

CAUSES  OF  DEFEAT. 

Prophecy  after  the  event  is  comparatively  easy. 
It  is  certain  that  the  Rebellion  might  have  been 
averted  by  timely,  even  though  very  moderate, 


102     ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

reform  of  Parliament,  by  amelioration  of  the  social 
and  political  status  of  Roman  Catholics,  and  by 
redress  of  the  grievance  under  which  the  people 
laboured  in  the  matter  of  tithes.  That  the  Rebellion 
would  have  been  successful  if  a  simultaneous  rising 
had  been  accompanied  by  a  landing  of  French 
troops  is,  I  think,  equally  certain,  but  success 
would  have  been  very  temporary.  The  Rebellion 
lacked  that  cohesion  and  unanimity  of  purpose 
essential  for  achievement.  The  motive  force  under- 
went a  radical  change.  Originating  in  a  perfectly 
legitimate  combination  of  Protestants  and  Catholics, 
agitating  for  reform  and  the  removal  of  disabilities, 
it  advanced  or  receded,  according  to  the  opinion 
that  may  be  entertained,  into  an  attempt  to  secure 
those  objects  by  force,  in  despair  at  the  failure  of 
constitutional  means.  It  developed  into  a  desire 
on  the  part  of  many  to  overthrow  the  Monarchy 
and  the  British  connection,  and  to  obtain  absolute 
independence  under  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment. Owing  to  the  failure  to  secure  concerted 
action  and  assistance  from  France,  the  leaders  of 
the  United  Irishmen  and  originators  of  that  move- 
ment lost  control.  Their  moderate  principles  were 
submerged,  and  their  authority  passed  to  men  of 
extreme  views,  without  military  experience  or 
capacity  for  organization. 

The  open  and  honest  endeavour  of  the  United 
Irishmen  to  unite  men  of  all  creeds  in  demanding 
justice  for  their  common  country,  degenerated  into 


FRANCE  AND  IRELAND  103 

a  ferocious  struggle,  largely  of  religions,  affording 
an  eloquent  warning  of  the  destructive  effect  of 
secret  societies  upon  political  causes,  and  of  the 
folly  of  admitting  forces  so  antagonistic  as  were 
the  Defenders  and  Peep-of-Day  Boys  into  a  move- 
ment the  main  principle  of  which  was  the  oblitera- 
tion of  all  discordant  elements  of  national  life. 

That  the  United  Irish  leaders  gravely  miscalcu- 
lated the  temper  of  the  country  is  evident.  Even  in 
their  stronghold,  Ulster,  the  rising  was  a  dead 
failure,  but  the  failure  was  in  this  case  largely  due 
to  causes  they  could  not  have  foreseen.  The 
United  Irish  sentiment  in  the  North  was  ardently 
republican.  They  looked  for  assistance  to  revo- 
lutionary and  republican  France,  and  fortified  their 
appeal  by  reference  to  the  action  of  the  Whig 
Party  in  England,  in  calling  upon  the  head  of  the 
Dutch  Republic  to  assist  them  in  the  struggle  for 
constitutional  liberty.  But  the  evident  conversion 
of  the  Revolution  in  France  into  a  military  des- 
potism profoundly  moderated  their  views  ;  and  the 
subjugation  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  of  the  Republics 
of  Venice  and  Genoa,  the  outrageous  action  of 
France  towards  Switzerland,  and,  above  all,  her 
dictatorial  conduct  towards  the  United  States,  with 
whom  the  Ulster  Presbyterians  were  in  the  deepest 
sympathy,  produced  a  complete  revulsion  of  feeling. 

Throughout  the  South  and  West,  and  indeed 
throughout  Ireland  generally,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Presbyterian  North,  sympathy  with  revolu- 


104     ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

tionary  France  was  at  most  only  skin-deep ;  the 
horrors  which  accompanied  it  disgusted  a  people 
naturally  humane,  and  Republicanism  was  alien  to  a 
population  essentially  aristocratic  and  leaning  to 
personal  rule.  The  atrocities  committed  by  both 
sides  in  Wicklow  and  Wexford  horrified  the  people 
everywhere,  but  especially  in  the  North.  Sculla- 
bogue  broke  Bagenal  Harvey's  heart.  He  heard  of 
it  after  the  great  battle  of  New  Ross.  The  courage 
that  had  sustained  him  through  the  battle,  the 
defeat  and  flight,  gave  way,  and,  wringing  his  hands 
in  agony,  he  bitterly  deplored  having  any  part  in  a 
cause  that  bore  such  fruit.  He  did  what  he  could, 
poor  man ;  he  opened  a  subscription  for  honourably 
burying  the  remains  of  the  murdered  prisoners,  and 
he  issued  a  proclamation  to  his  troops  to  the  effect 
that — "  Any  person,  or  persons,  who  shall  take  upon 
them  to  kill  or  murder  any  person  or  persons,  burn 
any  house,  or  commit  any  plunder,  without  written 
orders  from  the  Commander-in-Chief,  shall  suffer 
death."  A  well-meant  but  useless  proclamation, 
for  he  was  speedily  removed  from  his  command. 

An  Antrim  leader,  James  Dickey,  is  said  to  have 
declared  just  before  his  execution  that  the  mas- 
sacres in  Leinster  had  opened  the  eyes  of  the 
Presbyterians,  but  too  late.  The  Rebellion  was 
premature,  inchoate,  and  half-hearted.  There  was 
no  concerted  action ;  no  central  control  power- 
ful enough  to  fuse  and  neutralize  discordant 
elements.  Both  parties  were  guilty  of  terrible 


SPIRIT  OF  THE  REBELS  105 

cruelties ;  but  in  justice  it  must  be  said  that  the 
worst  offenders  on  the  one  side  were  disciplined 
men,  a  Flemish  and  a  Welsh  regiment ;  and  as  to 
the  other  side,  it  had  degenerated  into  an  ill-armed, 
half-starved,  undisciplined  mob  of  men  utterly  out 
of  hand,  and  scarcely  responsible  for  their  acts. 
Yet  in  all  the  dismal  tale,  two  bright  spots  are 
to  be  found,  and  must  not  be  forgotten ;  the 
magnificent  bravery  displayed  by  the  rebels  and 
the  many  instances  of  humanity  shown  by  them 
even  at  the  time  of  their  most  intense  rage, 
humiliation  and  despair. 

LATER  SPORADIC  RISINGS. 

The  risings  that  have  occurred  since  '98  need 
not  be  mentioned.  They  have  been  sporadic,  and 
have  left  little  or  no  impression  upon  the  people 
or  the  country ;  but  the  Rebellion  of  '98  did 
produce  permanent  effects  which  must  be  briefly 
noticed. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  about  the  R  ebellion  of 
'98 — its  causes,  motives,  and  conduct — there  can  be 
no  difference  of  opinion  concerning  its  results.  Its 
immediate  consequence  was  the  destruction  of  the 
Irish  Parliament.  It  left  Ireland  shaken  to  the 
core,  quivering  in  every  nerve.  The  country  was 
under  martial  law,  the  people  dominated  by  a  great 
military  force,  and  under  such  circumstances  no 
true  exhibition  of  popular  opinion  was  possible. 
The  Roman  Catholic  Hierarchy  and  their  people 


106     ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

seem  to  have  been,  on  the  whole,  inclined  towards 
the  Union,  hoping  to  obtain  emancipation  under  it, 
as  they  were  led  to  expect.  The  fighting  strength 
of  the  anti-Unionists  lay  in  the  Capital,  in  the  pro- 
fessions, especially  in  the  legal  profession,  and  in 
the  landed  gentry  throughout  the  country.  The 
latter,  terrified,  and  naturally  so,  at  the  horrors  in 
Wexford  and  Wicklow,  wavered  in  their  allegi- 
ance to  the  native  Parliament.  But  for  that,  had 
they  unanimously  stood  firm,  no  amount  of  bribery 
would  have  sufficed  to  carry  the  Act  of  Union 

of  1800. 

THE  RELIGIOUS  WEDGE. 

The  moral  effect  of  the  Rebellion  was  to  drive 
a  religious  wedge  through  the  nation.  During  the 
previous  half-  century,  sectarian  animosities  had 
practically  disappeared.  Partly  owing  perhaps  to 
the  general  laxity  in  matters  of  dogmatism  univer- 
sally prevailing,  but  mainly  to  the  rise  of  a  spirit 
of  conciliation  and  a  sense  of  nationality  that  made 
the  great  volunteer  movement  possible,  and  to  the 
success  of  that  movement  in  securing  freedom 
of  trade,  and  a  Parliament,  the  old  feuds  of  race 
and  class  and  religion  had  wellnigh  died  out,  and 
Ireland  had  become  a  nation.  The  Rebellion  tore 
open  all  the  old  wounds  again  to  the  satisfaction  of 
those  whose  political  theory  of  government  is  to 
keep  Ireland  perpetually  at  strife. 

In  reviewing  all  these  annihilations,  wars,  and 
rebellions,  certain  qualities  of  the  Irish  race  stand 


BISHOP  BEDELL  107 

out  clearly  defined.  Even  in  so  short  a  sketch  as 
this,  the  courage,  tolerance  of  religious  differences, 
humanity,  love  of  justice,  reverence  for  the  law, 
fortitude  and  indestructibility  of  the  Irish  are 
plainly  revealed.  Whether  as  linen-clad  men 
opposed  to  the  mailed  warriors  of  the  Normans,  or 
in  conflict  with  the  trained  soldiers  of  Elizabeth,  or 
in  defending  the  broken  walls  of  Limerick,  or 
pitted  against  Cromwell's  Ironsides,  or  as  little 
better  than  a  rabble  of  pikemen  charging  up  to  the 
cannon's  mouth  at  New  Ross,  they  displayed 
courage  of  the  highest  order.  They  failed,  for 
Ireland  was  ever  a  house  divided  against  itself. 

Tolerant  they  were  and  under  circumstances 
which,  if  anything  can  justify  it,  would  have  justi- 
fied intolerance.  Gentle  and  forgiving,  lovers  of 
justice  too,  and  a  people  reverencing  authority  and 
law.  Take  as  an  example  the  conduct  of  the 
people  towards  Bishop  Bedell  during  the  Rebellion 
of  1641. 

Bishop  Bedell  was  no  lukewarm  Protestant,  as 
was  the  fashion  among  the  clergy  of  those  days. 
On  the  contrary,  he  w^as  a  conspicuous  uncompro- 
mising opponent  of  Roman  Catholicism,  but  he  was 
sympathetic  and  an  eminently  just  and  good  man. 
His  diocese  lay  in  the  heart  of  Ulster.  During 
the  rising  of  1641,  when  Ulster  was  completely  in 
the  hands  of  rebels,  and  when,  according  to  some 
English  accounts,  scenes  of  carnage  resembling  the 
massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  were  enacted,  Bishop 


108     ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

Bedell  was  treated  with  kindness,  deference  and 
respect.  For  two  months  he  was  left  unmolested 
in  his  own  house,  free  to  exercise  his  religion  and 
to  succour  his  co-religionists.  For  a  short  time  he 
was  confined  in  a  castle  on  Lough  Erne,  but  even 
there  he  had,  as  his  biographer — his  son-in-law — 
assures  us,  perfect  liberty  "  to  use  Divine  exercises 
of  God's  worship,  to  pray,  read,  preach,  etc.,  though 
in  the  next  room  the  priest  was  acting  his  Baby- 
lonish mass."  He  was  at  liberty  when  he  died, 
though  his  diocese  was  still  in  full  possession  of 
the  rebels.  His  dying  wish  to  be  buried  in  the 
Cathedral  churchyard  was  conceded  by  the  Catholic 
Bishop.  The  Irish  rebels  furnished  a  guard  of 
honour  and  fired  a  volley  over  his  grave.* 

*  J.  F.  Taylor,  in  his  "  Life  of  Owen  Roe  O'Neill/'  writes  : 
"  With  his  son  and  his  son-in-law  he  (Bedell)  was  detained  in 
Cloghoughter  Castle.  There  the  Bishop  died,  and  when  his 
body  was  being  borne  to  the  grave  the  little  family  group 
wondered  to  see  an  Irish  detachment  of  soldiers  drawn  up  to 
await  the  funeral.  At  first  (they  tell  us)  they  feared  some 
interference.  But  they  were  much  mistaken.  The  commander, 
who  was  also  sheriff  of  the  county,  requested  that  he  and  his 
soldiers  might  be  permitted  to  show  their  deep  sorrow  for  the 
beloved  illustrious  one  that  lay  dead,  and,  being  allowed,  they 
followed  the  corpse  in  mournful  silence  until  the  grave  was 
reached.  .  .  .  They  wished  in  their  own  manner  to  show  their 
respect  and  grief.  So  the  men  were  drawn  up  and  a  volley  of 
honour  was  fired,  and  a  deep  chant  went  up  to  the  sky.  '  Re- 
quiescat  in  pace  ultimus  Angelorum.'  And  a  Catholic  priest  was 
heard  to  say,  '  O,  sit  anima  mea  cum  Bedello.'  " 


IRISH  TOLERATION  109 

ABSENCE  OF  RELIGIOUS  PERSECUTION. 

Nothing  is  more  remarkable  in  all  the  stained 
and  chequered  pages  of  Irish  history  than  the 
absence  of  religious  persecution,  and  the  deep 
respect  for  sincere  religion  in  every  form  evinced 
by  the  people.  The  original  conversion  of  the 
nation  to  Christianity  was  almost  bloodless.  No 
scenes  of  violence  marred  the  efforts  of  the  hosts 
of  Irish  missionaries  that  for  generations  laboured 
in  Britain,  Gaul,  and  Northern  Europe.  Dominion 
and  politics  had  no  part  in  their  work.  They 
laboured  for  religion  only,  and  trusted  solely  in 
the  persuasion  of  their  own  zeal.  Protestants  flying 
from  the  persecutions  of  Mary  in  England  found 
safe  shelter  in  Catholic  Ireland.  The  witch  mania 
that  caused  so  many  cruel  deaths  in  Protestant 
Britain  and  most  Catholic  countries  was  scarcely 
felt  in  Ireland.  Quakers  persecuted  in  Protestant 
England  traversed  Catholic  Ireland  unmolested, 
preaching  the  most  extreme  form  of  Protestantism. 
Wesley  found  respectful  listeners  in  Ireland,  and 
spoke  of  the  docile  and  tolerant  spirit  in  which  he 
was  received.  Protestant  clergy  scattered  over  the 
wildest  and  most  purely  Catholic  districts,  lived  in 
security  even  in  the  worst  periods  of  organized 
crime.  Ireland  has  ever  been  a  faithful  daughter 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Catholics  have  always 
been  in  an  enormous  majority,  and  yet  in  spite 
of  the  persecutions,  devastations,  and  confiscations 


110    ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

under  which  they  suffered  at  the  hands  of  a  Pro- 
testant people,  in  spite  of  penal  laws  and  indignities, 
the  Irish  have  never  shown  a  retaliatory  spirit  even 
when  the  Sovereign  of  the  two  countries  was 
Catholic,  and  Catholicism  was  a  dominant  factor 
of  government.  During  the  period  of  Protestant 
persecution  in  England  under  Mary,  not  one  Pro- 
testant suffered  for  his  religion  in  Ireland.  One  of 
the  first  Acts  of  the  Catholic  Irish  Parliament 
during  the  short  period  of  Catholic  ascendancy 
under  James  II.  was  to  introduce,  and  pass,  a  Bill 
establishing  liberty  of  conscience. 

Sir  John  Perrot,  the  only  Administrator  of 
Ireland  in  the  "  spacious  times  "  of  Elizabeth  who 
exercised  his  functions  with  justice  and  honesty, 
was  regarded  with  respect — and  almost  admira- 
tion—  by  the  people  who  suffered  under  his 
rule. 

Sir  John  Davies,  the  Attorney-General  of  King 
James,  expressed  admiration  at  the  absence  of  crime. 
"  I  dare  affirm,"  he  said,  writing  in  1612,  "  that  for 
the  space  of  five  years  past  there  have  not  been  found 
so  many  malefactors  worthy  of  death  in  all  the  six 
circuits  of  this  realm  (which  is  now  divided  into 
thirty-two  circuits  at  large)  as  in  one  circuit  of  six 
shires — namely,  the  western  circuit  in  England. 
For  the  truth  is  that  in  time  of  peace  the  Irish  are 
more  fearful  to  offend  the  law  than  the  English, 
or  any  other  nation  whatever."  He  gave  it  as  his 
belief  that — "  The  nation  will  gladly  continue  sub- 


THE  PERVERSION  OF  IRELAND      111 

ject  without  adhering  to  any  other  lord  or  King  as 
long  as  they  may  be  protected  and  justly  governed 
without  oppression  on  the  one  side  or  impunity  on 
the  other.  For  there  is  no  nation  or  people  under 
the  sun  that  doth  love  equal  or  indifferent  justice 
better  than  the  Irish,  or  will  rest  better  satisfied 
with  the  execution  thereof,  although  it  be  against 
themselves,  so  as  they  may  have  the  protection 
and  benefit  of  law  when  upon  just  cause  they  may 

desire  it." 

THE  "MERE  IRISH." 

The  Irish  were  by  nature  more  law-abiding  than 
the  English,  and  yet  respect  for  law  and  contempt 
for  law  became  national  characteristics  of  the  two 
peoples.  And  why?  Because,  taken  as  a  whole, 
law  throughout  English  history  was  native  law  and 
a  beneficent  agent,  respecting  national  sentiment, 
and  securing  men  in  their  liberties  and  rights. 
Throughout  Irish  history  it  was  alien  law  and  a 
maleficent  agent,  outraging  national  sentiment  and 
depriving  men  of  their  liberties  and  rights. 

Many  pages  might  be  filled  with  instances  of 
the  humanity  displayed  by  the  "  mere  Irish,"  but 
it  is  unnecessary.  If  the  few  cases  I  have  cited  do 
not  suffice,  ample  material  to  form  a  judgment 
may  be  found  in  the  pages  of  impartial  history. 
To  conduct  war  in  a  humane  and  civilized  manner 
respecting  non-combatants,  sex,  and  age,  and  to 
honourably  fulfil  their  pledges,  were  ever  the  aims 
of  Irish  leaders,  and  history  teems  with  instances  of 


112    ANNIHILATIONS,  WARS,  ETC. 

individual  kindness  on  the  part  of  "  Rebels  "  even 
in  the  darkest  periods  of  depression  and  despair. 

How  were  these  qualities  rewarded  ?  By  broken 
pledges  and  violated  faith ;  by  legal  injustice  and 
chicanery ;  by  trickery  and  deliberate  murder  ;  by 
wars  of  annihilation  in  which  neither  age  nor  sex 
were  spared ;  by  the  destruction  of  flocks  and 
crops ;  by  vast  confiscations  carried  out  by  force 
and  fraud.  By  such  measures  a  law-abiding, 
honest,  and  kind-hearted  people  were  forced  into 
hatred  of,  and  contempt  for,  law.  were  educated  in 
distrust,  were  driven  to  seek  refuge  in  secret 
organizations  and  the  brutalities  of  private  revenge. 
That,  in  view  of  the  circumstances  in  which  she 
was  placed  and  of  the  conditions  that  universally 
obtained,  England  had  some  justification  for  her 
policy  of  extermination  may  perhaps  be  conceded  ; 
but  the  impossibility  of  obliterating  the  race  and 
making  Ireland  English  was  demonstrated  at  an 
early  date.  The  resilient  and  indestructible  vitality 
of  the  race,  its  powers  of  recuperation  and  assimila- 
tion, were  proved  over  and  over  again.  Wave 
after  wave  of  immigrants,  Anglo-Normans,  Eliza- 
bethan Puritans,  became  incorporated  with  a 
people  that,  out  of  apparently  absolute  destruction, 
sprang  up  again  invariably  into  active  life.  It  is 
marvellous  that  English  statesmen  could  not  learn 
their  lesson.  It  is  tragic  that  their  energy  should 
have  been  concentrated  upon  crushing  out  all  that 
was  good  and  developing  all  that  was  bad  in  the 


ENGLAND'S  STUPIDITY  113 

Irish  character.  It  is  strange  that  they  could  not 
see  that  if  the  realm  was  ever  to  be  the  better  for 
Ireland,  it  could  only  be  by  allowing  and  encourag- 
ing Ireland  to  develop  on  her  own  lines.  Culpable 
stupidity  is  the  sin  of  England. 


PART  II 

DESTRUCTION,  DEGRADATION,  AND  REVIVAL 

IRELAND'S  MISFORTUNES. 

THOUGH  the  object  of  the  wars  of  annihilation— 
namely,  the  destruction  of  the  race — was  not 
attained,  they  did  not  fall  far  short  of  accomplish- 
ing it.  They  drove  such  of  the  natural  leaders  of 
the  people  and  of  their  most  energetic  followers 
who  escaped  famine,  fire,  and  the  sword  to  foreign 
countries,  or  forced  them  into  a  miserable  life  of 
semi-brigandage  at  home.  They  reduced  the  rem- 
nant of  the  tillers  of  the  soil  left  alive  to  complete 
servitude  and  an  existence  bordering  on  starvation. 
They  left  a  broken-spirited  people  with  only  one 
object  worth  living  for — revenge,  and  only  one 
outlet  for  what  little  energy  was  left  to  them— 
isolated  reprisals.  But  they  failed  to  kill  the  race 
or  to  extinguish  the  sense  of  nationality.  Nor  did 
they  completely  ruin  Ireland.  To  accomplish  that 
latter  object  other  and  more  successful  methods 
were  pursued.  Though  not  so  visibly  outrageous 
to  humanity,  the  destruction  of  her  industries, 

114 


EARLY  INVASIONS  115 

trade,  and  commerce  proved  more  fatal  to  Ireland 
than  the  sword,  and  the  penal  laws  did  more  to 
degrade  the  nation  and  weaken  nationality  than 
famine,  the  rope,  or  the  flames. 

Ireland  has  enjoyed  three  periods  of  prosperity. 
It  is  difficult  to  speak  with  accuracy  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  country  prior  to  the  Scandinavian 
inroads  and  settlements,  but  there  is  no  doubt 
whatever  that  Ireland  in  those  early  days  was 
looked  upon,  and  with  reason,  as  a  rich  and  pros- 
perous land.  She  developed  an  architecture  of  her 
own.  Her  people  were  skilled  textile  workers. 
She  was  the  abode  of  learning.  She  kept  alive  the 
flickering  flame  of  Christianity,  and  her  missionaries 
travelled  and  taught  over  Britain  and  on  the  Con- 
tinent. She  was  well  advanced  in  civilization — 
in  many  respects,  far  ahead  of  her  contemporaries, 
when  her  riches  tempted  the  sea-rovers  of  the  North. 

THE  VIKINGS  IN  IRELAND. 

The  predatory  invasions  of  Northmen  put  an  end 
to  this  period  of  prosperity  for  a  time,  but  for  a 
time  only.  The  Vikings  never  got  the  hold  in 
Ireland  that  they  acquired  in  England.  In 
England  they  gradually  dethroned  the  Saxon 
Princes,  and  finally  ruled  over  the  whole  land.  In 
Ireland  they  never  penetrated  to  any  distance  from 
their  base — the  sea.  They  failed  to  overthrow 
native  dynasties  or  chiefs  and  to  establish  them- 
selves in  their  place.  They  burned  and  destroyed 


116   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

and  checked  the  advance  of  civilization,  but  not  for 
long.  The  raids  and  incursions  of  predatory  Vikings 
were  soon  followed  by  immigration  in  force  of 
more  stable  elements.  The  Scandinavian  sea-kings 
and  their  followers  excelled  in  two  professions  or 
trades — piracy  and  commerce.  They  were  skilled 
murderers  and  also  first-rate  men  of  business.  The 
same  men  who,  issuing  with  their  long  ships  from 
Icelandic  fiords,  harried  the  coasts  of  France, 
Britain  or  Ireland,  invested  the  proceeds  of  their 
plunder  judiciously  at  home  ;  and  with  piracy  they 
ever  combined  trade.  Danes,  as  they  are  generally 
but  somewhat  erroneously  called,  settled  perma- 
nently in  the  seaports  and  engaged  in  commerce. 
The  indestructible  Irish  absorbed  and  assimilated 
them,  as  they  did  the  Anglo-Normans  who  followed 
them,  and  the  country  made  great  strides  in  arts, 
crafts,  commerce,  and  trade.  For  some  five  cen- 
turies Ireland  was  a  busy  field  of  industry,  and 
the  wealth  of  the  country  must  have  been  large. 
Numerous  and  great  fairs  were  held  all  over  the 
island,  and  it  must  have  been  traversed  by  good  main 
roads.  The  natural  waterways  were  thoroughly 
utilized,  and  the  harbours  were  thronged  with  Irish 
ships  engaged  in  a  flourishing  oversea  trade.  They 
carried  out  raw  or  partially  manufactured  produce, 
such  as  meat,  cheese,  fish,  and  hides ;  and  manu- 
factured goods — cloth,  cloaks,  carpets,  blankets, 
sail-cloth,  fine  linen,  gloves,  and  shoes.  Wooden 
utensils  and  metal-work  were  also  exported  in  large 


IRISH  PROSPERITY  117 

quantities.  The  imports  were,  with  the  exception 
of  Spanish  iron  ore,  salt,  and  some  dye-stuffs, 
nearly  all  luxuries,  such  as  wine,  spices,  and  expen- 
sive articles  of  attire.  The  ships  of  Ireland  traded 
with  England,  Scotland,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  and 
the  Low  Countries.  Her  fisheries  were  profitable, 
and  her  coasts  were  frequented  by  large  Spanish 
and  English  fishing  fleets.  Ardglass,  Drogheda, 
Dublin,  Wexford,  did  a  large  trade  with  the  Bristol 
Channel  and  other  English  ports.  Waterford, 
Dungannon,  Youghal,  Cork,  Kinsale,  Bantry, 
Dingle,  Limerick,  Galway,  Sligo,  throve  greatly 
through  their  trade  with  the  Continent.  Galway  was 
one  of  the  busiest  ports  of  the  two  islands.  The 
towns  were  well  and  substantially  built ;  their  water- 
supply  was  good,  and  in  sanitation  and  comfort 
they  were  ahead  of  the  current  requirements  of  the 
age.  Doubtless,  remote  parts  of  the  country  were 
wild  and  poor,  but,  speaking  generally,  the  people 
appear  to  have  been  fully  occupied,  well  dressed, 
and  well  fed.  The  merchants,  chiefs,  and  upper 
classes  were  handsomely  attired,  and  lived  in  con- 
siderable luxury. 

ENGLISH  MISCONCEPTIONS. 

Such  a  condition  is,  I  am  well  aware,  very 
different  from  that  generally  portrayed  by  contem- 
porary English  writers.  They  were  wont  to  describe 
Ireland  as  a  desolate  waste  of  inhospitable  plains, 
mountains,  and  forests,  sparsely  inhabited  by  human 


118   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

beings  little  superior  in  intelligence,  morals,  and 
manners  to  the  wild  beasts  that  shared  the  wilder- 
ness with  them.  This  absurdly  inaccurate  descrip- 
tion is  not  difficult  to  account  for.  In  the  first 
place,  English  authors  were  influenced  by  that 
strange  and  universal,  but  illogical,  tendency  of 
human  nature  which  leads  men  to  decry  their 
enemies ;  in  the  second  place,  accounts  of  the 
country  and  the  people  were  written  by  men  steeped 
with  prejudice,  following  closely  in  the  wake  of 
those  devastating  armies  which,  by  the  sword,  fire, 
and  famine,  reduced  the  country  through  which 
liey  marched  to  the  condition  so  graphically 
described  by  Spencer.  These  destroying  armies 
cut  swaiths  broad,  it  is  true,  but  still  narrow  as 
compared  with  the  country  left  untouched,  and 
English  deputies  and  others  accompanying  them 
saw  only  the  red  ruin  left,  and  recorded  only  what 
they  saw  ;  in  the  third  place,  the  Crown,  the  agents 
of  the  Crown,  and  English  adventurers  wanted  an 
excuse  for  their  conduct,  and,  in  justification, 
entered  the  plea  that  they  were  bringing  settled 
government,  civilization,  and  the  laws  of  God  and 
man  to  a  Godless  set  of  benighted  savages,  sunk  to 
the  lowest  depths  of  immorality,  brutality,  and 
crime.  That  the  description  was  utterly  false  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  In  spite  of  constant  wars,  Ireland 
steadily  progressed  in  agriculture,  fishing  industries, 
manufacturing  industries,  trade,  literature,  and  the 
liberal  arts  and  sciences,  and  her  achievements 


A  RICH  COUNTRY  119 

were  the  work  of  her  own  hands.  At  the  height 
of  her  second  epoch  of  prosperity,  towards  the 
close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  English  rule  was 
confined  to  Dublin  and  a  circle  round  it  with  a 
radius  of  not  more  than  thirty  or  forty  miles. 
Ireland  absorbed  new  elements  of  population  with 
ease  and  rapidity  ;  Scandinavian,  Norman,  English, 
and  Welsh,  adopted  the  language,  dress,  customs, 
manners,  legal  system,  and  land  tenure  of  the  Irish, 
and  discarded  the  legal,  social,  and  economic  systems 
to  which  they  were  accustomed. 

It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  superior  races  could 
have  been  thus  assimilated  by  an  inferior  race. 
Inferior  the  Irish  were,  no  doubt,  in  those  character- 
istics that  make  for  cohesion  and  solidarity,  but 
they  certainly  were  not  inferior  in  all  that  is 
comprised  in  civilization. 

The  certain  fact  that  Irish  imports  so  largely 
consisted  of  luxuries,  and  that  exports  were 
balanced  by  remitments  of  money,  is  proof  of  the 
manufacturing  and  commercial  activity  that  pre- 
vailed. The  excellence  of  Irish  work  was  so 
generally  recognized  that  Irish  artificers  were  in 
great  demand,  and  settled  in  large  numbers  on 
the  Continent,  in  Spain,  France,  and  the  Nether- 
lands, and  in  smaller  numbers  in  Bristol  and  other 
English  trading  centres.  The  fact  is,  Ireland  was 
not,  as  generally  represented,  barbarous  and  poor ; 
she  was,  in  truth,  busy,  active,  intelligent,  and 
rich.  Her  misery  did  not  excite  the  charity  of 


120  DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

Plantagenet  and  Tudor  Sovereigns ;  her  riches 
roused  their  cupidity,  and,  in  the  effort  to  possess 
themselves  of  those  riches,  they  destroyed  the 
sources  of  them.  Thriving  towns  became  tumble- 
down villages,  and  so  remain  to  this  day,  a  few 
architectural  remains  alone  testifying  to  their 
former  prosperity.  On  those  once  so  busy  waters 
scarce  a  sail  can  now  be  seen.  The  Tudors  ruined 
Ireland,  and  they  did  not  benefit  themselves ;  they 
created  a  desert,  and  marvelled  that  no  profit 
accrued  to  them  therefrom. 

WAR  ON  IRISH  INDUSTRY. 

War  was  waged  upon  Irish  industry  in  various 
ways  ;  the  process  can  only  be  briefly  described. 

The  policy  of  securing  Irish  trade  for  England 
had  been  inaugurated  before  Henry  VIII.  came 
to  the  throne ;  but  it  is  to  that  monarch  and 
his  great  descendant,  Elizabeth,  that  the  credit  of 
carrying  it  out  to  the  bitter  end  must  be  given. 
England  was  full  of  the  spirit  of  adventure.  Her 
trading  instincts  and  her  shipping  were  rapidly 
developing,  and  her  merchants,  coveting  Irish 
commerce,  made  it  their  private  business  to 
capture  it.  With  their  armed  merchant  vessels 
they  harried  the  coasts,  and  made  open  war 
upon  the  seaport  towns.  Elizabeth  employed 
regular  fleets  under  her  most  distinguished  naval 
commanders — Sir  Humphrey  Gilbert,  Raleigh, 
Frobisher,  and  others  famous  in  history — to  cap- 


ENGLISH  SETTLEMENTS  121 

ture  the  Irish  foreign  trade.  They  did  not  capture 
it,  but  they  did  demolish  it,  and  in  the  process 
nearly  ruined  Galway  and  all  the  southern  and 
western  ports.  Every  effort  was  also  made  to 
destroy  inland  industry.  The  great  national  fairs 
were  prohibited.  No  trade  of  any  kind  was  allowed 
to  be  carried  on  by  anyone  not  of  English 
name. 

The  principal  towns  in  Ireland,  whether  of 
Gaelic,  Scandinavian,  or  Anglo-Norman  origin, 
were  converted  into  English  settlements.  Charters 
were  granted  to  them  carrying  municipal  rights  and 
privileges,  on  condition  that  they  remained  English. 
They  were  not  to  admit  "  mere  Irish  "  to  any  share 
in  their  government.  They  were  not  to  trade  with 
them,  or  in  any  way  to  countenance,  assist,  or 
befriend  them.  The  greatest  pains  were  taken, 
by  the  enactment  of  sanguinary  laws  against  inter- 
marriage and  fosterage,  to  preserve  the  purity  of 
the  blood.  Every  effort  was  made  to  retain  trade 
and  commerce  in  the  hands  of  the  settlers,  and  to 
prevent  the  "  mere  Irish  "  from  participating  in  the 
business  and  government  of  the  towns,  and  from 
sharing  in  their  corporate  life  and  in  the  privileges 
conferred  upon  them,  but  all  to  no  avail.  The 
conditions  imposed  upon  the  chartered  towns  were 
not,  and  could  not,  be  fulfilled.  It  was  impossible 
for  the  citizens  to  act  up  to  them,  even  had  they 
desired  to  do  so.  Trade  with  the  Irish  was  essential 
to  them  ;  it  was  necessary  to  their  very  existence. 


122   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

"  CONQUEST  "  BY  THE  IRISH. 

The  charm  of  Irish  language,  law,  customs,  and 
manners  had  its  inevitable  effect,  and,  as  usual,  the 
English  did  not  Anglicize  the  Irish,  but  the  Irish 
Irishized  the  English.  The  towns  placed  them- 
selves under  the  protection  of  the  native  chiefs, 
and  their  commerce  flourished  so  long  as  the  chiefs 
were  strong  enough  to  protect  them.  Nothing  is 
more  remarkable  in  Irish  history  than  the  complete 
toleration  in  matters  of  religion,  race,  language, 
customs,  and  manners  evidenced  in  civic  life.  Irish 
artificers  were  welcomed  by  the  cities,  and  freely 
admitted  to  their  guilds.  In  all  the  great  towns, 
and  even  in  Dublin  itself,  "mere  Irish"  took  an 
active  part,  and  held  high  office  in  municipal 
government.  In  short,  the  people  of  the  towns 
became  as  Irish  as  the  Irish  outside  their  walls, 
and  when  they  became  involved  in  the  general  deter- 
mination to  capture  or  destroy  Irish  industry  and 
trade,  they  too  rose  and  became  "Rebels "in  defence 
of  their  liberties  and  rights.  Religion,  and  charges 
of  aiding  Spain,  were,  of  course,  pleaded  as  an 
excuse  by  the  King's  deputies.  The  Spaniards  were, 
it  is  true,  Catholic,  and  so  were  the  Irish  with 
whom  the  cities,  largely  Protestant,  made  common 
cause  ;  but  neither  religion  nor  a  desire  to  befriend 
the  Spaniards  had  anything  to  do  with  the  conduct 
of  the  towns.  The  simple  truth  is  that  the  towns 
rose,  and  were  forced  to  rise  in  defence  of  their 


WHAT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN        123 

municipal  life,  for  the  preservation  of  their  borough 
liberties,  and  against  the  total  annihilation  of  their 
trade,  and  they  sought  assistance  wherever  it  could 
be  found.  They  became  "  Rebels  "  for  self-preser- 
vation. They  failed,  and  were  destroyed.  It  is  not 
strange  that  in  their  ruins  loyalty  does  not  find 
congenial  soil.  The  pity  of  it !  That  Irish  and 
English  could  live  and  work  harmoniously  together, 
that  conciliation  led  to  mutual  respect,  mutual 
respect  to  a  sense  of  common  patriotism,  and 
patriotism  to  peace  and  a  high  degree  of  prosperity, 
were  amply  demonstrated  in  the  social,  political, 
and  economic  circumstances  of  the  seaports  and 
great  towns.  If  anyone  should  wish  to  learn 
what  Ireland  might  now  have  been,  he  has  only 
to  look  at  what  such  cities  as  Galway,  Cork, 
Limerick,  or  Waterford  were  when  English  and 
Irish  were  allowed  in  harmony  to  develop  on 
natural  lines,  and  to  work  out  their  own  salvation 
in  peace.  But  such  a  condition  was  not  to  the 
liking  of  English  adventurers  or  of  the  English 
Government.  Prosperity  was  to  be  destroyed. 
The  races  were  not  to  merge  in  a  sense  of  common 
patriotism.  Ireland  was  not  to  be  at  peace.  As 
Mr.  Attorney  Davies  truly  wrote  in  1620  : 

"  Such  as  had  the  government  of  Ireland  under 
the  Crown  of  England  did  intend  to  make  a 
perpetual  separation  and  enmity  between  the 
English  and  the  Irish,  pretending,  no  doubt,  that 
the  English  should  in  the  end  root  out  the  Irish, 


124   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

which,  the  English  not  being  able  to  do,  caused  a 
perpetual  war  between  the  nations,  which  continued 
four  hundred  odd  years."  And  an  English  writer 
of  the  same  period,  with  equal  force  and  truth, 
wonders  that  "English  obstinacy  should  be  eternal." 
"  Never,"  he  says,  "  since  the  creation  of  the  world 
were  hostile  feelings  so  systematically  kept  alive 
for  such  a  length  of  time  in  any  other  nation." 

During  all  this  period  Ireland  was  looked  upon 
as  a  foreign  country,  bitterly  hostile,  and  therefore 
to  be  destroyed  root  and  branch,  in  race,  religion, 
and  language,  in  commerce  and  in  trade.  In  more 
recent  times  she  was  treated  as  a  colony,  or 
dependency,  to  be  exploited  solely  for  the  benefit 
of  England.  But,  though  the  destruction  of 
industry  of  all  kinds  appeared  to  be  complete, 
neither  law  nor  violence  ploughed  quite  deep 
enough.  The  roots  remained ;  and,  during  the 
period  of  peace  following  on  the  Restoration,  the 
tender  shoots  of  industrial  enterprise  began  to 
manifest  themselves.  They  were  speedily  cut 

down. 

IRELAND'S  STRUGGLE  FOR  TRADE. 

The  Cattle  and  Navigation  Acts,  as  amended  in 
1663,  are  the  first  indication  of  a  settled  policy  to 
treat  Ireland,  not  only  as  a  dependency,  but  as  an 
inferior  sort  of  dependency  which  could  not  be 
suffered  to  compete  in  any  way  with  other  depen- 
dencies across  the  ocean.  Ireland  was  in  no  posi- 
tion to  protect  herself.  Some  description  has  been 


INDUSTRIAL  RUIN  125 

given  in  this  and  in  a  previous  chapter  of  the  con- 
dition to  which  she  was  reduced  by  the  Elizabethan 
and  Cromwellian  wars  and  by  the  destruction  of 
her  seaport  towns  and  foreign  trade.  She  had,  it 
is  true,  a  Parliament  and  Privy  Council,  but  only 
in  name.  Both  Council  and  Parliament  were 
merely  subordinate  branches  of  the  English  Council 
and  Parliament.  Ireland  was  helpless,  hopelessly 
reduced  in  mind,  body  and  estate,  yet  her  spirit 
was  indomitable,  her  recuperative  powers  not  ex- 
hausted. Her  industries  struggled  hard,  and  after 
the  Restoration,  a  revival  of  trade  and  industry  set 
in  that  provoked  the  jealous  hostility  of  England. 
The  land  in  Ireland  was  chiefly  under  pasture,  and 
a  considerable  trade  with  England  in  live  stock 
arose.  In  the  interest  of  English  and  Scotch 
breeders  it  was  prohibited  ;  the  exportation  of  dairy 
produce  and  provisions  generally  was  also  pro- 
hibited, and  Ireland's  chief  source  of  prosperity 
was  crushed  at  a  blow.  But  Ireland  did  not  lose 
heart.  She  turned  to  foreign  countries  and  the 
West  Indies  to  find  a  market,  but  in  vain.  By 
various  enactments  Irish  shipping  was  excluded 
from  the  carrying  trade,  Irish  goods  were  not 
allowed  to  be  exported  to  the  Colonies,  nor  could 
Colonial  goods  be  imported  into  Ireland.  Thus 
was  Irish  shipping  and  her  Colonial  trade  destroyed. 
So  Ireland,  not  despairing,  turned  her  attention 
to  sheep.  Irish  wool  became  famous  as  the  best 
in  the  world,  and  a  great  woollen  industry  sprang 


126   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

up,  mainly  in  the  hands  of  Protestant  settlers.* 
The  trade  grew  so  rapidly  in  volume  and  impor- 
tance as  to  excite  the  fears  and  jealousy  of  the 
English  manufacturers,  who  clamoured  for  its 
destruction.  Irish  woollens  were  excluded  by  the 
Navigation  Acts  from  the  whole  Colonial  market, 
prohibitive  duties  were  placed  upon  them  in  the 
English  market,  and  finally  the  export  of  woollen 
goods  from  Ireland  was  totally  forbidden.  The 
industrial  ruin  of  Ireland  was  accomplished,  and 
with  it  went  her  one  chance  of  becoming  a  pros- 
perous and  contented  land.  It  is  impossible 
within  the  limits  of  this  sketch  to  mention  all 
the  restrictions  placed  upon  Irish  manufactures, 
shipping,  and  trade,  and  the  various  measures 
taken  for  destroying  industrial  and  economic  life. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  whenever  any  Irish  industry 
was  held  to  be  detrimental  to  their  interests  by 
any  section  of  the  manufacturing  or  trading  com- 
munity in  England  or  Great  Britain,  that  industry 
was  hampered,  harassed,  and  eventually  destroyed. 
The  country  was  flooded  with  debased  coinage. 
This  outrage  moved  even  the  Pale  to  remonstrance, 
but  it  was  in  vain,  the  English  Privy  Council 
asserting  that  the  Irish  Council  was  considering 
what  was  good  for  the  people,  not  what  was 
advantageous  to  the  King.  In  the  sentiment  thus 

*  Some  42,000  Protestant  families  were  engaged  in  it. 
Between  20,000  and  30,000  had  to  be  supported  by  charity  as  a 
result  of  the  destruction  of  their  trade. 


IRISH  "USQUEBAGH"  127 

expressed  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  what  was 
good  for  the  people  was  bad  for  the  Crown,  that 
the  interests  of  England  and  Ireland  were  diamet- 
rically opposed,  the  whole  ruinous  policy  of  Eng- 
land is  succinctly  summed  up.  Shipping,  the 
textile  industries,  glass  manufacture,  sugar-refin- 
ing, brewing,  sea-fisheries  and  fish-curing,  leather 
industries,  manufactures  of  metals,  were  all 
attacked  in  turn.  Whisky  was  the  only  excep- 
tion. It  appears  to  have  greatly  gratified 
English  palates.  Richard  Boyle,  the  great  Earl 
of  Cork,  in  sending  a  present  of  "  a  runlet  of  mild 
Irish  usquebagh,"  writes  :  "If  it  please  his  Lordship, 
next  his  hart  in  the  morning,  to  drink  a  little  of 
this  Irish  usquebagh  as  it  is  prepared  and  qualified ; 
it  will  help  to  digest  all  raw  humours,  expel  wind, 
and  keep  his  inward  parts  warm  all  day  after, 
without  any  offence  to  his  stomack."  Such  a 
valuable  specific  was  not  lightly  to  be  destroyed, 
and,  as  distilling  did  not  interfere  with  any  English 
manufacture,  that  industry  was  allowed  to  live.  It 
was  left  to  the  enlightened  legislation  of  1909  to 
endeavour  to  put  an  end  to  one  of  the  few  sur- 
viving industries  of  Ireland.  So  ended  the  second 
period  of  prosperity  in  Ireland. 

FAULTS  OF  THE  TIMES. 

In  thus  annihilating  all  industries  in  Ireland  in 
the  supposed  interest  of  English  manufacturers, 
England  cannot  be  justly  accused  of  special  vin- 


128   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

dictiveness,  or  of  pursuing  an  exceptional  course. 
As  a  result  of  the  union  that  took  place  under  the 
Commonwealth  in  1654,  when  Irish  representa- 
tives sat  in  Parliament  at  Westminster,  Ireland 
was  admitted  to  the  common  enjoyment  of  the 
Colonial  trade  ;  and  it  is  not  illogical  that  England 
deprived  her  of  that  privilege  when,  after  the  Res- 
toration in  1660,  the  Union  was  annulled.  Precisely 
the  same  course  was  pursued  with  Scotland. 
England  looked  upon  Ireland  as  a  mere  depend- 
ency to  be  exploited  for  her  benefit  if  possible,  but 
by  no  means  to  be  allowed  to  incommode  her, 
or  to  compete  with  her  in  industry  and  trade ; 
and  in  adopting  that  conception  England  acted 
according  to  the  accepted  canons  of  the  time. 
Such  a  policy  may  be  justified,  certainly  it  can  be 
understood ;  but  the  double  policy  persistently 
pursued  by  England  cannot  be  justified,  and  cannot 
be  understood.  There  would  be  sense,  however 
brutal,  in  drawing  a  cordon  round  Ireland,  des- 
troying all  her  industry,  trade,  and  commerce,  and 
allowing  the  inevitable  consequence  to  the  Irish,  as 
a  race  and  a  nation,  to  ensue  ;  but  there  is  no  sense 
to  be  found  in  the  policy  of  perpetually  planting 
Ireland  with  English,  and  then  perpetually  ruining 
the  English  in  Ireland  for  the  benefit  of  the 
English  across  the  Channel. 

The  selfish  and  miraculously  unwise  policy,  so 
consistently  pursued  by  England,  was  successful 
in  so  far  as  it  ruined  Ireland — but  it  did  not 


ENGLAND'S  LEGACY  129 

benefit  England.  England  gained  little  or  nothing 
even  at  the  time.  The  restrictions  upon  Irish 
enterprise,  and  the  ruin  of  Irish  trade,  reacted 
unfavourably  upon  her,  and  have  left  her  a  legacy 
of  trouble  which  she  cannot  avoid.  The  destruc- 
tion of  their  industries  broke  the  energy  of  the  Irish 
people,  warped  and  contracted  their  natural  charac- 
teristics by  forcing  them  all  into  agriculture,  and 
created  an  exaggerated  and  fictitious  land  hunger 
from  which  Ireland  has  suffered  ever  since,  and  will 
suffer  until  it  is  reduced  to  healthy  dimensions  by 
industrial  revival.  Economically  the  policy  of 
England  was  unsound,  and  socially  it  was  insane. 
By  ruining  Ireland's  prospects  as  a  self-supporting, 
prosperous  country,  she  placed  herself  under  a 
burden  of  future  responsibility  from  which  she 
cannot  escape.  And  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that,  during  this  period  of  the  laying  waste  of 
commerce,  Ireland  was  subjected  to  the  penal  laws. 

PENAL  LAWS  AGAINST  CATHOLICS. 

The  penal  laws  were  directed  against  Roman 
Catholicism,  but,  as  is  invariably  the  case  in  Irish 
history,  the  animus  was  not  against  the  religion  in 
itself,  but  was  against  the  race  professing  that 
religion.  The  enactments  were  not  against  Catholi- 
cism that  happened  to  be  the  religion  of  the  vast 
majority  of  Irish,  but  were  against  the  vast 
majority  of  Irish  who  happened  to  adhere  to  that 
religion.  The  penal  code  came  into  existence 

9 


130   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

under  William — immediately  after  the  Revolution 
— and  was  extended  under  Anne  and  the  first  two 
Georges.  It  affected  all  human  action  and  en- 
deavour in  every  phase  of  life.  Catholics  were 
prohibited  from  sitting  in  Parliament,  and  were 
deprived  of  the  franchise.  They  were  excluded 
from  the  Army,  Navy,  the  Magistracy,  the  Bar, 
the  Bench.  They  could  not  sit  on  Grand  Juries 
or  Vestries,  or  act  as  sheriffs  or  solicitors.  The 
possession  of  arms  was  forbidden  to  them.  They 
could  not  be  freemen  of  any  corporate  body,  and 
were  allowed  to  carry  on  trade  only  on  payment  of 
various  impositions.  They  could  not  buy  land  nor 
receive  it  as  a  gift  from  Protestants  ;  nor  hold  life 
annuities  or  mortgages  or  leases  for  more  than 
thirty-one  years,  or  any  lease  if  the  profit  exceeded 
one-third  of  the  rent.  Catholics  were  deprived  of 
liberty  to  leave  their  property  in  land  by  will. 
Their  estates  were  divided  among  all  their  sons 
unless  the  eldest  became  a  Protestant,  in  which 
case  the  whole  estate  devolved  upon  him.  Any 
Protestant  who  informed  upon  a  Catholic  for  pur- 
chasing land  became  the  proprietor  of  the  estate. 
No  Catholic  was  allowed  to  possess  a  horse  of 
greater  value  than  £5,  and  any  Protestant  could 
take  the  horse  for  that  sum.  A  Protestant  woman 
landowner  was,  if  she  married  a  Catholic,  deprived 
of  her  property.  Mixed  marriages  celebrated  by  a 
Catholic  priest  were  declared  null.  A  wife  or  a 
child  professing  Protestantism  was  at  once  taken 


CATHOLIC  DISABILITIES  131 

from  under  the  Catholic  husband  or  father's  con- 
trol, and  the  Chancellor  made  an  assignment  of 
income  to  them.  Catholic  children  under  age  at 
the  time  of  their  Catholic  father's  death  were 
placed  under  the  guardianship  of  Protestants. 
Catholics  were  excluded  from  seats  of  learning. 
They  could  not  keep  schools  or  teach  or  act 
as  guardians  of  children,  or  send  their  children 
abroad  to  be  educated. 

As  regards  the  actual  exercise  of  religion,  the 
code  was  not  at  first  severe.  It  required  priests  to 
register  themselves,  and  when  registered  they  were 
allowed  to  celebrate  Mass,  but  this  comparative 
toleration  did  not  last  long.  The  Abjuration  Oath 
was  imposed  upon  all  Catholics.  To  the  Oath 
of  Allegiance,  Catholics  (clerical  and  lay)  had  no 
objection.  It  merely  bound  men  who  had  not  the 
slightest  desire  for  a  counter-dynastic  revolution  to 
obey  the  reigning  Sovereign  and  abstain  from  con- 
spiracy against  him,  but  the  Oath  of  Abjuration 
was  quite  another  matter.  It  affirmed  that  the 
"  Pretender "  had  no  right  or  title  to  the  Crown, 
and  it  restricted  allegiance  to  a  Protestant  monarch. 
Catholics  could  not  well  take  an  oath  stultifying 
the  principles  for  which  they  had  fought  during  the 
Revolution,  and  binding  them  to  renounce  their 
allegiance  to  the  new  dynasty,  should  the  then  pos- 
sessor of  the  Crown  or  his  successors  embrace 
II oman  Catholicism.  They  refused  in  great  numbers, 
with  the  result  that  in  a  Catholic  country  bishops 


132   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

and  priests  were  hunted  as  though  they  were  un- 
clean beasts.  Bishops  and  unregistered  priests 
were  liable  to  banishment  on  discovery,  and  to  the 
death  penalty  if  they  returned.  Finally,  it  was 
enacted  that  all  unregistered  priests  should  leave 
Ireland  before  a  fixed  date,  and  that  all  found  sub- 
sequently should  be  found  guilty  of  high  treason. 

The  penal  laws  in  Ireland  were  not  peculiar  in 
their  stringency,  but  they  were  peculiar  in  the 
circumstances  of  their  application.  Similar  laws 
against  Catholicism  in  Protestant  countries  equalled 
them  in  severity,  and  unquestionably  the  repres- 
sion of  Protestantism  in  Catholic  countries  was 
conducted  on  more  drastic  lines,  but  the  circum- 
stances in  Ireland  were  in  two  respects  quite 
peculiar.  In  other  countries  majorities  persecuted 
minorities ;  in  Ireland  a  very  small  minority  were 
persecuting  a  very  large  majority.  In  other  cases 
political  reasons  can  be  adduced  in  justification  for 
religious  disabilities.  In  Ireland  no  political  excuse 
for  the  penal  laws  can  be  found,  for  whereas 
England  and  Scotland  were  agitated  by  frequent 
Jacobite  plots,  risings,  and  demonstrations,  not  the 
faintest  symptom  of  active  sympathy  for  the  lost 
cause  was  manifested  in  Ireland. 

The  penal  code  failed  owing  to  its  severity.  It 
was  impossible  to  deprive  three-fourths  of  the 
population  of  religious  ministrations.  It  became 
difficult  to  enforce  the  law.  The  Irish  Protestants 
were  better  and  more  humane  than  the  laws  Parlia- 


PRIEST-HUNTING  133 

ment  passed  for  their  support.  The  laws  were 
evaded.  Protestants  held  property  in  private  trust 
for  their  Catholic  friends.  Protestant  guardians 
connived  at  allowing  their  Catholic  wards  to  be 
brought  up  in  their  own  religion.  The  executive 
was  not  strong  enough  to  ensure  protection  to 
priest-hunters,  and  priest-hunting  became  a  dan- 
gerous occupation.  The  code  failed  absolutely 
in  extinguishing  Catholicism,  but  it  succeeded 
admirably  in  other  directions.  By  depriving  the 
Catholic  gentry  of  any  share  in  civil  and  military 
life,  by  excluding  them  from  all  participation 
in  the  conduct  of  affairs  by  treating  them  as  an 
unclean  caste  in  their  native  land,  it  degraded 
them,  and  it  deprived  the  people  of  their  natural 
leadership.  It  reared  artificial  barriers  between 
religion  and  religion,  and  between  class  and  class, 
quite  alien  to  Irish  human  nature.  It  debased 
the  people,  and  by  forcing  them  to  seek  all  they 
held  necessary  for  their  spiritual  and  material 
welfare  in  evasion  of,  or  by  open  defiance  of,  the 
law,  it  created  a  lasting  feeling  of  distrust  of  and 
hostility  towards  law  in  the  minds  of  a  naturally 
most  law-abiding  people. 

In  the  lethargy  of  exhaustion  consequent  upon 
the  destruction  of  her  industries  and  her  degrada- 
tion under  the  penal  laws,  Ireland  lay  torpid  until 
the  Volunteer  Movement  in  1779  won  for  her 
freedom  of  trade  and,  eventually,  a  Parliament. 


134   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

FREEDOM — AND  A  REVIVAL. 

During  the  short  life  of  Grattan's  Parliament  a 
great  recovery  took  place,  and  Ireland's  third  period 
of  prosperity  set  in.  From  the  time  that  liberty  of 
trade  was  obtained  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Rebellion 
of  '98,  Ireland  made  great  strides.  The  public 
credit  improved.  The  rate  of  interest  was  reduced. 
Commerce  revived.  The  Dublin  Custom  House 
proved  too  small  for  the  business  passing  through 
it,  and  a  new  Customs  House  became  necessary. 
A  spirit  of  energy  and  enterprise  prevailed,  affect- 
ing agriculture  and  all  other  industries  and  trades. 
In  1790  Sir  John  Parnell,  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  said :  "It  was  his  pride  and  happiness 
to  declare  that  he  did  not  think  it  possible  for  any 
nation  to  have  improved  more  in  her  circumstances 
since  1784  than  Ireland  had  done/'  And  in  1798 
Lord  Clare,  the  great  advocate  of  the  Union,  in 
reviewing  the  last  twenty  years,  declared  that— 
"  There  is  not  a  nation  in  the  habitable  globe 
which  has  advanced  in  cultivation  and  commerce, 
in  agriculture  and  in  manufactures,  with  the  same 
rapidity  in  the  same  period."  Numerous  other 
passages  may  be  quoted  in  proof  of  the  great  and 
rapid  advance  made  in  material  prosperity ;  but  as 
the  fact  is  not,  I  think,  disputed,  the  two  quota- 
tions above-mentioned  may  suffice. 

The  improvement  is  traceable  to  three  causes. 
Liberty  to  trade  made  an  opening  for  industry  and 


LIBERTY  AND  PROSPERITY       135 

enterprise.  Under  the  stimulus  of  self-govern- 
ment, self-reliance,  energy  and  enterprise  rose  from 
the  dead.  The  first  efforts  of  industrial  energy  and 
enterprise  were  encouraged  by  a  wise  system  of 
bounties  and  grants.  The  best  authorities  on 
economics  admit  that  State  assistance  to  private 
effort  may  be  admissible  in  developing  the  re- 
sources of  a  new  country.  If  that  be  so,  the  most 
hide-bound  of  Free  Traders  must  allow  that  the 
fostering  action  of  the  Irish  Parliament  was  justi- 
fiable, for  the  difficulty  of  reviving  a  slaughtered 
industry  in  an  old  and  cruelly  treated  community 
is  far  greater  than  that  encountered  in  creating  an 
industry  in  a  new  country,  inhabited  by  men 
whose  energy  has  not  been  sapped  by  centuries  of 
ill-use.  Be  that  as  it  may.  bounties  were  given  on 
the  exportation  of  corn;  grants  were  made  for 
harbours,  inland  navigation,  and  the  development 
of  fisheries ;  textiles,  the  woollen,  cotton,  linen,  and 
silk  trades ;  glass ;  and,  in  short,  all  manufactures 
and  industries  received,  directly  or  indirectly,  some 
small  measure  of  Government  support.  To  quote 
the  words  of  Flood :  "  The  infancy  of  our  manu- 
factures and  the  poverty  of  our  people  have  forced 
us  into  a  variety  of  bounties  and  encouragements, 
in  order  to  give  some  spring  to  the  languor  of  the 
nation."  Some  spring  was  given  ;  the  resilience  of 
the  Irish  character  responded,  and  Ireland  throve. 
Liberty  to  trade  was  essential,  and  in  my  opinion 
judicious  encouragement  did  much  ;  but  the  main- 


136   DEGRADATION  AND  REVIVAL 

spring  of  prosperity,  the  real  motive- power  making 
for  industrial  recovery,  lay  in  the  gratified  sense  of 
nationality,  the  healthy  stimulus  of  responsibility, 
and  the  energizing  effects  of  self-governing  power. 
Liberty  to  trade  survived  the  Union,  but  the 
destruction  of  her  Parliament  struck  a  blow  at 
Ireland's  vitals  from  which  she  did  not  recover. 
The  Union  rang  the  knell  of  Ireland's  last  and 
fleeting  period  of  prosperity.  Under  its  benumb- 
ing influence  her  energy  and  enterprise  waned,  her 
strength  and  vitality  gradually  withered  away. 


PART  III 

IRELAND'S   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

THE  popular  idea  is,  I  think,  that  up  to  1800 
Ireland  was  governed  by  a  Parliament  identical  in 
constitution,  functions  and  powers  with  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Great  Britain,  and  that  Ireland  was  then 
deprived  of  national  government  with  the  consent 
of  her  Parliament,  but  contrary  to  the  wishes  of 
the  people.  An  outline  of  Ireland's  parliamentary 
history  and  of  the  causes  that  led  up  to  the  legisla- 
tive Union  is  necessary  in  order  to  dispel  a  good 
deal  of  ignorance  on  the  subject.  The  shortest 
possible  sketch  must  perforce  suffice;  but  it  will 
show  that  the  development  of  parliamentary 
institutions  in  Ireland  is  symptomatic  of  her 
instinctive  effort  to  achieve  that  distinct  and  cor- 
porate nationality  which  she  had  not  attained  under 
native  rulers,  and  towards  which  she  struggled  all 
through  the  annihilations,  devastations  and  des- 
tructions portrayed  in  former  chapters. 

THE  RULE  OF  ECCLESIASTICS. 

Prior  to  Henry  II.'s  landing  in  Ireland  ecclesi- 
astical synods  had  been  held  in  the  country,  but 

137 


138   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

nothing  of  the  nature  of  a  Parliament.  Henry 
summoned  an  ecclesiastical  synod  at  Cashel  to- 
gether with  a  lay  council  of  some  kind ;  but  the 
main  business  before  it  was  ecclesiastical — namely, 
to  bring  the  usages  of  the  Church  in  Ireland  into 
harmony  with  those  of  the  Church  in  England. 

The  authority  of  the  Crown  in  Ireland,  which  was 
merely  nominal  during  the  reign  of  Henry,  became 
somewhat  more  real  during  the  reign  of  his  son 
John.  He  granted  charters  to  some  of  the  principal 
towns ;  and  privileges  and  property  are,  in  some 
instances,  to  be  traced  for  title  to  the  reign  of  that 
monarch.  In  1204  he  summoned  a  Council  on  the 
English  model,  and  for  the  same  purposes  as 
Councils  were  summoned  in  England,  namely,  for 
supply — in  that  case  for  money  to  carry  on  the  war 
with  France.  All  the  principal  personages,  both 
ecclesiastical  and  lay,  were  nominated  by  the  King 
and  summoned  to  this  Council.  In  the  remaining 
years  of  the  thirteenth  century  similar  councils  were 
assembled  from  time  to  time.  During  John's  reign 
English  government  began  to  assume  some  ap- 
pearance of  a  definite  form.  A  King's  Deputy, 
afterwards  called  Lord- Lieutenant,  was  appointed. 
An  Irish  Privy  Council  was  created  by  Henry  III. 

In  1295  the  germs  of  the  elective  principle  may 
be  found,  but  the  application  of  the  principle  was 
very  limited  in  extent.  The  elected  members  sat 
with  the  bishops,  abbots,  priors  and  barons,  and 
the  Council  was  styled  a  Parliament.  Gradually 


EARLY  PARLIAMENTS  139 

Parliament  divided  itself  into  two  houses,  an 
upper  and  lower  house,  or  a  House  of  Lords 
and  a  House  of  Commons,  after  the  manner 
already  followed  in  England ;  but  these  Parlia- 
ments cannot  be  said  to  have  represented  the 
nation  in  any  sense.  The  distinction  between 
"  subjects  " — loyal  English  and  "  mere  Irish  "  —the 
native  Irish  and  Irishized  Anglo-Normans,  was 
sharply  drawn.  The  native  Irish  chiefs  were  not 
summoned.  It  is  most  improbable  that  they  would 
have  obeyed  if  writs  had  been  issued  to  them  ;  and 
the  great  Anglo-Norman  lords  also  evinced  great 
reluctance  to  obey  summonses.  In  fact,  the  native 
chiefs  and  the  Norman  lords,  who  had  become 
more  Irish  than  the  Irish  themselves,  though  they 
acknowledged  in  a  somewhat  vague  way  the  over- 
lordship  of  the  King,  considered  themselves  virtu- 
ally independent  and  resented  the  summons  to 
Parliament  as  an  infringement  of  that  independence. 
In  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  the  influence  of  the  ecclesiastical 
element  in  Parliament  was  largely  diminished,  and, 
eight  years  later — in  1542 — a  Parliament  was  sum- 
moned, to  which  the  native  chiefs  were  called,  and 
which  some  of  them  at  least  appear  to  have  at- 
tended. The  King  had  already  been  proclaimed 
head  of  the  Church  in  Ireland,  and  the  principal 
object  of  this  Parliament  was  to  sanction  the 
adoption  by  the  King  of  England  of  the  title  of 
King  of  Ireland,  instead  of  Lord  of  Ireland,  as  he 


140   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

had  been  previously  styled.  The  change  of  title 
was  sanctioned  by  Parliament  with  unanimity,  and 
many  of  the  Irish  chiefs  accepted  it,  two  of  them 
being  received  by  the  King  at  Greenwich.  It  is 
to  the  last  degree  improbable  that  the  Irish  realized 
what  the  change  of  title  meant.  To  the  King 
and  his  advisers  it  meant  vesting  the  whole  of  the 
land  of  Ireland  in  the  Crown.  To  Irish  chiefs, 
accustomed  from  time  immemorial  to  the  national 
system  that  the  land  belonged  to  the  people,  the 
feudal  theory  was  inconceivable,  and  they  doubt- 
less looked  upon  the  substitution  of  "  King "  for 
"  Lord  "  as  a  matter  of  very  small  importance.  The 
assumption  of  the  superior  title  had  no  immediate 
effect  upon  the  very  nominal  authority  of  the 
Crown. 

The  Councils  and  Parliaments  of  Ireland,  such  as 
they  were,  continued  to  be  called  from  time  to 
time.  They  resembled  in  all  respects  the  Councils 
and  Parliaments  of  England,  they  were  summoned 
for  the  same  purposes,  exercised  the  same  functions, 
and  possessed  similar  powers.  They  were  not 
representative  of  the  people,  and  were  merely 
Parliaments,  in  the  modern  sense,  in  embryo. 

The  Irish  Parliaments  appear  to  have  been  at 
any  rate  nominally  independent  of  the  English 
executive  until  the  passing  of  Poynings'  Act  in 
1494.  The  gist  of  Poynings'  Act  was  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  King's  Deputy  in  Ireland  (the 
Lord-Lieutenant)  in  Council  to  draft  and  submit 


THE  REPRESENTATIVE  SYSTEM     141 

all  Bills  to  the  King ;  that  if  the  Bills  were  approved 
by  the  King  in  Council  in  England  they  were  then 
to  be  submitted  to  the  Parliament  in  Ireland ;  that 
the  Irish  Parliament  could  reject  or  accept  meas- 
ures thus  sent  to  it,  but  could  not  amend  them. 
The  effect  of  Poynings'  Act  was  to  deprive  the 
Irish  Parliament  of  power  to  originate  legislation 
of  any  kind,  or  to  alter  in  any  way  those  measures 
which  came  before  it  after  having  been  approved  by 
the  King  in  Council  in  England  on  the  advice  of 
the  King's  Deputy  in  Council  in  Ireland.  The  Irish 
Parliament  became  a  subject  body,  little  better 
than  a  mere  registration  machine,  an  instrument 
for  echoing  the  opinions  of  the  King  and  his 
Deputy. 

Thus  Parliament  became  completely  subservient, 
and  though  protests  were  made,  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  any  revolt  against  this  ignominious  position 
until  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  when  in  1585 
a  Parliament  convened  by  the  Deputy,  Sir  John 
Perrott,  rejected  a  Bill  for  a  subsidy,  and  refused 
to  vest  certain  attainted  lands  in  the  Crown  with- 
out inquiry.  In  this  Parliament  the  growth  of  a 
representative  system  may  be  clearly  discerned. 
The  House  of  Commons  consisted  of  126  members, 
54  representing  27  counties,  and  72  representing 
36  cities  and  boroughs.  Owing  to  the  forced 
adoption  of  English  surnames,  it  is  difficult  to 
say  how  many  members  of  this  Parliament 
were  of  native  race,  but  certainly  18  members 


142   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

of  the  House  of  Commons  appear  by  their  names 
to  have  been  native  Irish.  The  House  of  Lords 
consisted  of  26  spiritual  and  26  temporal  peers. 
Of  the  latter  4  were  native  Irish.  After  this  no 
Parliament  was  called  for  twenty-seven  years. 

The  next  Parliament,  summoned  in  1613  during 
the  reign  of  James  1.,  showed  a  great  development. 
No  qualification  of  race  or  of  creed  was  insisted 
upon,  but  in  order  to  ensure  a  strong  English 
majority  in  conformity  with  the  anti-Irish  regime 
which  still  obtained  in  Ireland,  forty  new  boroughs 
— nominal  boroughs  only — were  created  in  the 
Protestant  settlement  in  Ulster.  This  Parliament 
was  broad-minded  and  liberal  in  comparison  with 
its  predecessors,  and  repealed  a  whole  host  of 
statutes  having  for  their  object  to  keep  the 
native  Irish  and  Anglo-Norman  colonists  separate 
and  distinct. 

NON-REPRESENTATIVE  ASSEMBLIES. 

One  essential  point  must  be  borne  in  mind  in 
tracing  this  development  of  the  parliamentary 
machine  in  Ireland.  During  the  long  period  of 
some  400  years  that  had  elapsed  since  Henry  II. 
convoked  a  Synod  and  Council,  the  enactments 
of  Councils  and  Parliaments  had  no  effect,  and 
were  not  intended  to  have  any  effect,  outside  of 
the  colony  of  English  settlers.  They  were  not 
national  institutions,  and  their  proceedings  did  not 
concern  the  native  Irish  and  assimilated  Eng- 


SIGNS  OF  INDEPENDENCE         143 

lish  settlers.  The  Parliament  of  1613,  however, 
and  all  subsequent  Parliaments  legislated,  more 
or  less  effectually,  for  the  whole  kingdom,  and 
though  many  instances  of  the  assertion  of  inde- 
pendence by  force,  or  the  recovery  of  independence 
by  rebellion,  took  place  in  various  parts  of  the 
country,  the  enactments  of  Parliament  were 
generally  recognized  over  the  whole  kingdom, 
though  the  Parliaments  were  representative 
mainly  of  landed  property,  and  consequently  of 
Protestantism,  as  landed  property  had  passed 
into  Protestant  hands. 

Irish  Parliaments,  though  in  the  main  merely 
registration  assemblies,  evinced  from  time  to  time 
symptoms  of  independence.  Protests  were,  for 
instance,  made  in  1376  against  the  summoning 
of  Irish  representatives  to  England,  but  it  was 
not  until  1459  that  any  distinct  declaration  of  the 
rights  of  Ireland  and  of  her  Parliament  was  formu- 
lated. It  was  then  claimed  that  Ireland  was,  by 
its  constitution,  separate  from  the  laws  and  statutes 
of  England,  that  Irish  subjects  were  not  bound  to 
answer  writs  unless  issued  under  the  Great  Seal  of 
Ireland,  that  laws  affecting  Ireland  must  be  freely 
accepted  by  the  Irish  Parliament  in  order  to 
become  binding  on  the  Irish  people,  and  that 
Ireland  was  entitled  to  coin  money.  The  at- 
tributes of  a  sovereign  nation  and  legislative 
independence  were  asserted.  Parliament  did  not 
assert  the  right  to  originate  legislation,  but  it  did 


144   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

declare  that  legislation  originating  in  England  had 
no  binding  effect  on  Ireland  unless  and  until  it  had 
been  accepted  by  the  Parliament  of  Ireland.  The 
controversy  as  to  the  competence  and  independence 
of  the  Irish  Legislature  continued  until  about  1782. 
During  the  reign  of  Charles  I.,  after  the  recall  of 
Strafford,  the  Irish  Parliament  made,  in  1640, 
another  assertion  of  independence.  It  declared 
that  the  Irish  subjects  of  the  King  were  a  free 
people  ;  it  admitted  that  they  were  to  be  governed 
according  to  the  common  law  of  England,  but  it 
added,  "  and  by  statutes  established  by  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Ireland  " — a  somewhat  ambiguous  state- 
ment of  independence. 

About  the  same  time  Parliament  increased  its 
power  and  authority  by  adopting  the  ingenious 
device  of  "  Heads  of  Bills."  All  Bills  were  drafted 
by  the  Irish  Privy  Council.  They  were  then  sub- 
mitted to  the  English  Privy  Council  for  acceptance, 
rejection,  or  amendment,  and,  as  approved  by  that 
Council,  were  sent  to  the  Irish  Parliament  for 
adoption  or  rejection.  Legislation,  therefore, 
originated  practically  in  an  English  body.  The 
Irish  Legislature  could  not  introduce  Bills,  but  by 
the  device  of  "  Heads  of  Bills  "  this  disability  was 
overcome.  Heads  of  Bills  were  virtually  Bills, 
being  actual  Bills  with  a  slight  verbal  change  in 
the  preamble.  By  the  adoption  of  this  method, 
legislation  practically  originated  in  the  Irish  body, 
but  it  was  still,  of  course,  subject  to  the  approval 


THE  COMMONWEALTH  UNION     145 

of  the  King's  Deputy  and  Irish  Privy  Council,  and 
of  the  King  and  his  English  Privy  Council — in 
other  words,  his  English  Ministers. 

During  this  period,  also,  discussions  arose  as  to 
the  tenure  by  which  Ireland  was  held  by  the 
Crown.  One  side,  represented  by  Straff ord, 
asserted  that  Ireland  was  held  by  the  right  of 
conquest ;  the  other  side,  acting  through  Parlia- 
ment, denying  conquest.  It  is  a  difficult  matter 
to  accurately  define  what  is  meant  by  "  conquest," 
but  it  cannot,  I  think,  be  denied  that  Parliament 
was  right.  Henry  II.  entered  Ireland  possibly 
with  the  sanction  of  the  Pope,  certainly  with  the 
general  approval  of  the  Church.  He  received  the 
homage  of  those  of  his  English  subjects  who  had 
settled  in  Ireland,  and  of  some  native  princes,  who 
acknowledged  him  as  their  overlord.  But  Henry's 
title  was  never  largely  accepted  as  good,  and  Ire- 
land was  never  conquered  in  the  ordinary  meaning 
of  the  word.  Irish  chiefs,  Irish  Parliaments,  Irish 
jurists,  constantly  asserted  her  independence  as 
either  absolute  or  as  subject  to  the  suzerainty  of 
the  English  Crown. 

FIRST  PARLIAMENTARY  UNION  WITH  ENGLAND. 
During  the  Commonwealth  no  Parliament  was 
summoned  in  Ireland,  but  a  sort  of  legislative 
union  took  place.  The  English  Parliament  assumed 
complete  dominion  over  the  country,  basing  its 
claim  upon  force — upon  the  suppression  of  a  "  rebel- 

JO 


146   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

lion "  rather  than  upon  any  inherent  and  general 
right  to  legislate  for  Ireland  ;  and  Irish  representa- 
tives, along  with  representatives  of  Scotland,  were 
summoned,  and  sat  with  the  English  Parliament  in 
London.  After  the  Restoration  this  arrangement 
came  to  an  end.  An  Irish  Parliament  completely 
subservient  to  the  English  Parliament  again  sat  in 
Ireland,  and  passed  the  great  Acts  of  Settlement 
and  Explanation,  under  which  the  greater  portion 
of  the  land  of  Ireland  has  ever  since  been  held. 
In  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  abundant  evidence  of 
the  supremacy  of  the  English  Parliament  is  to  be 
found.  The  growing  of  tobacco  was,  for  instance, 
prohibited  in  Ireland — a  prohibition  which  was  cer- 
tainly incompatible  with  the  independence  of  an 
Irish  Parliament.  Numerous  enactments  of  the 
English  Parliament,  which,  however,  were  not 
ultra  vires,  had  a  most  ruinous  effect  on  the  trade 
and  commerce  of  Ireland,  and  were  not  protested 
against.  Ireland  lay  completely  at  the  mercy 
of  England ;  her  Parliament — a  Parliament  of 
property-owners  holding  under  the  Acts  of  Settle- 
ment— was  not  disposed  to  quarrel  with  the  Parlia- 
ment of  England,  and  even  if  it  had  been  it  was 
not  strong  enough  to  protect  the  interests  of  the 
country. 

During  the  Civil  War  which  followed  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1688,  the  whole  complexion  of  affairs  was 
changed.  We  find  the  Irish  Parliament  recog- 
nizing one  King  and  the  English  Parliament 


NOMINEES  OF  THE  CROWN       147 

recognizing  another  King.  Naturally,  in  these 
circumstances,  the  Irish  Parliament  assumed  com- 
plete independence,  and  Acts  which  received  the 
royal  assent  were  passed  without  any  reference 
whatever  to  the  English  Parliament  or  to  the  King 
recognized  by  that  Parliament.  Equally  naturally, 
after  the  war  the  English  Parliament  refused  to 
recognize  the  competency  of  the  Irish  Parliament, 
.and  declared  all  its  Acts  null  and  void. 

THE  HEAVY  HAND  or  IRISH  PARLIAMENTS. 

During  the  reign  of  William  and  Mary  the  Irish 
Parliaments  were  a  mere  echo  of  the  English 
Legislature  ;  they  passed  all  the  Acts  which  ruined 
Irish  trade,  manufactures,  and  shipping,  and, 
theoretically,  Ireland  destroyed  herself  through  the 
action  of  her  own  Parliament.  But  the  Irish  Par- 
liament did  not  represent  the  people  or  even  the 
Protestant  community,  and  the  trading  and  manu- 
facturing interests  bitterly  resented  the  helplessness 
and  subserviency  of  the  native  Legislature.  During 
many  centuries  the  members  of  councils  and  par- 
liaments had  been  directly  named  and  summoned 
by  the  King;  and  though,  at  the  period  under 
review,  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  repre- 
sented counties  and  boroughs,  they  were  representa- 
tive in  theory  only ;  practically  they  were,  as 
hitherto,  the  nominees  of  the  Crown.  Under  those 
circumstances,  very  little  friction  arose  between 
the  two  Parliaments  ;  no  real  spirit  of  independence 


148   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

manifested  itself  in  Ireland,  and  the  occasional 
protests  of  the  Irish  Parliament  were  of  an  aca- 
demic character. 

It  was  not  until  enactments  of  the  British  Par- 
liament began  to  affect  Irish  manufacture,  trade, 
and  shipping,  and  finally  succeeded  in  encompassing 
their  ruin,  that  the  people  commenced  vigorously 
to  urge  the  theory  that  Acts  of  the  British  Parlia- 
ment were  not  binding  on  Ireland  unless  or  until 
they  had  been  accepted  by  the  Irish  Parliament. 
The  claim  was  not  admitted ;  but  if  it  had  been, 
Ireland  could  not  have  been  saved  from  the  evil 
consequences  to  her  of  legislation  affecting  the 
imports  and  exports  of  Great  Britain,  her  carrying 
trade,  and  her  trade  with  her  Colonies  and  depen- 
dencies. However  selfish  or  impolitic  the  action 
of  the  British  Parliament  may  have  been,  it  was 
within  its  rights  in  making  what  regulations  it 
chose  in  respect  to  all  those  matters. 

At  the  same  time,  questions  arose  as  to  the 
appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Irish  House  of  Lords. 
Both  issues — that  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Irish 
House  of  Lords,  and  that  of  the  right  of  the  British 
Parliament  to  make  laws  binding  on  Ireland — were 
decided  against  Ireland  by  an  Act  passed  in  the 
reign  of  George  I.  The  British  Parliament  declared 
that  the  British  House  of  Lords  was  the  final  court 
of  appeal  in  Irish  cases,  and  it  enacted  that — "  The 
Crown,  with  the  consent  and  advice  of  the  Lords 
and  Commons  of  Great  Britain,  had,  and  of  right 


BRITISH  AND  IRISH  CLAIMS       149 

ought  to  have,  full  power  and  authority  to  make 
laws  and  statutes  of  sufficient  force  and  validity  to 
bind  the  kingdom  and  the  people  of  Ireland." 

This  act  was  really  little  more  than  a  challenge 
to  the  Irish  Parliament.  If  true,  it  was  merely  the 
recital  of  a  truism ;  if  false,  it  could  not  confer  the 
jurisdiction  claimed — it  was  merely  an  unargued 
assertion  of  a  claim.  However,  the  challenge  was 
not  taken  up  ;  the  Irish  Parliament  remained  silent, 
and,  if  silence  gives  consent,  it  may  be  said  to  have 
acquiesced  in  the  British  claims.  The  supineness 
of  the  Irish  Parliament  is  not  difficult  to  account 
for.  The  franchise  was  very  limited.  No  Roman 
Catholics  could  vote  or  sit  in  Parliament.  In  the 
counties  the  landed  proprietors  held  generally  under 
the  Acts  of  Settlement,  and  dreaded  any  disturb- 
ance of  title ;  and  the  majority  of  the  House  of 
Commons  sat  for  boroughs,  most  of  them  very 
small,  and  the  property  of  a  few  great  families  who 
"ran"  the  country.  But  though  Parliament  was 
quiet  and  acquiesced,  the  country  was  not  quiet, 
and  did  not  acquiesce. 

SWIFT'S  PROPAGANDA. 

Swift  revived  the  theories  which  former  publicists 
— Sir  Richard  Bolton  and  William  Molyneux — had 
advanced,  and  with  all  his  energy  and  genius 
vigorously  preached  a  crusade.  Charles  Lucas,  the 
M.P.  for  Dublin  City,  took  the  matter  up.  The 
principle  advanced  was  that  Ireland  was  a  distinct 


150   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

kingdom ;  that  the  King  of  Great  Britain  was 
King  of  Ireland  in  the  same  sense  that  the  King  of 
Ireland  was  King  of  Great  Britain,  and  in  no  other  ; 
and  that  there  could  be  no  superior  in  Ireland  to 
the  King  and  the  Lords  and  Commons  of  Ireland 
in  Parliament.  Much  popular  favour  for  this 
doctrine  was  evinced,  but  the  only  practical  result 
during  the  reign  of  George  II.  was  the  forma- 
tion of  a  regular  Opposition  in  the  House  of 
Commons. 

Up  to  the  accession  of  George  III.,  the  sum- 
moning of  a  Parliament  in  Ireland  was  quite 
arbitrary,  and  its  duration  indefinite  in  period. 
Parliament  could  be  summoned  only  at  the 
will  of  the  King,  and  long  periods  elapsed  with- 
out any  Parliament  being  summoned.  Parlia- 
ment could  be  dissolved  only  at  the  will  of  the 
Sovereign  or  on  demise  of  the  Crown,  and  Parlia- 
ment frequently  sat  for  very  long  periods.  It  sat, 
for  instance,  during  the  whole  thirty-three  years 
of  the  reign  of  George  II. ;  but  after  the  accession 
of  George  III.  an  Act  was  passed,  in  1767,  and 
received  the  royal  assent,  limiting  the  duration  of 
Parliaments  to  eight  years. 

The  effect  of  this  enactment  upon  the  House  of 
Commons  was  very  great.  Members  became  more 
dependent  upon  the  electors.  In  spite  of  a 
restricted  franchise  and  the  disabilities  under  which 
Roman  Catholics  suffered,  members  of  Parliament 
were  brought  more  closely  in  touch  with  popular 


THE  "FREE  TRADE"  MOVEMENT  151 

feeling,  and  became  influenced  by  it.  Both  in  tone 
and  character  the  House  of  Commons  was  much 
improved.  The  Opposition  became  stronger  and 
more  self-reliant.  Notable  men — such,  for  instance, 
as  Malone,  Flood,  Burgh  (head  of  the  Irish  Bar), 
and  Grattan — came  to  the  front  to  champion  the 
popular  cause.  The  popular  demand  was  for 
freedom  of  trade,  and  for  the  removal  of  those 
restrictions  that  had  ruined  the  industries  and 
commerce  of  Ireland,  and  by  that  ruin  had  reduced 
great  numbers  of  the  population  to  the  direst 
distress.  The  free  trade  demanded  by  Ireland 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  term  "  free 
trade"  as  now  popularly  understood.  It  had 
nothing  to  do  with  tariffs  and  fiscal  systems,  but 
was  merely  a  demand  for  parity  of  treatment  for 
the  produce  and  goods  of  Great  Britain  and  of 
Ireland. 

THE  VOLUNTEERS  AND  FREEDOM  OF  TRADE. 

It  is  very  doubtful  if  the  agitation  for  free  trade 
would  have  been  successful  but  for  the  Volunteers. 
The  Volunteer  Movement  originated  in  a  most 
laudable  determination  to  resist  foreign  invasion. 
It  commenced  in  the  North,  and  though  at  first 
exclusively  Protestant,  and  organized  by  a  few  of 
the  leading  families,  it  spread  rapidly  over  the 
whole  country,  and  soon  included  Catholics  in  its 
ranks.  By  1779  there  were,  it  is  estimated,  40,000 
Volunteers  in  arms.  They  were  truly,  and  in  all 


152   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

respects,  "  volunteers ";  they  were  armed  and 
equipped  and  clothed  at  their  own  expense,  and 
were  officered  by  men  of  their  own  choice,  gener- 
ally gentlemen  of  high  position  and  large  property 
in  the  country.  They  were  loyal  to  the  Crown 
and  to  the  British  connection  ;  but  they  were  with 
equal  intensity  determined  to  win  freedom  of 
trade  for  their  country.  They  were  soldiers,  but 
citizen- soldiers,  and  citizens  first.  Through  them 
Ireland  for  once  spoke  with  a  united  voice,  and 
Ireland  won  the  day. 

In  October,  1779,  a  resolution  was  unanimously 
passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  effect  that 
nothing  but  "  free  trade  " — in  other  words,  freedom 
to  trade,  freedom  from  the  disabilities  imposed  by 
former  English  and  Irish  Parliaments — would  save 
the  country  from  ruin.  The  resolution  was  carried 
to  the  Lord-Lieutenant  by  peers  and  members  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  walking  in  procession 
through  lines  of  armed  Volunteers  extending  the 
whole  way  from  the  Houses  of  Parliament  to  the 
Castle.  The  Government  and  the  British  Parlia- 
ment gave  way,  and  by  the  beginning  of  1780 
various  Acts  of  Parliament  prohibiting  the  exporta- 
tion of  Irish  goods  were  repealed,  and  trade  with 
the  English  settlements  and  plantations  was  thrown 
open.  Ireland  discovered  her  power  when  united  ; 
she  had  learned  that  Parliament,  backed  by  a  body 
far  more  representative  of  the  nation  than  Parlia- 
ment itself — namely,  the  Volunteers — could  not  be 


GRATTAN'S  CAMPAIGN  153 

resisted.  Having  completed  so  much  in  obtaining 
freedom  of  trade,  men  naturally  began  to  consider 
whether  the  independence  of  Parliament  was  not 
necessary  in  order  to  retain  what  they  had  achieved. 
It  was  argued  that  the  British  Parliament  which 
gave  could  also  take  away,  and  that  Ireland  had 
no  security  against  the  re-enactment  of  oppressive 
laws.  Moreover,  a  very  strong  national  sentiment 
animated  the  Volunteers  and  the  classes  from 
which  they  sprung.  They  desired  not  only  freedom 
of  trade,  but  freedom  of  religion,  and  relief  from 
disabilities  also.  Both  sentimental  and  practical 
reasons  of  great  cogency  existed  for  demanding 
the  independence  of  Parliament.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  was  felt  by  many  in  Parliament,  and 
strongly  urged,  that  great  concessions  had  been 
obtained,  and  that  to  press  immediately  for  further 
measures  was  ungenerous,  and  perhaps  scarcely 
decent.  But  the  nation  was  determined  to  safe- 
guard itself;  Grattan  took  up  the  popular  cause, 
and  his  arguments  and  eloquence  prevailed.  On 
April  19,  1780,  he  proposed  the  following  resolu- 
tion in  the  House  of  Commons : 

"  That  the  King  s  Most  Excellent  Majesty 
and  the  Lords  and  Commons  of  Ireland  are 
the  only  power  competent  to  make  laws  to 
bind  Ireland." 

No  vote  took  place  upon  this  resolution — the 
direct  issue  was  evaded  by  dilatory  amendments — 


154   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

but  the  effect  of  the  resolution  and  of  Grattan's 
speech  roused  the  whole  country. 

On  February  15,  1782,  the  famous  meeting  of 
delegates  of  the  Ulster  Volunteers  took  place  at 
Dungannon.  Among  many  other  pregnant  resolu- 
tions, the  following  was  passed  : 

"  That  a  claim  of  any  body  of  men  other 
than  the  King,  Lords  and  Commons  of  Ire- 
land, to  make  laws  to  bind  this  kingdom,  is 
unconstitutional,  illegal,  and  a  grievance, 

"  That  the  powers  exercised  by  the  Privy 
Councils  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  under, 
or  under  colour  or  pretence  of,  the  law 
of  Poynings  are  unconstitutional,  and  a 
grievance." 

Just  a  week  later  Grattan  moved  an  address  to 
the  Crown  to  assure  His  Majesty  that  "  the  people 
of  Ireland  were  a  free  people,  the  crown  of  Ire- 
land an  Imperial  crown,  and  the  kingdom  of 
Ireland  a  distinct  kingdom,  with  a  Parliament  of 
its  own,  the  sole  legislator  thereof;  that  by  their 
fundamental  laws  and  franchises  the  subjects  of 
this  separate  kingdom  could  not  be  bound,  affected, 
or  pledged  by  any  Legislature  save  only  by  the 
King,  Lords  and  Commons  of  His  Majesty's  realm 
of  Ireland  ;  nor  was  there  any  other  body  of  men 
who  had  power  or  authority  to  make  laws  for 
them;  that  in  this  privilege  was  contained  the 
very  essence  of  their  liberty." 


IRISH  "INDEPENDENCE"          155 

GRATTAN'S  VICTORY  FOR  IRELAND. 

On  this  no  distinct  issue  was  taken  ;  a  motion 
for  adjournment  was  agreed  to,  and  Parliament 
was  prorogued  on  March  14.  But  the  battle  was 
won.  When  Parliament  met  again  on  April  16 
the  Lord-Lieutenant  read  the  following  message 
from  the  King : 

"  His  Majesty,  being  concerned  to  find  that 
discontents  and  jealousies  were  prevailing 
among  his  loyal  subjects  in  Ireland  upon 
matters  of  great  weight  and  importance, 
recommends  Parliament  to  take  the  same 
into  their  most  serious  consideration  in  order 
to  effect  such  a  final  adjustment  as  may  give 
mutual  satisfaction  to  his  kingdoms  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland." 

Grattan  accepted  the  message  from  the  Crown 
as  presaging  legislative  independence,  but  he 
enumerated  the  conditions  he  considered  essential. 
These  conditions  were— 

1.  The    repeal    of   the    Perpetual    Mutiny 

Bill,  and  the  dependency  of  the  Irish 
Army  upon  the  Irish  people. 

2.  Abolition  of  the  legislative  power  of  the 

Council. 

3.  The  abrogation  of  the  claim  of  England 

to  make  laws  for  Ireland. 

4.  The  exclusion  of  the  English  House  of 


156    PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

Peers  and  of  the  English  King's  Bench 
from  any  judicial  authority  in  Ireland. 
5.  The  restoration  of  the  Irish  Peers  to 
their  final  judicature,  and  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Irish  Parliament  in  its 
sole  and  exclusive  legislature. 

Grattan  was  right  in  his  surmise  that  the 
meaning  of  the  King's  message  was  that  the 
independence  of  the  Irish  Legislature  would  be 
granted.  That  independence  was  enacted  by  three 
statutes,  one  Irish  and  two  British.  Poynings' 
Law  having  been  enacted  by  the  Irish  Parliament, 
it  was  necessary  for  the  Irish  Parliament  to  deal 
with  that  question,  and  an  Act  was  accordingly 
passed  providing — 

"  That  the  Lord-Lieutenant  or  other  chief 
governor  of  Ireland  was  to  certify  to  the 
King  in  such  Bills,  and  none  other,  as  both 
Houses  of  Parliament  in  Ireland  should 
certify  to  be  enacted  under  the  Great  Seal  of 
Ireland  without  alteration. 

"  That  such  of  the  same  as  should  be 
returned  under  the  Great  Seal  of  Great 
Britain  without  alteration,  and  none  other, 
should  pass  in  the  Parliament  of  Ireland. 

"  That  no  Bill  should  be  certified  as  a  cause 
or  consideration  to  hold  a  Parliament  in  Ire- 
land, and  that  Parliament  might  be  holden 
without  any  Bill  being  certified,  but  not  with- 


IRELAND  A  NATION  157 

out  licence  for  that  purpose  being  first  had  and 
obtained  from  the  King  under  the  Great  Seal 
of  Great  Britain." 

The  British  Statutes  were,  first,  the  Statute  of 
Repeal,  which  repealed  Statute  6  of  George  L, 
which  laid  down  the  dependence  of  the  Irish  Par- 
liament, and,  secondly,  the  Renunciation  Act, 
which  declared — 

"  That  the  right  claimed  by  the  people  of 
Ireland  to  be  bound  only  by  laws  enacted  by 
His  Majesty  and  the  Parliament  of  that  king- 
dom in  all  cases  whatsoever,  and  to  have  all 
actions  and  suits  at  law  or  in  equity  which 
might  be  instituted  in  that  kingdom  in  His 
Majesty's  Courts  therein  decided  finally  and 
without  appeal,  from  thence  was  established 
and  ascertained  for  ever." 

Thus  at  long  last  the  Irish  Parliament  became 
the  unconditioned,  independent  instrument  of  a 
free  people.  The  spirit  *of  unity  struggling  through 
the  centuries,  and  materializing  in  the  great  Volun- 
teer Movement,  made  a  nation ;  and  the  nation 
won  freedom  for  its  Parliament — nominally,  at 
least.  But,  in  truth,  the  freedom  was  somewhat 
illusive  and  the  independence  far  from  real. 

AN  ILLUSIVE  INDEPENDENCE. 

The  whole  executive  power  remained  in  the 
hands  of  the  British  Government  through  their 


158   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

nominee,  the  Lord-Lieutenant,  and  legislative 
autonomy  without  the  sanction  of  administrative 
power  can  scarcely  be  said  to  confer  independence. 
The  Lord-Lieutenant  controlled  all  patronage,  and 
under  those  circumstances  a  really  free  Parliament 
could  not  exist.  In  days  when  so  large  a  propor- 
tion of  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  sat  for 
small  close  boroughs,  which  were  the  property  of  a 
few  influential  individuals,  the  Executive  was  able, 
through  the  use — or  abuse — of  patronage  largely 
to  control  that  branch  of  the  Legislature.  Bills 
passed  by  the  Irish  Parliament  required  the  assent 
of  the  Crown  under  the  Great  Seal  of  Great 
Britain — in  other  words,  of  the  King  and  his  Eng- 
lish Ministers.  Theoretically,  the  Crown  exercises 
the  right  of  veto  at  will.  Practically  the  royal 
assent  to  Bills  is  withheld  only  on  the  advice  of 
responsible  Ministers — i.e.,  of  the  Cabinet.  Theo- 
retically, the  Cabinet  is  a  committee  of  the  Privy 
Council ;  practically,  it  is  a  committee  of  the  party 
in  power.  Measures  passed  by  the  British  Legisla- 
ture received  the  royal  assent  by  the  advice  of  the 
King's  British  Ministers,  and  these  Ministers  repre- 
sented the  majority  in  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons. But  the  case  of  Ireland  was  quite  different. 
Irish  Bills  were  not  recommended  for  the  royal 
assent  by  the  King's  Irish  Ministers.  They  were 
submitted  to  his  British  Ministers,  and  on  their 
advice  could  be  disallowed.  The  Irish  Legislature 
could  legislate  as  it  pleased,  but  to  make  its  legisla- 


POWER  OF  THE  PURSE  159 

tion  effective,  the  consent  of  British  Ministers  who 
were  responsible  to  the  British  House  of  Commons 
had  to  be  obtained.  It  must  be  remembered,  also, 
that  the  power  of  the  purse,  wielded  so  effectually 
by  the  British  House  of  Commons,  was  of  com- 
paratively little  value  to  the  Irish  House  of 
Commons.  The  hereditary  revenue  of  the  Crown 
constituted  the  principal  source  of  income  from 
Ireland.  The  Crown  was  not  dependent  for 
supply  on  the  Irish  Legislature  to  anything  like 
the  same  degree  as  it  was  dependent  upon  the 
British  Legislature. 

The  status  of  the  Irish  Legislature,  as  established 
by  statute,  was  that  of  a  sovereign  independent 
Parliament,  and  was,  no  doubt,  far  superior  to  the 
position  it  had  occupied  at  any  previous  period. 
But,  nevertheless,  for  the  reasons  above  mentioned, 
the  British  Parliament  was  de  facto  supreme,  and 
Ireland  did  not  attain  that  position  of  absolute 
equality  with  Great  Britain  which  Grattan  claimed 
as  her  due.  That  such  a  position  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  relative  circumstances  of  the  two 
islands  as  they  now  exist  may  be  conceded,  but  the 
claim  was  not  unreasonable  at  the  time  when  it 
was  made.  The  disparity  in  population  and  wealth 
between  England  and  Ireland  in  1782  was  nothing 
like  so  great  as  it  is  now. 

There  was  nothing,  therefore,  incongruous  in 
the  aspiration  to  equality  as  between  the  two 
kingdoms  ;  nor  is  it  perhaps  surprising  that  Grattan 


160   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

felt  satisfied  that  the  equality  granted  by  the  three 
enfranchising  statutes  would  be  maintained.  In 
both  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  the  franchise  was 
very  limited;  Government  was  controlled  by  the 
propertied  classes.  Grattan  was  a  liberal-minded 
man ;  he  was  ready  to  relieve  the  Roman  Catholic 
population  of  all  social  and  economic  disabilities, 
and  to  place  them  politically  on  a  level  with 
their  Protestant  fellow-countrymen ;  but  the  idea 
of  throwing  all  political  power  into  their  hands  by 
a  great  extension  of  the  franchise  never  entered 
into  his  head.  He  was  not  actuated  by  religious 
prejudice  or  animosity.  His  whole  conception  of 
the  State  was  government  by  the  landed  gentry.  The 
vast  majority  of  landowners  were  Protestants  hold- 
ing their  estates  under  the  Acts  of  Settlement,  in 
close  sympathy  with  the  governing  classes  in  Great 
Britain,  strongly  attached  to  the  connection  with 
Great  Britain  by  religious  and  other  ties.  Political 
power  in  Ireland  was  almost  exclusively  vested  in 
the  owners  of  property,  and  Grattan  assumed  it 
would  so  remain. 

Nevertheless  it  is  strange  that  a  man  of  such 
pre-eminent  talents  as  Grattan  did  not  see  the 
viciousness  inherent  in  the  Charter  of  Irish  In- 
dependence. A  partnership  between  two  nations 
co-equal  in  law  but  unequal  in  fact,  based  on  co- 
equality  of  their  Parliaments,  and  therefore  con- 
straining the  more  powerful  partner  to  assert  itself 
by  indirect  and  underhand  means,  is  the  very  worst 


IRISH  TRADE  161 

form  of  partnership  that  could  be  devised.  The 
Irish  Parliament  was  either  too  strong  or  not  strong 
enough,  and  it  is  curious  that  the  fatal  blot  was  riot 
perceived. 

AN  "INDEPENDENT"  IRELAND. 

It  was  not  very  long  before  events  occurred 
indicating  the  precarious  nature  of  the  relations 
existing  between  the  two  Parliaments  ;  and  indeed 
it  looks  as  though  almost  from  the  outset  Fate  had 
determined  to  indicate  the  nature  of  the  differences 
of  opinion  which  could  possibly  arise,  and  to  furnish 
examples  of  all  the  causes  of  friction  most  likely  to 
occur  in  internal  affairs,  in  external  affairs,  and  over 
a  purely  constitutional  question. 

In  1780  statutes  were  enacted  by  the  British 
Parliament  annulling  the  restrictions  that  had  been 
imposed  on  the  trade  from  Ireland  to  the  Colonies 
and  dependencies,  and  restrictions  on  the  exports 
of  some  Irish  manufactures  were  also  removed. 
But  all  restrictions  had  not  been  abolished,  and  no 
compact  had  been  entered  into  preventing  the 
British  Parliament  from  re-imposing  laws  affecting 
colonial  trade.  These  matters  attracted  a  great 
deal  of  attention  during  the  winter  of  1784-85, 
owing  to  the  distress  which  then  prevailed  in 
Ireland.  A  Committee  was  appointed  to  inquire 
into  the  state  of  Irish  trade  and  manufactures,  and 
its  report  was  followed  by  an  address  to  the  Crown 

from  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  effect — "  That 

11 


162   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

a  well- digested  plan  for  a  liberal  arrangement  of 
commercial  intercourse  between  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  would  be  the  most  effectual  means  of 
strengthening  the  Empire  at  large,  and  of  cherish- 
ing the  common  interests  and  brotherly  affection 
of  both  kingdoms."  Pitt,  who  was  Prime  Minister, 
adopted  the  views  of  the  Irish  House  of  Commons. 
His  opinion,  as  stated  by  himself  at  a  later  period, 
appears  to  have  been  that  the  legislation  of  1782 
and  1783  was  only  of  the  nature  of  demolition, 
and  that  a  constructive  measure  as  a  final  adjust- 
ment of  the  relations  between  the  two  kingdoms 
was  desirable. 

The  difficulty  concerning  commercial  relations 
was  complicated  by  the  intrusion  of  another  matter 
calling  for  arrangement.  In  1782  it  was  sought  to 
impose  upon  Ireland  an  obligation  to  contribute  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  naval  establishment,  and  it 
occurred  to  Pitt  to  make  this  a  quid  pro  quo  for 
the  commercial  concessions  he  determined  to  ask 
the  British  Parliament  to  make  to  Ireland.  Pitt, 
therefore,  answered  the  address  of  the  Irish  House 
of  Commons  by  proposals  for  a  final  settlement  of 
the  commercial  relations  between  the  two  kingdoms 
in  what  were  styled  the  "  Commercial  Propositions." 
They  were  satisfactory  to  Ireland,  for  Pitt  was  wise 
in  his  generation,  and  in  framing  his  proposals  con- 
sulted Joshua  Pirn,  an  eminent  member  of  a  mer- 
cantile family  in  Dublin,  and  John  Foster,  one  of  the 
ablest  men  that  Ireland  has  ever  produced,  who  was 


PITT'S  NEW  PROPOSITIONS        163 

afterwards  Speaker  of  the  Irish  House  of  Commons. 
At  the  same  time  proposals  were  made  that  any 
surplus  of  the  increasing  hereditary  revenue,  which 
at  that  time  amounted  to  about  £650,000  a  year, 
should  be  allocated  to  the  naval  establishment.  In 
order  to  meet  objections  in  Ireland  this  proposition 
was  altered  by  defining  the  surplus  as,  "  whatever 
sum  accrued  above  the  fixed  sum  of  £656,000  in 
each  year  of  peace  wherein  the  annual  revenues 
would  equal  the  annual  expense,  and  in  each  year 
of  war  without  regard  to  such  equality."  It  was 
hoped  that  both  the  Empire  and  Ireland  would 
benefit  by  the  proposals. 

The  Propositions  would  in  all  probability  have 
been  accepted  by  the  Irish  Parliament ;  but  they 
met  with  a  fierce  resistance  in  the  British  House 
of  Commons,  and  an  agitation  against  them  arose 
among  English  merchants  and  manufacturers, 
jealous  of  the  effect  of  Irish  industry  on  their  trade, 
of  so  violent  a  character  as  to  compel  Pitt  to  with- 
draw them,  and  to  substitute  other  Propositions, 
twenty  in  number.  The  most  important  alteration 
was  a  new  clause  to  the  effect  that — "  It  was  highly 
important  to  the  general  interests  of  the  British 
Empire  that  the  laws  for  regulating  trade  and  navi- 
gation should  be  the  same  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  and  that  therefore  it  was  essential  for  carry- 
ing into  effect  the  present  settlement  that  all  laws 
which  had  been  made  or  should  be  made  in  Great 
Britain  for  securing  exclusive  privileges  to  the  ships 


164   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

and  mariners  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  the 
British  Colonies  and  plantations,  and  for  regulating 
and  retaining  the  trade  of  the  British  Colonies  and 
plantations,  such  laws  imposing  the  same  restric- 
tions and  conferring  the  same  benefits  on  the 
subjects  of  both  kingdoms,  should  be  in  force  in 
Ireland  by  laws  to  be  passed  by  the  Parliament  of 
that  kingdom  for  the  same  time  and  in  the  same 
manner  as  in  Great  Britain."  This  clause  was  very 
naturally  objected  to  by  the  Irish  Parliament  on 
the  obvious  ground  that  it  amounted  to  the  sur- 
render of  the  legislative  rights  which  had  been 
conceded  in  1782 ;  and  that  by  compelling  the 
Irish  Parliament  to  accept  the  commercial  legis- 
lation of  England  the  independence  of  the  former 
body  would  be  lost.  Moreover,  it  was  argued  that 
if  the  principle  involved  as  regards  trade  was  once 
adopted,  it  could  be,  and  would  be,  extended  to 
other  matters — such,  for  example,  as  the  Army,  the 
Mutiny  Act,  and  taxation.  The  Propositions  were, 
therefore,  rejected  by  the  Irish  House  of  Commons, 
and  the  matter  dropped. 

FRICTION  BETWEEN  ENGLAND  AND  IRELAND. 

In  1782  the  restrictions  upon  the  exportation  of 
wool  were,  among  other  things,  abolished,  and  the 
Irish  Parliament  claimed  that  Irish  wool  should 
have  access  into  Portugal  in  the  same  manner  as 
English  wool.  This,  however,  was  refused  by  the 
Portuguese  Government,  and  the  Irish  Parliament 


THE  REGENCY  DIFFICULTY       165 

addressed  the  Crown,  insisting  that  Irish  wool 
should  be  admitted  by  Portugal,  a  proceeding 
which,  if  it  had  been  adopted,  would  have  led  to 
a  breach  of  the  friendly  relations  between  Great 
Britain  and  Portugal.  One  of  two  things  might 
have  happened.  Either  the  relations  of  Great 
Britain  with  a  friendly  Power  might  have  been 
disturbed  contrary  to  the  wish  of  the  British 
Parliament  and  the  British  Ministers,  or  Ireland 
might  have  become  involved  in  a  war  in  which 
Great  Britain  refused  to  be  a  party. 

Another  indication  of  the  precarious  nature  of 
the  bonds  between  the  two  countries  was  given  in 
1789  when  the  King  was  affected  with  a  mental 
infirmity  which  rendered  him  unable  to  fulfil  the 
functions  of  royalty.  The  regal  authority  had  to 
be  exercised  by  someone.  The  British  Parliament, 
holding  that  it  was  competent  not  only  to  select 
the  person,  but  also  to  define  the  powers  which  he 
was  to  possess,  chose  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  in 
a  Regency  Bill  prescribed  the  rights  and  duties  of 
his  office.  But  the  Irish  Parliament  treated  the 
Prince  of  Wales  as  rightfully  entitled  to  act,  and 
invited  him  to  assume  the  government  of  Ireland 
during  the  continuance  of  the  King's  illness,  without 
imposing  any  restrictions  whatever  upon  his  power. 
Fortunately  the  King  recovered  his  health,  other- 
wise a  very  curious  state  of  affairs  would  have 
arisen ;  in  Ireland,  the  Prince  of  Wales  would  have 
possessed  all  the  prerogatives  and  attributes  of  the 


166   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

King,  whereas  in  Great  Britain  he  would  have  only 
possessed  such  powers  as  Parliament  might  choose 
to  endow  him  with. 

PITT'S  VIEWS  ON  FEDERATION. 

Thus  in  a  very  few  years  questions  had  arisen  in 
connection  with  internal  trade,  in  connection  with 
external  relations  with  foreign  Powers,  and  in 
connection  with  a  great  constitutional  question  on 
which  the  Legislatures  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
found  themselves  divided.  No  constitutional  means 
for  reconciling  such  differences  existed,  and  the 
minds  of  English  statesmen  turned  to  a  legisla- 
tive union  as  the  best,  if  not  the  only,  means  of 
solving  a  problem  fraught  with  danger  to  the 
State. 

And  other  causes,  also,  were  working  in  the 
same  direction.  The  sympathies  of  the  Presby- 
terians in  the  North  of  Ireland,  great  numbers  of 
whom  had  settled  in  America,  had  been  deeply 
stirred  in  favour  of  the  Colonists  in  the  War  of 
Independence.  Revolutionary  doctrines  and  ten- 
dencies, emanating  from  France,  were  making 
themselves  apparent  among  the  whole  population  in 
Ireland.  England  was  engaged  in  a  life  and  death 
struggle.  She  was  putting  forth  all  her  strength  to 
save  Europe  from  French  domination  ;  and  at  a  time 
when  Ireland,  under  the  influence  of  new  forces  and 
clamouring  for  the  redress  of  grievances,  seemed  to 
be  the  most  vulnerable  point  in  the  British  system, 


PITT'S  HOPES  167 

it  is  not  strange  that  the  great  statesman  at  the 
head  of  affairs  should  have  turned  his  attention  to 
a  legislative  union  as  the  best  means  of  consolidat- 
ing the  strength  of  Great  Britain,  and  of  enabling 
him  to  cope  with  enemies  abroad  and  with  revolu- 
tionary  doctrine    at   home.     He   appears   also   to 
have  been  animated  by  other  considerations.     He 
desired  to  complete  Catholic  Emancipation,  and  to 
make  a  suitable  provision  for  the  bishops  and  clergy 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland.     The 
claims  of  Roman  Catholics  for  relief  in  all  matters 
affecting  their  right  to  hold  property,  and   their 
social    condition   generally,   were   ably   advocated 
in  the  Irish  Parliament,  and  at  a  later  period,  in 
1793,  the  Irish  Parliament  admitted  them  to  the 
franchise.    But  a  strong  and  influential  party  in  the 
Irish  Legislature,  led  by  Lord  Clare,  was  active  in 
putting  the  brake   on   all  political   and   religious 
reform,  and  Pitt,  apparently  mistrusting  the  Irish 
Parliament,  felt  that  his  projects  for  the  benefit  of 
the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  Ireland  could 
be  more  easily  and  surely  carried  out  through  the 
instrumentality  of  a  union  of  the  two  Legislatures. 
He   thought   that   with   the   Protestant   minority 
in    Ireland  joined   to   the  Protestant   majority  in 
Great   Britain,  and  with  the  Established  Church 
in  Ireland  united  to   the  Established    Church  in 
England,    the    Irish    Protestants    would    feel    so 
secure  that  no  furthur  objection  could  be  raised 
against  granting  the  franchise,  and  the  right  to  sit 


168   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

in   Parliament,  to   Catholics  ;  or   to  a  State  pro- 
vision for  their  clergy. 

EARLY  IRISH  PROJECTS  FOR  UNION. 

It  was  with  all  these  forces  acting  upon  them 
that  English  statesmen  turned  their  eyes  wistfully 
towards  the  project  of  a  legislative  union  which, 
after  all,  was  no  new  thing.  A  legislative  union 
between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  had  been  an 
accomplished  fact  on  at  least  two  occasions  in  their 
history.  In  1376,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  III., 
a  mandate  was  issued  directing  that  the  Irish  clergy 
of  each  diocese  should  send  two  persons,  and  the 
Irish  counties,  cities,  and  boroughs,  also  each  two 
persons,  to  England,  to  treat,  consult,  and  agree 
with  the  King  and  his  Council ;  and  in  1654, 
during  the  Commonwealth,  Ireland  sent  thirty 
representatives  to  the  English  Parliament  sitting  in 
London.  Many  able  men  had  from  time  to  time 
advocated  a  union. 

In  1703,  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  the 
Irish  House  of  Lords  passed  a  resolution  to  the 
effect  that  a  representation  should  be  made  to 
Queen  Anne  to  induce  her  to  promote  the  policy 
of  union,  so  as  to  qualify  the  States  of  Ireland  to  be 
represented  in  Parliament  in  England.  The  House 
of  Commons,  also,  in  an  address,  referred  to  a  more 
strict  union  with  her  Majesty's  subjects  in  England  ; 
and  in  1707  the  same  House,  congratulating  the 
Queen  on  the  completion  of  the  Scottish  Union, 


IRISH  OPINION  169 

added  an  emphatic  prayer,  that — "  God  might  put 
it  into  her  heart  to  add  greater  strength  and  lustre 
to  her  Crown  by  a  yet  more  comprehensive  union." 

In  1698  Molyneux  published  a  treatise  entitled : 
"  The  Case  of  Ireland  being  bound  by  Acts  of 
Parliament  in  England,  Stated."  Molyneux  de- 
serves to  stand  high  in  the  estimation  of  Irishmen 
as  a  patriot,  for  boldly  proclaiming  the  twin 
doctrines  that  Ireland  was  not  a  conquered 
country,  and  that  the  Parliament  of  England  had 
no  power  to  bind  the  people  and  kingdom  of 
Ireland.  But,  though  strongly  asserting  those 
views,  Molyneux  appears  to  have  been  favourably 
impressed  with  the  idea  of  a  union.  He  argued 
that  if  the  Parliament  of  England  was  to  bind 
Ireland,  the  latter  country  ought  to  have  its  repre- 
sentatives in  it.  "And  this,"  he  observed,  "I 
believe  we  should  be  willing  enough  to  embrace, 
but  this  is  a  happiness  we  can  hardly  hope  for." 

A  legislative  union  was  advocated  by  many 
able  writers  on  economic  science,  as,  for  instance, 
by  Adam  Smith  and  by  Montesquieu.  "Were 
I,"  said  the  latter,  "  an  Irishman,  I  should 
certainly  wish  for  a  union  between  Ireland  and 
England,  and  as  a  general  lover  of  liberty  I  sin- 
cerely desire  it,  and  for  this  plain  reason,  that  an 
inferior  country  connected  with  one  much  her 
superior  in  force  can  never  be  certain  of  constitu- 
tional freedom  unless  she  has  by  her  representatives 
a  proportional  share  in  the  legislature  of  the 


170   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

superior  kingdom."  But  these  expressions  of 
opinion  were  merely  academic.  As  a  matter  of 
practical  politics  the  idea  of  a  legislative  union  fell 
into  abeyance  until  it  was  revived  by  Pitt. 

Pitt  had  been  turning  over  the  question  of  a 
legislative  union  in  his  mind  before  events  forced 
him  into  action.  Writing  to  the  Duke  of  Rutland 
in  1785,  he  said  that  he  "  wanted  to  make  England 
and  Ireland  one  country  in  effect,  though  for 
local  concerns  under  distinct  legislatures."  Pitt's 
conception  of  a  union  was  very  different  in 
character  to  that  of  the  union  which  eventually 
took  place.  It  was  founded  on  the  great  principle 
of  federation,  and  there  is  in  fact  little  difference 
between  Pitt's  ideas  as  to  the  relations  that 
should  exist  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
and  the  views  put  forward  by  the  Irish  Reform 
Association  in  1903,  or  set  out  in  a  resolution 
passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  in  1908.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  Pitt's  theory  of  a  settlement  of 
Irish  questions  a  century  and  a  quarter  ago  in- 
volved an  Irish  Legislature  controlling  Irish 
affairs,  Catholic  Emancipation,  and  State  Provision 
for  the  Catholic  clergy.  How  different  would  be 
the  pages  of  modern  Irish  history  had  these  wise 
intentions  been  carried  out ! 

In  1785  the  idea  of  a  legislative  union  com- 
mended itself,  for  the  reasons  I  have  mentioned,  to 
British  Ministers.  It  was  also  supported  by  great 
commercial  interests  in  Great  Britain,  but  it  was 


SANGUINE  PROPHETS  171 

deemed    impracticable    owing    to    the    vehement 
opposition  to  be  encountered  in  Ireland. 

But  events  moved  fast.  The  Rebellion  of  '98 
and  the  landing  of  French  troops  precipitated 
action,  and  in  1799  proposals  for  a  legislative  union 
had  taken  definite  shape. 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  THE  UNION. 

Of  the  nature  of  the  struggle  that  took  place 
in  connection  with  the  Union,  the  arguments  for 
and  against  it,  and  the  popular  feeling  evinced,  it 
is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  treat  within  the 
limits  of  a  short  sketch.  The  arguments  for  the 
measure  were,  in  the  main,  of  a  material  character. 

That  the  Union  would  raise  Ireland  to  the  level 
of  Great  Britain  in  wealth  and  material  prosperity, 
and  that  peace  and  contentment  would  ensue,  was 
confidently  predicted.  It  was  said  that  under  the 
Union  a  large  and  constant  stream  of  English 
capital  would  flow  into  a  country  greatly  in  need 
of  it,  and  that  the  development  of  the  natural 
resources  of  Ireland  would  become  a  special  object 
of  Imperial  policy.  When  two  countries,  differ- 
ing widely  in  their  industrial,  commercial,  agri- 
cultural, and  economic  development  are  identified 
in  government,  policy,  and  interests,  they  must,  it 
was  claimed,  inevitably  attain  to  the  same  level. 
English  capital  would  naturally  find  its  employ- 
ment in  the  undeveloped  resources  of  Ireland,  and 
trade  would  flourish.  Cork,  already  the  emporium 


172   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

of  provisions  for  the  British  Navy  and  the  refuge 
for  homeward-bound  convoys  in  time  of  war,  would 
be  converted  into  a  great  maritime  station,  with 
dockyards  like  those  of  Plymouth  and  Portsmouth, 
and  would  become  one  of  the  greatest  commercial 
ports  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Landed  property 
worth  about  twenty  years'  purchase  in  Ireland 
would  rise  to  the  English  level  of  from  thirty  to 
forty  years'  purchase.  The  prosperity  of  Ireland 
would,  it  was  confidently  asserted,  be  assured. 

It  was  predicted  that,  along  with  stability  of 
property,  stability  of  the  Episcopal  Church  would 
be  guaranteed.  Protestants  were  told  that  the 
security  of  their  tenure  of  land,  and  the  existence 
of  the  Established  Church,  depended  upon  the 
absorption  of  Ireland,  a  country  in  which  the  great 
majority  of  the  people  were  Roman  Catholics  and 
the  descendants  of  expropriated  forefathers,  into 
Great  Britain,  a  Protestant  country,  whose  concern 
it  would  be  to  protect  Protestant  interests  in  Ireland. 
The  whole  power  of  the  Empire — a  Protestant 
Empire — would  be  pledged  to  the  Church  Estab- 
lishment of  Ireland,  and  the  property  of  the  whole 
Empire  would  be  used  to  support  the  property  of 
every  part.  Catholics  were  assured  that  when  they 
became  part  of  a  great  whole,  and  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  any  longer  feared  as  a  dominating  force 
in  Ireland,  they  would  obtain  full  religious  and 
political  concessions.  Emancipation,  admission  to 
Parliament,  and  a  State  provision  for  their  clergy, 


IRISH  OPPOSITION  173 

were  dangled  before  their  eyes.  The  Protestant 
Dissenters  in  the  North  were  invited  to  believe 
that  their  political  importance  would  be  enormously 
increased  by  fusion  with  the  Protestant  Dissenters 
of  Great  Britain. 

The  trading  and  manufacturing  classes  were 
appealed  to  on  the  ground  that  in  representation 
in  the  British  Parliament  lay  their  only  real  security 
against  the  possibly  evil  effects  upon  them  of 
British  regulations  of  trade  and  commerce.  Nor 
was  sentiment  neglected.  The  superior  position 
which  Ireland  would  occupy  as  part  and  parcel  of 
a  great  United  Kingdom  was  dilated  upon. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  said  that  neither 
material  prosperity,  nor  security  for  property  and 
religion,  could  be  guaranteed  by  a  legislative  union. 
Could  the  Articles  of  Union,  it  was  argued,  restrict 
the  power  of  an  omnipotent  Parliament  ?  Was  it 
not  possible  that  the  day  might  come  when  the 
descendants  of  the  Irish  Protestants  who  agreed  to 
the  Union  would  find  themselves  a  small  and 
unimportant  minority  in  an  Imperial  Parliament, 
vainly  struggling  against  the  violation  of  the  most 
fundamental  articles  of  that  Act  of  Union  ? 

OPPOSITION  TO  THE  UNION. 

Irish  statesmen  contended  that  the  material 
interests  of  Ireland  could  not  be  safely  entrusted 
to  a  British  Assembly.  They  dreaded  the  moral 
effects  of  the  Union  in  undermining  respect  for 


174   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

law,  in  promoting  absenteeism,  in  weakening  the 
power  of  the  landed  gentry,  and  thus  destroying 
a  guiding  influence  which,  in  the  peculiar  condi- 
tions of  Ireland,  was  regarded  by  them  as  essential 
to  the  well-being  of  the  country.  They  foresaw 
that  identification  of  legislatures  would  lead  to 
an  assimilation  of  exchequers,  and  that  one  result 
of  the  Union  would  infallibly  be  to  impose  a 
burden  of  taxation  upon  Ireland  far  heavier  than 
she  could  bear. 

Grattan  believed  that  the  great  work  of  uniting 
into  one  people  the  severed  elements  of  Irish  life 
could  only  be  attained  by  the  strong  guidance  of 
the  local  gentry  of  both  religions  acting  together  in 
a  national  legislature,  and  appealing  to  a  national 
sentiment ;  and  he  dreaded,  with  intense  fear,  the 
consequences  to  Ireland  "  if  the  guidance  of  her 
people  passed  into  the  hands  of  dishonest,  dis- 
reputable, and  disloyal  adventurers."  He  con- 
tended that  anarchy,  and  not  order,  would  be  the 
result  of  the  Union;  that  the  Government  in 
Ireland  would  be  fatally  discredited,  and  would 
lose  all  its  moral  force ;  and  that,  as  regards 
taxation,  the  Irish  contributions  would  prove 
beyond  the  capacity  of  the  country. 

In  the  British  House  of  Commons  apprehensions 
were  expressed  that  the  infusion  of  Irish  members 
into  the  British  Parliament  would  add  an  over- 
whelming weight  to  the  influence  of  the  Crown ; 
and  great  danger  to  parliamentary  government 


PROTESTS  AGAINST  UNION       175 

was  anticipated  if  the  Irish  members  were  to  form 
a  distinct  and  separate  body  acting  in  concert 
amid  the  play  of  party  politics — a  solid  phalanx  to 
be  cast  to  the  one  side  or  the  other  to  attain  some 
distinctive  Irish  goal.  Lawrence,  who  opposed  the 
Union  in  the  House  of  Commons,  was  apprehen- 
sive that  in  such  circumstances  Parliament  might 
find  the  public  business  impeded  in  its  progress. 

Foster,  the  Speaker  of  the  Irish  House  of  Com- 
mons, in  reply  to  the  argument  that  the  Union 
would  tend  to  tranquillize  Ireland  and  raise  the 
tone  of  its  civilization,  asked  the  very  natural 
question  :  "  If  a  resident  Parliament  and  resident 
gentry  could  not  soften  manners,  amend  habits, 
and  promote  social  intercourse,  will  no  Parliament 
and  fewer  resident  gentry  do  it  ?"  The  greatest 
misfortune  of  the  kingdom,  he  said,  was  the  large 
class  of  middlemen  who  intervened  between  the 
owners  and  the  actual  occupiers  of  the  soil.  These 
middlemen  were  mostly  to  be  found  on  the  estates 
of  absentees;  and  Foster,  and,  indeed,  all  opponents 
of  the  Union,  prophesied  that  the  death  of  the 
Irish  Parliament,  and  all  it  represented,  would 
lead  to  an  increase  of  absenteeism  disastrous  to  the 
tenantry,  and  involving  the  degradation  of  Dublin 
as  the  social  and  political  centre  of  Ireland. 

Lord  Charlemont  believed  that  the  Union  would 
contribute  more  than  any  other  measure  to  the 
separation  of  the  two  countries,  the  perpetual  con- 
nection of  which  was,  he  said,  one  of  the  warmest 


176   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

wishes  of  his  heart.  Indeed,  all  the  most  prominent 
members  of  the  Opposition  warned  the  Govern- 
ment again  and  again  that  if  the  Union  was 
carried  by  the  means  employed,  and  at  the  time 
when  the  measure  was  introduced,  it  would  not  be 
tolerated,  and  would  hereafter  lead  to  generations 
of  disloyalty,  agitation,  and  strife ;  and,  in  the 
British  House  of  Lords,  Lord  Grey  predicted  that 
a  Union  so  carried  would  not  be  acquiesced  in,  and 
that  attempts  would  one  day  be  made  to  undo  it. 

In  their  final  protest  entered  on  the  Journals  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  the  Opposition  declared 
that  a  non-resident  Parliament  would  not  be  likely 
to  combat  disaffection  with  the  same  promptitude 
and  energy  as  a  resident  Parliament ;  and  they  pre- 
dicted that  the  Union  would  be  followed  by  the 
removal  or  abasement  of  the  men  of  property  and 
respectability,  which  would  leave  room  for  political 
agitators  and  men  with  talent  but  without  principle 
or  property,  to  disturb  and  irritate  the  public  mind. 
Knox,  who  was  secretary  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  also 
anticipated  a  degradation  of  the  authority  of  law. 
"The  Union,"  he  said,  "calculated  as  it  is  to 
confer  both  local  and  moral  benefit,  might  become 
the  source  of  irreparable  mischief,  both  to  Ireland 
and  the  Empire,  because  disturbance  will,  as  much 
as  ever,  require  summary  means  of  suppression,  and 
those  means  can  no  longer  have  the  same  sanction 
as  was  given  them  by  a  resident  Parliament." 

And  sentiment  was  appealed  to.     It  was  argued 


HISTORY'S  VERDICT  177 

that  Ireland  was  asked  to  surrender  her  separate 
existence  and  all  her  hard-won  constitutional  rights 
for  a  mess  of  pottage  of  very  small  dimensions  ; 
whereas  it  was  certain  that  great  strides  in  pros- 
perity had  been  made  by  the  country  during  the 
short  existence  of  Grattan's  Parliament,  it  was 
very  uncertain  whether  any  material  advantage 
would  be  derived  from  the  Union.  And  even 
if  Ireland  did  benefit  materially,  how,  it  was 
urged,  could  Ireland  think  of  sacrificing  her  con- 
stitution and  national  existence  for  any  advantages, 
be  they  ever  so  great  ? 

THE  UNION  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES. 

How  far  all  these  various  prophecies  have  or 
have  not  been  fulfilled  in  detail  must  be  left  to  the 
judgment  of  those  who  know  something  of  the 
history  of  the  last  hundred  years,  but  of  this  there 
can  be  no  doubt — the  prognostications  of  evil, 
enormous  increase  of  taxation,  discredit  of  law  and 
order,  absenteeism,  degradation  of  industry  and 
loss  of  trade,  have  been  amply  fulfilled,  while  the 
smooth  sayings,  the  immense  development  of  the 
agricultural  resources  of  the  country,  the  great 
influx  of  British  capital,  the  creation  of  large  com- 
mercial centres  in  Irish  ports  and  harbours,  over- 
brimming prosperity,  and,  as  a  result,  a  peaceful 
and  contented  people,  have  been  utterly  falsified 
by  events.  Yet  it  was  not,  perhaps,  unnatural 
that  people  should  have  hoped  much  from  the 

12 


178   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

Union    with    the    example    of    Scotland    before 
them. 

The  union  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
produced  effects  exactly  the  opposite  of  those 
resulting  from  the  union  between  England  and 
Scotland.  In  Scotland  the  people,  at  the  time  of 
the  Union  and  for  a  considerable  time  after,  were 
violently  hostile  to  it,  but,  becoming  reconciled 
after  a  time,  they  utilized  it  and  prospered  greatly. 
In  Ireland,  under  martial  law  and  overawed  by  a 
great  military  force,  no  active  signs  of  hostility 
made  themselves  immediately  evident.  The  people 
accepted  the  Union  with  indifference,  but  they  did 
not  become  reconciled  to  the  change.  They  did 
not  become  prosperous,  and,  not  prospering,  their 
hostility  became  more  and  more  marked. 

This  difference  is  not  difficult  to  account  for. 
The  sense  of  nationality  in  Scotland  was  not 
shocked  by  the  union  with  England  as  Irish 
nationality  was  shocked  by  the  union  with  Great 
Britain.  Scotland  had  evidenced  her  nationality 
in  a  long  line  of  kings  and  under  constitutional 
government.  Her  King  had  become  King  of 
England,  and,  so  far  as  royalty  was  concerned, 
Scotland  had  annexed  England.  Scotland  and 
England  became  united  as  long  established  equals 
mutually  self-respecting.  The  two  kingdoms  were 
not  divided  by  sea,  the  populations  merged  gradu- 
ally together,  sundered  only  by  an  imaginary  line. 
No  religious  differences  of  a  serious  character 


THE  SCOTTISH  UNION  179 

separated  them.  Scotland  was  financially  and  in 
every  respect  well  equipped  to  take  every  advan- 
tage that  the  Union  offered,  and  after  the  first 
feeling  of  resentment  passed  away,  her  energetic 
sons  turned  the  Union  to  their  own  ends  with 
persistence  and  daring.  Everything  beneficial 
predicted  of  the  Union  took  place.  In  recom- 
mending it  to  the  Scottish  Parliament,  Queen 
Anne  said  that  "it  would  secure  the  religion, 
liberty,  and  prosperity  of  the  Scottish  people, 
remove  animosities  among  them  and  jealousies  and 
differences  with  England  ;  that  it  would  increase 
their  strength,  riches,  and  trade ;  that,  as  a  conse- 
quence, the  whole  island,  freed  from  apprehension 
of  different  interests,  would  be  able  to  resist  its 
enemies  and  maintain  the  liberties  of  Europe." 
Not  one  syllable  of  that  prediction  has  failed  to 
come  true.  The  case  of  Ireland  was  very  different. 
Ireland  had  been  struggling  through  centuries 
of  destruction,  contumely  and  contempt,  to  main- 
tain nationality,  and  surrendered  the  material 
evidence  of  it — her  Parliament — almost  on  the 
morrow  of  victory.  Prostrated  by  the  Rebel- 
lion of  1798,  under  martial  law,  overawed  by 
a  military  occupation,  the  people  languidly  acqui- 
esced in  a  measure  against  which  they  revolted  as 
they  recovered  tone  and  strength.  Stormy  seas 
interposed  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland ;  the 
two  peoples  were  cleft  by  a  radical  difference  of 
religion. 


180   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

Ireland  was,  and  is,  distinct  from  Great  Britain 
in  a  far  greater  degree  than  Scotland  was,  or  is, 
from  England.  Ireland  absorbs  and  is  not  ab- 
sorbed ;  she  assimilates  and  is  not  assimilated.  No 
portion  of  the  globe  is  inhabited  by  people  of  more 
mixed  blood.  Yet,  in  spite  of  that,  in  spite  of 
annihilations  and  colonizations  and  plantations, 
Ireland  remains  Ireland  and  the  people  remain 
Irish  in  a  sense  and  to  an  extent  that  craves 
insatiably  for  some  outward  expression  of  distinct 
national  life. 

The  trade  of  Ireland  was  just  beginning  to 
revive,  but  she  did  not  possess  the  accumulated 
capital  or  other  resources  necessary  to  enable  her 
to  take  advantage  of  the  Union.  She  was  de- 
frauded. The  promises  of  remedial  measures  to 
accompany  the  Union  were  not  fulfilled.  In  her 
case  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  all  the  evil 
and  none  of  the  good  that  was  anticipated  from 
the  Union  became  evident  in  its  results. 

THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  ISSUE. 

During  the  discussion,  the  question  of  the  power 
of  Parliament  to  enact  its  own  destruction  was 
raised.  It  was  contended  on  one  side  that  by  the 
Act  of  Union  the  Irish  Parliament  and  the  Irish 
people  would  be  merged  with  the  British  Parlia- 
ment and  the  British  people  ;  that  that  merger 
was  equivalent  to  self-destruction,  arid  that  Parlia- 
ment had  no  authority  to  destroy  itself  or  the 


THE  NATION  NOT  CONSULTED    181 

nation.  Power  was,  it  was  argued,  only  delegated 
to  Parliament  by  the  people.  Parliament  occupied 
the  position  of  a  trustee,  and  was  bound  to  preserve 
its  trust  intact.  On  the  other  side,  it  was  claimed 
that,  as  under  a  despotic  Monarchy  all  power  lay 
with  the  Sovereign,  so  under  a  limited  Monarchy 
all  power  lay  with  the  Sovereign  and  Parliament ; 
that  there  was  no  limit  upon  Parliament,  save  that 
of  the  Crown,  known  to  the  constitution  of  either 
kingdom,  and  that,  therefore,  any  Bill  of  Parlia- 
ment was  valid  and  binding  after  becoming  an  Act 
by  the  royal  assent.  This  discussion  appears  to  me 
to  be  somewhat  of  an  academic  character.  It  is 
one  which,  as  no  authority  exists  competent  to 
decide  upon  it,  might  be  argued  for  ever,  and  it  is 
one,  therefore,  of  very  little  practical  value.  That, 
however,  is  not  the  case  with  another  argument 
raised  against  the  validity  of  the  Union  and  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  was  passed.  It  was 
urged  with  great  cogency  that  Parliament  had  no 
right  to  abolish  itself  without  an  appeal  to  the 
people.  Ireland  was  quaking  and  shaking  from 
the  effects  of  the  Rebellion  of  1798.  The  people 
were  torn  by  conflicting  emotions.  The  country 
was  under  martial  law,  thoroughly  occupied  by 
over  100,000  troops,  overawed  by  the  military 
forces  of  the  Crown.  It  was  impossible  for  the 
people  in  such  circumstances  to  form  a  sane  and 
sound  opinion  on  a  great  constitutional  change,  or 
freely  to  express  their  opinion  if  they  had  been 


182   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

able  to  form  one.  Nor  were  the  people  given  a 
chance  of  making  their  wishes  felt  in  the  legitimate 
and  constitutional  way.  Again  and  again  the  Op- 
position pressed  for  a  dissolution  and  an  appeal  to 
the  constituencies,  but  their  demands  were  refused. 

To  pretend  that  a  Parliament,  elected  before  pro- 
positions for  an  union  of  the  Legislatures  had  been 
put  forward,  had  any  right  to  terminate  its  own  exist- 
ence and  that  of  the  nation  by  passing  a  Bill  for  the 
amalgamation  of  the  two  Legislatures  is  to  stretch 
the  powers  of  Parliament  far  beyond  the  bounds  of 
reason.  It  was  iniquitous  to  ask  the  Irish  people, 
situated  as  they  then  were,  to  pronounce  upon  a 
question  involving  the  maintenance  or  destruction 
of  their  existence  as  an  independent  kingdom. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  matter  on  its 
merits,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  moment  chosen 
for  the  application  of  the  principle  of  a  union  was 
not  propitious.  Ireland  had  little  to  gain  by  it,  and 
much  to  lose.  She  had  won  a  measure  of  inde- 
pendence only  a  short  time  before.  Her  champions 
were,  most  of  them,  still  in  the  fighting  line.  She 
was  flushed  with  recent  victory,  animated  by  a 
strong  sense  of  nationality ;  she  had  prospered 
greatly  under  her  own  Parliament ;  she  was  con- 
scious of,  and  confident  in,  her  own  strength ;  she 
was  very  properly  proud  of  the  eloquence  and 
ability  of  her  statesmen,  and  of  the  high  esteem  in 
which  her  Parliament  was  universally  held ;  she 
was  shaken  by  the  convulsions  of  a  great  Rebellion ; 


SUBORNED  BY  CORRUPTION       183 

she  could  scarcely  be  expected  to  weigh  dispas- 
sionately proposals  involving  the  abdication  of  her 
status  as  a  free  people,  her  position  as  a  distinct 
kingdom,  and  the  constitutional  rights  which  she 
had  so  lately  won. 

POPULAR  OPINION  AS  TO  UNION. 
It  is,  I  think,  generally  supposed  that  the  Union 
was  carried  by  gross  bribery  and  corruption,  and 
contrary  to  the  universal  desire  of  the  people. 
There  is  an  element  of  exaggeration  in  this  view. 
It  is  true  that  Parliament  was  suborned  by  a 
deliberate  system  of  corruption  unequalled  and 
unparalleled  even  in  an  age  in  which  such 
methods  were  commonly  resorted  to  in  political 
warfare.  It  is  quite  certain  that  without  wholesale 
corruption,  Parliament  would  never  have  ac- 
cepted the  measure,  but  it  is  doubtful  to  what 
extent  the  people  were  hostile  to  it.  From  the 
materials  available  it  is  very  difficult  to  follow  the 
trend  of  popular  opinion  during  the  struggle. 
Rapid  changes  appear  to  have  taken  place. 
Localities  and  interests,  at  one  time  reported  as 
unfavourable,  were  at  another  time  said  to  be 
favourable  to  the  scheme,  and  vice  versa.  One 
month's  report  differed  from  another.  The  agents 
of  the  Government  were  busy  through  the  country 
threatening,  persuading,  and  bribing.  Parliament 
was  not  really  representative,  and  under  the  cir- 
cumstances then  existing — martial  law  and  the 


184   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

occupation  of  the  country  by  great  masses  of  troops 
— petitions  and  resolutions  signed  by  corporations 
and  other  bodies  cannot  be  depended  upon  as 
indicative  of  popular  opinion. 

Official  accounts  cannot  be  trusted,  but,  never- 
theless, the  truth  appears  to  be  that  men's  minds 
were  very  unsettled.  The  prospect  was  of  the 
nature  of  a  leap  in  the  dark.  People  did  not  know 
what  the  result  would  be,  and  they  were  swayed 
by  various  and  varying  considerations.  In  many 
cases  the  self-interest  of  individuals,  of  localities, 
and  of  classes,  conflicted  with  the  sense  of  nation- 
ality, and  even  as  regards  the  national  interest, 
differences  of  opinion  were  honestly  held.  Dublin 
was  consistently  and  violently  opposed  to  the 
Union.  As  the  capital  and  seat  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, Dublin  had  everything  to  lose,  and  Dublin 
strenuously  fought  against  the  Union  to  the  bitter 
end.  Other  cities  oscillated.  Cork  and  Limerick 
were,  at  one  time  at  any  rate,  in  favour  of  the 
Union.  Cork,  it  was  supposed,  would,  from  its 
geographical  position  and  magnificent  harbour, 
become  a  great  naval  station,  and  a  commercial 
rival  of  Bristol,  Liverpool,  and  the  Port  of  London. 
Protestant  opinion  in  the  North,  where  Protestants 
were  numerous  and  strong,  was  usually  strongly 
opposed  to  the  Union.  In  the  South,  Protestant 
opinion  was  naturally  against  the  measure,  but  in- 
clined to  favour  it,  being  influenced  by  the  terrible 
scenes  which  had  lately  occurred  at  Wexford 


THE  UNITED  IRISHMEN  185 

during  the  Rebellion  of  '98.  The  mercantile 
classes  were,  as  a  rule,  opposed  to  the  Union.  The 
scheme  commended  itself  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
Hierarchy  and  the  principal  Roman  Catholic  landed 
gentry  as  guaranteeing,  as  they  were  led  to  believe, 
complete  emancipation  and  the  payment  of  the 
clergy,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  population  were 
naturally  inclined  to  follow  their  lead.  The  legal 
profession  was,  almost  to  a  man,  dead  against  the 
Union,  and  the  law  provided  some  of  the  most 
eloquent  and  energetic  opponents  of  the  measure. 
The  United  Irishmen,  despairing  of  obtaining 
reform  from  the  Irish  Parliament,  hated  that  Par- 
liament for  being  under  English  influence,  and 
espoused  the  cause  of  the  Union  in  order  to  destroy 
it.  The  Orangemen,  of  whom  the  Volunteers 
were  largely  composed,  were  extremely  hostile  to 
the  Union.  As  to  the  leaders,  the  principal  pro- 
tagonists and  antagonists  were — Pitt  and  Sheridan 
in  Great  Britain  ;  and  in  the  Irish  Parliament  the 
Chancellor,  Lord  Clare,  and  Foster,  the  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Commons. 

THE  FINAL  ACT. 

In  eloquence,  arguments,  and,  certainly  it  may  be 
said,  in  honesty  of  conviction,  the  Opposition  were 
vastly  superior  to  the  Government ;  but  neither 
honesty  nor  argument  nor  eloquence  could  avail 
against  the  corruption  so  lavishly  employed.  Peer- 
ages and  advancements,  places  and  pensions  and 


186   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

emoluments  of  all  kinds,  were  showered  broadcast ; 
and  members  of  the  Opposition  were,  wherever 
possible,  deprived  of  all  the  places  and  emoluments 
that  they  held.  The  extent  to  which  Parliament 
had  been  suborned  may  be  gathered  from  a  letter 
of  the  Lord -Lieutenant — Lord  Cornwallis — in 
which  he  says  that  half  of  the  supporters  of  the 
Government  would,  in  their  hearts,  have  been  only 
too  glad  if  the  measure  had  been  thrown  out.  But 
that  was  not  to  be.  On  May  26,  1800,  the  Bill 
was  read  a  second  time  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
After  that,  though  some  further  discussion  took 
place  on  details,  there  was  no  heart  in  it,  and  most 
of  the  Opposition  withdrew  from  the  House  when 
the  Bill  was  read  a  third  time  on  June  7.  The 
Bill  then  passed  the  House  of  Lords,  twenty  peers 
entering  a  solemn  protest  against  it  in  the  Journal 
of  the  House.  Thus  the  Irish  Parliament,  by  its 
own  act  and  deed,  abolished  itself  only  nineteen 
years  after  it  had  achieved  its  reputed  independence, 
and  with  it  abolished  the  symbol  and  outward  and 
visible  signs  of  Irish  nationality. 

That  many  members  of  both  Houses  voted  for 
the  Union  in  the  honest  and  honourable  conviction 
that  it  would  be  for  the  benefit  of  their  country,  is 
undoubtedly  true ;  and  that  the  Bill  received  a 
large  measure  of  support  in  the  country  is  equally 
certain.  But  it  is  clear,  also,  that  without  bribery 
and  corruption  it  could  never  have  been  passed,  and 
that  the  majority  of  the  people  were  opposed  to  it. 


GRATTAN'S  DOUBTS  187 

Towards  the  end  public  interest  flagged  ;  the  thing 
was  inevitable,  and  the  people  seem  to  have  re- 
cognized it.  Thomas  Goold,  one  of  the  most 
energetic  opponents  of  the  measure,  lamented  in 
his  last  speech  that  public  sentiment  did  not  keep 
pace  with  the  Opposition  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. No  popular  demonstration  took  place  after 
the  passing  of  the  Act.  The  counties  were,  prac- 
tically speaking,  the  only  free  constituencies,  and 
no  county  candidate  was  rejected  on  account  of 
having  voted  for  the  Union. 

The  principal  members  of  the  Opposition,  to 
their  undying  credit,  accepted  the  situation.  They 
fought  the  Bill  with  conspicuous  ability  and  un- 
tiring energy,  and,  having  done  their  utmost  to 
preserve  the  liberties  of  their  country,  and  finding 
themselves  defeated,  subordinated  their  convic- 
tions and  opinions  to  their  patriotism,  and  an- 
nounced their  desire  and  intention  to  do  all  in 
their  power  to  ensure  the  success  of  a  measure 
which  they  cordially  disliked.  But  they  were  very 
doubtful  of  the  future.  Grattan  appears  to  have 
had  but  little  faith  in  the  lasting  character  of  a 
union  accomplished  by  such  nefarious  means. 
"  The  constitution  may,"  he  said,  "  be  for  a  time 
lost ;  the  character  of  the  country  cannot  be  so 
lost."  Foster,  Goold,  Plunket,  Bushe,  Saurin, 
Lord  Corry,  Ponsonby,  all  used  language  of  a 
similar  kind.  They  declared  that  had  the  country 
not  been  divided  and  weakened  by  the  Rebellion  of 


188   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

'98,  and  had  it  not  been  occupied  by  a  great 
military  force,  the  measure  could  never  have  been 
passed.  Its  passage  was,  they  said,  accomplished 
by  bribery  and  corruption,  contrary  to  the  wishes 
of  the  constituencies,  and  they  feared  the  worst 
consequences  from  its  enactment. 

Nothing  is,  as  a  rule,  more  unprofitable  than 
attempting  to  portray  what  might  have  been  ;  but 
to  every  rule  there  is  an  exception,  and  it  may  be 
useful  to  consider  what  would  have  been  the  course 
of  history  if  the  Union  had  not  been  forced  through 
at  a  most  unpropitious  moment,  and  by  most  ne- 
farious means  ;  and  if  Pitt  had  only  had  his  way. 

Judging  by  the  proceedings  of  the  Irish  Par- 
liament during  the  last  few  years  of  its  short 
existence,  and  by  the  utterances  of  public 
men,  remembering  that  the  Catholics  had  been 
admitted  to  the  franchise,  it  may  be  taken,  I 
think,  for  granted,  that  parliamentary  reform  and 
the  removal  of  disabilities  would  have  been 
gradually  undertaken  by  the  native  Legislature  ; 
and  it  is  certainly  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
great  revival  in  trade  and  general  prosperity  that 
manifested  itself  would  have  continued  and  have 
grown  in  strength.  That  a  legislative  union 
would  have  sooner  or  later  taken  place,  I  have 
not  the  slightest  doubt;  but  had  the  national 
sentiment  been  given  time  to  solidify,  had  the 
trading  and  commercial  instincts  of  the  people 
been  allowed  the  opportunity  to  develop  and 


FEDERALISM  189 

materialize   in   acquired  wealth   and  accumulated 
capital,    propositions    for    a    union    would    have 
been    received    in    a    very    different    spirit,    very 
different   means   would   have   been    employed    to 
recommend  it,  and  if  carried  it  would  have  pro- 
duced very  different  results.     And  it  would  have 
been  a  union  of  a  different  kind,  a  federal  union 
of   the  nature    originally   contemplated    by   Pitt. 
Pitt  desired  to  fuse  the  two  countries  into  one,  on 
all  larger  and  Imperial  questions,  by  the  representa- 
tion of  Ireland  in  an  Imperial  Parliament,  while 
leaving   the   Irish   Parliament   free    to   deal   with 
all  matters  of  local  concern.     That  is  federation. 
The  idea  was  strongly  objected  to,  and  even  jeered 
at,  in   the   British   Parliament   by  Sheridan,  who 
championed  the  cause  of  the  Opposition  in  Ireland, 
and  by  Canning.     It  was   never   mooted   in  the 
Irish    Parliament,   and   had   the   suggestion  been 
made  there,  it  would  doubtless  have  been  rejected 
with    scorn    as    involving    the    degradation    of    a 
"  sovereign  Parliament "  to  an  inferior  status.     As 
was  very  natural,  the  battle  in  Ireland  was  fought 
on  the  clear  issue  of  all  or  nothing. 

UNREDEEMED  PLEDGES. 

Nevertheless,  Pitt  was  right ;  and  had  a  union 
of  the  nature  he  first  suggested  been  passed,  and 
had  it  been  followed  by  the  other  measures  which 
he  advocated,  it  is  certain  that  the  same  patriotism 
that  inspired  the  Opposition  to  make  the  best  of  a 


190   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

measure  which  they  utterly  detested  would  have 
induced  men  of  light  and  leading  in  Ireland  to 
accept  federation  in  good  faith,  and  in  accepting  it, 
to  labour  for  honest  and  good  government  in  the 
Parliament  of  Dublin  and  for  the  common  welfare 
in  the  Imperial  Parliament  in  London. 

The  other  measures  which  it  was  understood 
would  accompany,  or  follow  closely  upon,  the 
Union,  were  the  Commutation  of  Tithes,  Catholic 
Emancipation,  and  State  Provision  for  the  Support 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Hierarchy  and  Priests. 
The  payment  of  tithes  in  kind  was  felt  as  an 
intolerable  grievance  by  every  class  and  creed, 
and  the  prospect  of  relief  inclined  men  towards  the 
Union.  Catholic  Emancipation  and  State  provision 
for  the  secular  clergy  were  ardently  desired  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  population,  and  it  was  in 
the  confident  expectation  that  these  boons  would 
be  immediately  granted,  that  any  support  to  the 
Union  was  given  by  Roman  Catholics.  They 
were  doomed  to  disappointment.  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation was  not  granted  until  1829,  and  was  then 
given  in  the  worst  possible  way.  It  was  extorted. 
It  was  carried  as  the  result  of  agitation,  by  a 
Government  opposed  to  it  on  principle,  and 
avowedly  actuated  by  fear.  A  Bill  for  the  Com- 
mutation of  Tithes  was  not  passed  until  1835,  after 
an  agitation  that  developed  into  an  organized  con- 
spiracy for  the  repudiation  of  contracts  and  against 
payment  of  debts  legally  due,  accompanied  by  out- 


TRICKED  AND  BETRAYED         191 

rage  on  an  extensive  scale.  Endowment  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  priesthood  fell  through  altogether, 
owing  primarily  to  the  failure  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  bishops  and  gentry  to  procure  emancipa- 
tion. The  people  of  Ireland  were  tricked  and  be- 
trayed. The  Act  of  Union  was  carried  by  bribery 
and  false  pretences  of  reform.  It  is  not  within  my 
province  to  criticize  Pitt's  character  and  conduct, 
or  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  whether  he  deliber- 
ately deceived  the  people  or  was  himself  deceived. 
I  accept  the  statements  as  narrated,  and  assume 
his  object  to  have  been  to  place  the  relations 
between  the  two  kingdoms  on  what  he  conceived 
to  be  the  only  sound  and  permanent  basis — a 
federal  basis,  and  along  with  that  to  bring  about  a 
settlement  of  all  the  burning  questions,  social  and 
religious,  which  at  that  time  agitated  Ireland. 

What  the  effect  upon  the  future  of  the  country 
would  have  been  if  that  programme  had  been 
carried  out  in  its  entirety  is  a  matter  of  speculation. 
It  is  difficult  to  gauge  the  public  opinion  of  those 
days.  The  lassitude  and  prostration  of  the  country 
following  upon  the  Rebellion  must  be  taken  into 
account,  but  still  the  complete  loss  of  legislative 
independence  does  not  seem  to  have  been  felt,  at 
first  at  any  rate,  acutely  by  the  people  from  the  point 
of  view  of  sentiment.  Disgust  with  the  Union 
appears  to  have  grown  out  of  disappointed  hopes 
concerning  remedial  measures,  the  decay  of  trade 
and  industry,  and  the  general  misgovernment  of 


192   PARLIAMENTARY  INSTITUTIONS 

the  country.  Remedial  legislation  would  have 
encouraged  the  people.  Misgovernment  would  not 
have  occurred  had  control  of  purely  Irish  affairs 
been  left  with  the  Irish  Parliament.  Nor  is  there 
any  reason  for  supposing  that  under  those  circum- 
stances industry  and  trade  would  have  withered 
away.  The  history  of  Ireland  since  1800  might  have 
been  very  different  from  what  it  has  been  if  a  federal 
arrangement  had  been  carried  out,  and  if  Catholic 
Emancipation,  State  Provision  for  the  Clergy,  and 
Commutation  of  Tithes,  had  followed  close  upon 
its  heels.  The  failure  to  carry  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation was  a  great  betrayal  of  the  hopes  of  the 
people.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  ostensible 
cause  of  this  breach  of  faith  was  the  failure  of 
Parliament  to  convince  the  King;  while  another 
great  betrayal,  the  violation  of  the  Treaty  of 
Limerick,  guaranteeing  ordinary  religious  rights  to 
Catholics,  was  due  to  the  failure  of  the  King  to 
convince  Parliament. 


PART  IV 

EMIGRATION,  CONFISCATION,  LAND  TENURE, 
LANDLORDISM 

THE  influence  of  emigration  upon  the  social  and 
industrial  condition  of  Ireland  has  been  so  great 
and  so  disastrous  as  to  necessitate  an  allusion  to  it. 
With  a  passionate  devotion  to  their  native  land, 
the  Irish  even  in  early  days  combined  a  love  of 
wandering;  and  during  the  sixth,  seventh,  and 
eighth  centuries  a  voluntary  emigration  on  a  con- 
siderable scale  took  place  in  the  interests  of  science 
and  letters,  or  for  the  nobler  purposes  of  religion. 
Ireland  led  the  way  in  planting  and  nurturing 
Christianity  in  Europe.  Her  missionaries  spread 
over  Scotland,  the  North  of  England,  France, 
Switzerland,  Germany,  and  Italy,  and  penetrated 
to  more  distant  regions,  founding  and  maintaining 
monasteries  and  schools  of  learning. 

Of  the  remnant  that  escaped  the  Plantagenet 
and  Tudor  wars  of  annihilation,  many  of  those 
who  retained  sufficient  means  and  energy  left  the 
country. 

The  disasters  that  befell  Ireland  during  the  six- 
teenth century  drove  multitudes  of  her  ablest  men 

193  13 


194     EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

of  art,  science,  and  letters  to  take  refuge  on  the 
Continent. 

After  the  suppression  of  the  so-called  Rebellion 
of  Tyrone  in  the  sixteenth  century,  many  Irish 
soldiers  took  foreign  service,  and  a  great  migration 
followed  the  confiscations  under  James  I.  in  the 
early  years  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Forty 
thousand  Irish  soldiers  enlisted  abroad  after  Crom- 
well had  laid  Ireland  waste.  As  a  consequence  of 
the  Revolution,  14,000  officers  and  men  who  sur- 
rendered at  Limerick  passed  at  once  into  the 
service  of  France,  and  formed  the  nucleus  of  the 
famous  Irish  Brigade.  Spain  maintained  five 
exclusively  Irish  regiments,  and  the  Austrian 
Army  was  crowded  with  Irish  soldiers  and  officers, 
many  of  whom  rose  to  great  distinction,  as  they 
also  did  in  other  countries.  A  Browne  and  a  Lacy 
were  Russian  Field-Marshals.  Maguires,  Lacys, 
Nugents,  O'Donnells,  were  among  the  ablest  of 
Austrian  Generals.  Among  Spanish  Generals  are 
to  be  found  the  names  of  O'Donnell,  O'Mahony, 
O'Reilly,  O'Neill,  O'Hara.  O'Mahony,  Sarsfield, 
Dillon,  Laly,  are  famous  in  the  annals  of  the 
French  Army,  and  Lord  Clare  was  Marshal  of 
France.  Nor  was  the  distinction  that  Irishmen 
acquired  confined  to  the  profession  of  arms  ;  their 
names  are  to  be  found  on  the  roll  of  men  distin- 
guished in  letters,  diplomacy,  and  affairs  of  State. 
It  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  number  of  Irish 
engaged  in  military  service,  but  as,  according  to 


EXPATRIATED  IRISHMEN         195 

the  French  War  Office,  over  450,000*  Irish  soldiers 
died  in  the  service  of  France  alone  between  1691  and 
1745,  the  number  of  expatriated  Irishmen  must,  in 
proportion  to  the  population  of  Ireland,  have  been 
very  great.  When  the  high  eminence  to  which  indi- 
vidual Irishmen  attained  in  all  the  walks  of  life  is 
considered,  together  with  the  facts  that  Irish  regi- 
ments in  foreign  service  were  during  so  long  a 
period  kept  up  to  strength  by  recruiting  in  Ireland, 
and  that  they  deservedly  attained  a  noble  record 
for  courage  and  conduct  in  the  field,  the  loss  to 
the  country,  and  eventually  to  England,  of  such 
splendid  material  must  be  estimated  as  enormous. 
But,  great  as  it  was,  the  disaster  caused  by 
emigration,  consequent  upon  the  destruction  of 
industries,  the  penal  laws,  and  the  unsettled  state 
of  the  country  after  the  Revolution,  was  of  a 
more  enduring  character. 

*  Lecky,  in  his  "  History  of  Ireland  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century,"  says :  "  The  Abbe  MacGeoghegan  makes  this  extra- 
ordinary assertion :  (  Par  les  calculs  et  les  recherches  faites  au 
bureau  de  la  guerre  on  a  trouve  qu'il  y  avait  eu  depuis  1'arrivee 
des  troupes  Irlandoises  en  France,  en  1691,  jusqu'en  1745,  que 
se  donna  la  bataille  de  Fontenoy,  plus  de  450,000  Irlandois 
morts  au  service  de  France'  ("Hist.  d'Irlande,"  iii.  754).  This 
statement  is  to  me  perfectly  incredible,  but  Newenham,  in 
his  valuable  work  '  On  Population  in  Ireland,'  says  :  '  Upon  the 
whole,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  we  are  not  sufficiently 
warranted  in  considering  the  Abbe  MacGeoghegan's  statement 
as  an  exaggeration'  (p.  63)  ;  and  O'Callaghan,  in  his  'History 
of  the  Irish  Brigade  in  the  Service  of  France,'  cites  two  MS. 
authorities,  professedly  based  on  researches  made  in  the  French 
War  Office,  which  place  the  number  even  higher." 


196    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

The  persecution  of  Catholics  rendered  existence 
in  Ireland  intolerable  to  men  of  energy  of  mind 
and  body,  and  they  fled  the  country  in  great 
numbers.  The  social  condition  of  the  country 
rendered  the  life  of  a  landowner,  of  whatever  creed, 
wellnigh  unbearable.  There  was  no  outlet  for 
industrial  enterprise  in  a  land  where  manufactures 
had  been  destroyed.  The  Test  Act  drove  the 
Presbyterians  out  of  Ireland,  and  a  strong  and 
steady  stream  of  Protestant  emigration  set  in, 
carrying  the  industrial  skill  and  energy  of  the 
north  of  Ireland  to  America  and  the  Continent. 
Ireland  was  drained  of  its  best  blood,  and  the 
drain  has  continued,  in  varying  degrees,  down  to 
the  present  day.  The  great  famine,  and  the  emigra- 
tion following  on  it,  may  be  called  an  Act  of 
God,  though,  as  I  have  pointed  out  elsewhere,  it 
is  more  truthfully  described  as  due  to  the  folly  of 
man.  Modern  emigration  may  be  attributed, 
though  not  quite  accurately,  to  natural  causes  ; 
but,  nevertheless,  the  forced  emigration  of  so 
large  a  proportion  of  the  best  blood,  brain,  bone 
and  muscle,  military  genius  and  industrial  skill, 
must  be  held  to  be  an  important  contributory 
cause  of  those  effects  now  reacting  upon  England, 
commonly  summed  up  as  "  The  Irish  Question." 

LAND  TENURE. 

Land  was  originally  held  in  common  in  Ireland 
as  in  all  other  countries — it  was  the  property  of 


THE  IRISH  LAND  SYSTEM         197 

the  free  men  of  the  clan,  and  was  periodically 
apportioned  among  them.  But  in  historic  times 
private  ownership,  within  certain  strict  limits,  was 
becoming  recognized  and  favoured.  The  territory 
of  the  tribe  consisted  of  (1)  Land  held  in  common, 
mostly  uncultivated  mountain,  bog,  forest,  and 
waste,  used  by  all  for  pasturage,  turbary,*  and  the 
chase  ;  (2)  arable  land,  held,  as  to  the  greater  part 
of  it,  in  gavel-kind  ;t  and  (3)  land  which  was 
private  property.  The  tribal  territory  was  sub- 
divided among  septs  or  clans,  in  which  the  same 
system  of  land  tenure  and  division  existed.  A 
king  or  head  chief  ruled  over  the  tribe,  and  sub- 
chiefs  over  the  septs  comprised  within  it.  The 
chiefs  were  elected  by  the  people,  but  the  tendency 
was  towards  direct  succession  in  the  same  family, 
and  in  many  cases  the  position  became  practically 
hereditary.  Mensal  lands  were  the  lands  provided 
for  the  chief,  and  held  by  the  chiefs  in  succession, 
and  for  the  tanist,  the  heir-apparent,  and  for  the 
family.  In  addition  to  the  support  provided  for 
them  out  of  their  mensal  lands,  the  chiefs  were 
entitled  to  quarter  themselves  and  their  retainers, 
under  well-defined  legal  restrictions,  upon  the 
freemen  of  the  tribe  for  various  periods ;  and 

*  Digging  turf  for  fuel. 

f  In  English  gavelkind  land  descends  in  equal  portions,  as 
from  a  father  to  all  his  sons,  or  a  brother  with  no  issue  to  all 
his  brothers.  In  Irish  gavelkind  a  redistribution  of  all  the 
holdings  of  the  sept  on  the  decease  of  a  member  appears  to 
have  been  legal,  but  it  is  improbable  that  it  was  customary. 


198    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

members  of  the  tribe  were  bound  to  provide 
labour  for  public  purposes,  and,  of  course,  to 
render  military  service.  Land  was  also  set  apart 
for  the  maintenance  of  law-givers,  bards,  and  men 
eminent  in  learning,  science,  and  art.  The  free- 
holders, those  who  possessed  private  property  in 
land,  and  enjoyed  absolute  ownership,  subject  only 
to  the  condition  that  the  soil  could  not  be  alienated 
from  the  tribe,  were,  as  a  rule,  the  nobles,  men  of 
the  reigning  family,  learned  men  and  officials. 

The  freemen  of  the  tribe  or  sept  held  mostly  in 
gavelkind,  though  some  of  them  appear  to  have 
possessed  private  property  also.  A  system  of 
tenancy  existed,  land  being  let  for  very  short 
periods,  and  it  was  usual  for  what  may  be  termed 
the  lessor,  the  noble  or  chief,  to  provide  stock 
also. 

Rent  was  paid  in  kind.  Two  classes  of  tenants 
existed,  the  one  much  superior  to  the  other ;  but  it 
is  difficult  to  ascertain  in  what  the  superiority 
existed.  It  seems  to  have  been  merely  a  higher 
and  more  independent  social  and  economic  con- 
dition. In  the  case  of  one  class  of  tenants  no 
security  was  required  for  land  or  stock  provided  to 
them.  From  the  other  class  security  was  required. 
Below  these  various  grades  recognized  as  in- 
corporated in  the  tribe,  a  class  existed  in  a  status 
little  above  that  of  slavery.  Escaped  criminals, 
fugitives,  broken  men,  scattered  remnants  of  other 
septs  or  tribes  were  granted  protection  and  a 


THE  CRIMINAL  CODE  199 

living,  but  little  more,  and  their  condition  was  far 
below  that  of  the  freemen  of  the  tribe,  however 
poor. 

Of  what  we  should  call  Statute  Law  there  was 
none ;  but  all  the  details  of  this  intricate  system 
were  dealt  with  very  completely  by  common  law. 
The  rights,  privileges,  duties,  liabilities  of  every 
class  and  individual  were  clearly  defined  and 
scrupulously  safeguarded. 

The  criminal  code  was  also  elaborate  and  humane. 
The  law  was  codified,  interpreted  and  defined  by 
"  Brehons  ",  and  the  office  was  practically  an  here- 
ditary one  continuing  from  generation  to  generation 
in  one  family.*  There  appears  to  have  been  no 
executive.  The  law  had  no  sanction.  The  death 
penalty  was  unknown.  In  the  case  of  an  offence, 
civil  or  criminal,  the  Brehon  laid  down  the  law  and 
named  the  penalty ;  but  there  his  functions  ended. 
He  had  no  power  to  enforce  his  judgment,  nor 
was  it  within  his  province  to  attempt  to  do  so. 
The  sanction  lay  in  public  opinion,  and  it  speaks 
well  for  the  law-abiding  character  of  the  people 
that  the  sanction  was  sufficient. 

Such  a  system,  with  its  constant  change  of  oc- 
cupation under  gavelkind,  its  lettings  and  sub- 
lettings,  its  mensal  lands  and  private  property, 
its  quarterings  and  forced  labour,  seems  to  us 
cumbersome,  and  intricate  in  the  extreme,  and 

*  The  family  were  bound  to  educate  for  the  post  the  member 
of  the  family  who  appeared  to  be  the  most  naturally  fitted  for  it. 


200    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

was  so  described  by  English  invaders  or  settlers; 
but  it  suited  the  age  and  the  people. 

The  population  was  very  small.  The  common 
lands,  the  unenclosed,  uncultivated  portion  of  the 
tribal  territory,  was  very  large  and  provided  pastur- 
age for  all  and  to  spare.  There  was  no  land  hunger 
in  those  days.  It  was  difficult  to  find  people  to 
utilize  the  land.  Now  the  people  are  craving  for 
land  to  occupy,  then  the  land  craved  for  people  to 
occupy  it.  The  lessor  of  land  was  at  the  mercy  of 
the  lessee.  The  short  term  lettings  were  in  favour 
of  the  tenant.  If  friction  occurred,  the  tenant 
walked  out  and  found  little  difficulty  in  getting 
other  land  ;  but  the  owner  of  the  land  found  much 
difficulty  in  getting  another  tenant.  The  changes 
of  occupation  consequent  upon  gavelkind  caused 
little  inconvenience  when  durable  stone  buildings 
were  unknown.  A  tenant's  right  to  growing  crops 
and  unexhausted  improvement  was  secured  to  him. 
Rents  and  dues  were  clearly  defined  by  law,  and 
were  very  low.  The  law  provided  the  same  means 
for  the  recovery  of  rent  or  dues  as  for  the  recovery 
of  any  other  debt ;  but  under  no  circumstances 
could  a  free  tribesman  be  evicted  from  the  soil. 

CONTENTMENT  OF  THE  PEASANTRY. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  system  now, 
that  it  suited  the  people  then  is  proved  by  the 
following  facts.  No  symptom  of  anything  like  a 
peasants'  rising — so  common  in  European  history 


ARRESTED  DEVELOPMENT       201 

— is  to  be  found  in  Irish  history.  All  attempts  by 
English  Sovereigns  to  substitute  feudal  tenure  for 
it  were  violently  resisted,  and  when  the  chiefs 
showed  themselves  ready  to  surrender  their  terri- 
tories and  receive  them  back  as  titled  holders  under 
the  Crown,  their  action  was  always  vehemently 
opposed  by  the  nobles  and  tribesmen.  Though 
Irish  fought  in  English  ranks  against  Irish,  no 
instance  is  to  be  found  in  all  the  bloodstained 
pages  of  history  of  tribesmen  appealing  for  protec- 
tion against  the  exactions  of  their  chiefs.  The 
great  Anglo-Norman  families  that  settled  hi  Ireland 
adopted  more  or  less  completely  the  native  system. 
They  scrupulously  observed  native  law  and  custom, 
and  the  people  adhered  to  them  with  the  same 
devoted  attachment  they  displayed  towards  princes 
of  their  own  race. 

The  land  system  was,  of  course,  crude  and  utterly 
unsuited  to  modern  requirements,  but  it  would 
have  adapted  itself  to  changing  conditions.  It 
would  have  developed  probably  along  the  lines 
indicated  in  the  famous  Composition  of  Con- 
naught,  mentioned  in  Part  I.  But  the  system  was 
not  allowed  to  develop.  The  usual  mistake  was 
made  in  seeking  to  impose  upon  Ireland  a  totally 
different  system  imported  from  England.  Feudal- 
ism was  unsuited  to  the  Irish  people.  It  ran 
counter  to  all  the  tribesmen's  ideas  of  liberty, 
justice,  and  tenure  ;  it  degraded  him ;  it  was  out- 
rageous to  the  whole  temper,  genius,  and  character 


202    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

of  the  people,  and  it  was  never  accepted.  It  is  to 
instinctive  hostility  to  the  English  system  that  all 
the  various  and  changing  troubles  that  constitute 
"  The  Land  Question "  are  to  be  attributed,  with 
the  exception,  of  course,  of  spurious  agitation  for 
political  objects,  about  which  a  word  or  two  will  be 
said  later  on. 

The  Scandinavian  and  Anglo-Norman  incursions 
and  settlements  produced  very  little  dislocation. 
The  newcomers  found  their  level,  fitted  in  with  the 
native  social  structure,  warred  and  were  made  war 
upon,  paid  or  exacted  tribute,  dispossessed  others 
or  were  dispossessed,  formed  alliances,  intermarried, 
and  were  soon  absorbed  into  the  national  life. 

THE  LONG  PARLIAMENT'S  CONFISCATIONS. 

The  confiscations  and  settlements  of  later  dates 
were  of  a  different  character  and  produced  very 
different  effects.  The  policy  of  confiscation,  with 
the  definite  object  of  ousting  the  people  and  plant- 
ing English  settlers  in  their  places,  may  be  said  to 
have  commenced  in  1542,  when  Mary  seized  upon 
the  territories  of  the  O'Moores,  O'Connors,  and 
O'Dempseys  in  Leinster,  and  converted  them  into 
two  English  shires — Queen's  County  and  King's 
County — with  Maryborough  and  Phillipstown  as 
their  capitals.  In  Munster,  after  Desmond's  so-called 
Rebellion  in  1586,  something  like  600,000  acres* 
were  confiscated  and  passed  into  English  hands. 

*  Probably  equivalent  to  about  a  million  of  our  present  acres. 


WHOLESALE  CONFISCATION       203 

In  Ulster,  under  James  I.  in  the  early  years  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  the  proprietary  rights  of  the 
people  in  Tyrone  County  were  swept  away  by 
order  of  the  King's  Bench,  and,  shortly  after,  six 
whole  counties  were  confiscated  and  planted  with 
English  and  Scotch.  In  Connaught,  the  Composi- 
tion was  deliberately  broken  by  James,  and  con- 
fiscation and  plantation  were  interrupted  only  by 
the  death  of  that  King. 

The  Long  Parliament  confiscated  practically  the 
whole  of  Ireland,  with  the  exception  of  Connaught 
and  Clare,  which  were  deemed  worthless,  and  were 
converted  into  a  "  reservation,"  into  which  the 
miserable  survivors  from  other  parts  of  Ireland 
were  swept.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that, 
between  the  reigns  of  Henry  II.  and  Charles  II., 
the  land  of  Ireland  had,  through  forfeiture  and 
confiscation,  changed  hands  not  once  but  many 
times.  Forfeiture  was  common  in  all  countries — in 
England  among  them — but  no  parallel  can  be  found 
to  the  forfeitures  and  confiscations  in  Ireland,  either 
in  degree  or  in  kind.  Forfeiture  in  England  followed 
as  a  natural  condition  of  defeat  in  dynastic  wars  or 
rebellions  ;  but  where  members  of  a  family  had  the 
wisdom  to  espouse  different  causes — a  not  infre- 
quent occurrence — estates  remained  in  the  family. 
In  all  cases  the  new  proprietors  were  men  of  the 
same  race,  religion,  language,  laws,  and  customs, 
and  the  cause  of  confiscation  was  clear  and  recog- 
nized as  just.  Expropriation  affected  the  lord  of 


204    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

the  soil  only  ;  the  people — the  herdsmen  and  tillers 
of  the  land — were  untouched.  The  case  in  Ireland 
was  very  different.  Treaties  were  broken  ;  solemn 
undertakings  violated ;  whole  counties  and  provinces 
confiscated ;  titles  invalidated  for  no  cause  what- 
ever, except  greed — the  desire  to  find  land  for 
needy  adventurers.  The  owners  of  land  and  those 
dependent  on  them — the  chiefs  and  the  tribesmen, 
the  Lords  and  the  peasants — were  swept  away 
wholesale,  without  a  shred  of  justification,  to  make 
room  for  men  alien  in  race,  religion,  law,  and 
usage.  It  is  the  rank  injustice  of  the  confiscations 
that  has  left  an  indelible  impression  on  Ireland. 

THE  ENGLISH  AND  IRISH  LAND  SYSTEMS. 

It  is  not  likely  that  the  English  land  system 
would  under  any  circumstances  have  been  accepted 
by  the  people  in  exchange  for  a  native  system  so 
much  more  to  their  advantage,  but  the  gross  in- 
justice and  illegality  of  the  confiscation  made  it 
impossible.  Under  the  Irish  system  the  tribesman 
was  a  free  man  and  an  independent  man ;  nothing 
could  deprive  him  of  his  holding.  Under  the 
English  system  he  became  reduced  to  a  condition 
of  absolute  dependence  upon  his  lord.  The  change 
involved  terrible  degradation,  and  as  it  abolished 
national  law  and  custom,  and  was  accompanied  by 
a  severance  of  all  the  old  ties  of  loyalty  and  affec- 
tion towards  an  honoured  and  trusted  chief,  it  is  not 
strange  that  the  people  have  never  acquiesced  in  it. 


FEUDALISM  IN  IRELAND          205 

Feudalism  took  root  in  England,  and  the  system 
of  land  tenure  that  has  for  centuries  prevailed  in 
that  country  evolved  naturally  from  it.  Feudalism 
never  took  root  in  Ireland,  and  the  native  Irish 
system  was  not  of  a  nature  to  develop  in  the  same 
direction.  As  a  result,  the  views  entertained  by 
landlord  and  tenant  in  England  and  Ireland  of 
their  respective  rights  and  duties,  and  consequently 
the  whole  social  circumstances  of  the  two  countries, 
have  been  so  dissimilar  as  to  make  the  English 
dream  of  converting  Ireland  into  so  many  English 
counties  impossible  of  fulfilment,  even  if  no  other 
causes  were  in  operation.  The  basis  of  the  agri- 
cultural system  in  England  is  partnership,  and  the 
conception  of  agriculture  is  that  of  a  business. 
The  owner  found  the  land  and  the  capital  for 
permanent  buildings,  drained  and  did  everything 
necessary  for  the  creation  of  a  farm,  and  he  pro- 
vided the  money  for  maintenance.  The  tenant 
undertook  to  pay  what  he  deemed  a  reasonable 
rent,  and  found  the  plant,  labour,  etc.,  to  work  the 
farm.  If  he  failed,  he  failed  in  a  commercial  trans- 
action, as  might  happen  in  any  other  trade  or 
industry.  He  realized  and  went  into  some  other 
business,  or  found  land  elsewhere.  Of  course  on 
the  majority  of  estates,  where  tenants  had  held  the 
same  farm  for  generations  under  generations  of 
landlords  of  the  same  family,  many  other  attributes 
of  ownership  and  tenancy  came  into  play,  and 
softened  the  asperities  of  a  purely  commercial 


206    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

transaction,  but  still  partnership  and  business  con- 
stituted the  root  principle.  It  was  the  natural 
direction  in  which  Feudalism  developed. 

In  Ireland  partnership  was  out  of  the  question, 
and  business  did  not,  and  could  not,  dominate  the 
relations  between  landlord  and  tenant.  For  a  land- 
lord to  build  good  farmhouses,  fence  and  drain  little 
holdings  of  a  few  acres  of  poor  land,  was  obviously 
impracticable.  Rent  in  England  represented  a  very 
low  rate  of  interest  to  the  landowner,  perhaps  two 
per  cent.  Rent  in  Ireland  would,  under  the  English 
system,  have  represented  a  loss  of  200  per  cent. 
The  thing  was  impossible ;  consequently,  with  a 
very  few  exceptions  in  which  Irish  estates  were 
managed  on  the  English  model,  and  in  more 
where  the  owner  helped  the  tenant  in  building  and 
improvements,  the  landlord  put  no  money  into  a 
farm.  The  tenant  did  everything  at  his  own 
expense.  And  the  conception  of  agriculture  as  a 
purely  business  transaction  was  also  impossible  in 
a  country  where  the  people  had  no  other  resources, 
where  agriculture  was  the  only  means  of  sustaining 
life,  and  where  there  were  fifty  applicants  for  every 
vacant  plot  of  ground.  Nor  could  the  tribal 
system  naturally  develop  into  anything  like  the 
relations  existing  in  modern  times  between  land- 
lord and  tenant  in  England.  The  Irish  system 
contained  no  root  from  which  such  a  relationship 
could  spring.  It  developed  into  a  kind  of  under- 
standing that  the  tenant  paid  rent  when  he  could, 


LANDLORD  AND  TENANT         207 

and  that  when  he  could  not,  the  landlord  did  with- 
out it ;  and  that,  at  any  rate,  eviction  was  under 
no  circumstances  right. 

An  arrangement  of  that  character  had  very  little 
savour  of  business  about  it.  From  an  economic 
point  of  view,  it  was  eminently  unsound,  yet  at 
the  time  I  am  contemplating,  before  the  vast 
catastrophe  of  the  famine  and  the  introduction  of 
political  motives  into  social  life,  it  answered  fairly 
well.  Irish  tenants  were  by  nature  the  best  of 
rent-payers ;  they  paid,  and  paid  willingly,  when 
they  could,  and  if  the  landed  gentry  had  in  those 
days  of  high  prices  and  comparative  prosperity 
husbanded  their  resources  with  prudence,  the  kindly 
feeling  that  existed  between  them  and  their  tenants 
might  have  withstood  the  shock  of  politics  and  evil 
days.  In  spite  of  everything,  such  is  the  natural 
fidelity  of  the  Irish,  that  up  to  quite  modern  times 
in  history,  landlord  and  tenant  lived  happily  to- 
gether. What,  then,  caused  the  ruin  of  the  landed 
gentry  in  Ireland  and  their  estrangement  from  the 
occupiers  of  the  soil  ? 

THE  POSITION  OF  THE  LANDOWNERS. 

This  national  calamity  is  due  to  various  causes : 
to  the  social  and  economic  condition  of  the  country, 
and,  to  some  extent,  no  doubt,  to  the  faults  and 
characteristics  of  the  landowning  class,  for  which 
that  class  is  more  or  less  responsible  ;  but  principally 
to  certain  definite  facts  beyond  their  control,  such 


208    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

as  the  great  fall  in  prices  that  occurred  after  the 
conclusion  of  the  French  War  in  1815,  the  Act  of 
Union,  the  great  famine,  the  abolition  of  the  Corn 
Laws,  and  the  doctrine  advanced  in  theory  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  by  James  Finton 
Lalor,  and  since  then  vigorously  put  in  practice, 
that  the  expropriation  of  the  landowners  was  for 
political  purposes  necessary. 

Landowners  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion 
almost  disappeared  as  a  class  under  the  malign  in- 
fluence of  the  penal  laws,  and  the  various  disqualifica- 
tions under  which  they  suffered.  Landowners  of  the 
Protestant  religion  became  demoralized  under  the 
equally  malign  influence  of  an  artificial  ascendancy. 
For  generations  they  were  encouraged — indeed 
forced — to  look  upon  themselves  as  a  superior  race 
dominating  an  inferior  race.  In  the  eyes  of  the 
State  and  the  law  they  occupied  a  social  position 
very  similar  to  that  of  the  slave-owning  planters  of 
the  Southern  States  prior  to  the  Civil  War.  Such 
a  position  by  no  means  involved  heartlessness  or 
cruelty,  but  it  bred  callousness,  inability  to  adapt 
themselves  to  changing  circumstances  and  to 
enter  freely  into  the  needs  and  aspirations  of  the 
people.  The  position  was  false  and  the  resulting 
consequences  were  bad. 

AN  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  RECORD. 

Arthur  Young,  who  visited  Ireland  towards  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  was  an  accurate 


ARTHUR  YOUNG'S  IMPRESSIONS    209 

and  unprejudiced  observer,  and  his  remarks  on 
the  subject  of  agriculture  and  on  the  relations 
between  the  classes  engaged  in  it  are  well  worthy 
of  consideration.  He  speaks  of  the  state  of 
things  in  1776  as  showing  marked  signs  of  im- 
provement, but  his  description  of  them  throws  a 
vivid  light  upon  one  of  the  many  difficulties  with 
which  the  landowning  class  have  had  to  contend. 
In  describing  the  abominable  system  of  middlemen, 
Arthur  Young  attributes  it  to  a  not  unnatural  pre- 
ference, on  the  part  of  owners  of  estates,  for  the 
enjoyment  of  low  rents  collected  without  trouble 
instead  of  higher  rents  coupled  with  difficulty  in 
their  collection.  He  remarks  in  his  "  Tour  in 
Ireland  "  that- 

"  The  obvious  distinction  to  be  applied  is  that  of 
the  occupying  and  unoccupying  tenantry  ;  in  other 
words,  the  real  farmer  and  the  middleman.  .  .  . 

"  The  friends  to  this  mode  of  letting  lands  con- 
tend that  the  extreme  poverty  of  the  lower  classes 
renders  them  such  an  insecure  tenantry  that  no 
gentleman  of  fortune  can  depend  on  the  least 
punctuality  in  the  payment  of  rent  from  such 
people,  and,  therefore,  to  let  a  large  farm  to  some 
intermediate  person  of  substance  at  a  lower  rent, 
in  order  that  the  profit  may  be  his  inducement  and 
reward  for  becoming  a  collector  from  the  imme- 
diate occupiers,  and  answerable  for  their  punctu- 
ality, becomes  necessary  to  any  person  who  will  not 
submit  to  the  drudgery  of  such  a  minute  attention. 

14 


210    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

"  That  a  man  of  substance,  whose  rent  is  not 
only  secure,  but  regularly  paid,  is  in  many  respects 
a  more  eligible  tenant  than  a  poor  cottar,  or  little 
farmer,  cannot  be  disputed.  If  the  landlord  looks 
no  farther  than  those  circumstances  the  question  is 
at  an  end." 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  "  MIDDLEMAN." 
That  the  creation  of  the  "  middleman "  system 
is  partly — and  perhaps  largely — due  to  the  desire 
of  resident  landlords  for  security  and  ease  is 
doubtless  true,  but  Arthur  Young  omits  another 
cause — absenteeism.  The  existence  of  proprietors 
of  large  tracts  of  land,  public  companies,  and 
private  individuals  having  no  residence  on  their 
estates  or  intimate  connection  with  Ireland, 
naturally  led  to  the  granting  of  unrestricted  leases 
for  long  terms,  and  the  lessees  let  and  sublet  to 
such  an  extent  that  it  was  not  unusual  for  three  or 
four  interests  to  intervene  between  the  original 
lessor  and  the  actual  cultivator  of  the  land.  The 
system  was  essentially  a  vicious  one.  The  middle- 
man is  thus  described  by  Arthur  Young  : 

"  Sometimes  they  (the  middlemen)  are  resident 
on  a  part  of  the  land,  but  very  often  they  are 
not.  .  .  .  The  merit  of  this  class  is  surely  ascer- 
tained in  a  moment.  There  cannot  be  the  shadow 
of  a  pretence  for  the  intervention  of  a  man  whose 
single  concern  with  an  estate  is  to  deduct  a  portion 
from  the  rent  of  it.  They  are,  however,  sometimes 


A  SYSTEM  OF  TYRANNY          211 

resident  on  a  part  of  the  land  they  hire,  where  it 
is  natural  to  suppose  they  would  work  some  im- 
provements. It  is,  however,  very  rarely  the  case. 
I  have,  in  different  parts  of  the  kingdom,  seen 
farms  in  which  the  residence  of  the  principal  tenant 
was  not  to  be  distinguished  from  the  cottared  fields 
surrounding  it.  ...  Living  upon  the  spot,  sur- 
rounded by  their  little  under-tenants,  they  prove 
the  most  oppressive  species  of  tyrant  that  ever  lent 
assistance  to  the  destruction  of  a  country.  They 
re-let  the  land,  at  short  tenures,  to  the  occupiers  of 
small  farms,  and  often  give  no  leases  at  all.  Not 
satisfied  with  screwing  up  the  rent  to  the  uttermost 
farthing,  they  are  rapacious  and  relentless  in  the 
collection  of  it.  ...  They  take  their  rents  partly 
in  kind  when  their  under-tenants  are  much  dis- 
tressed. ...  It  is  at  the  option  of  the  creditors, 
and  the  miserable  culprit  meets  his  oppression, 
perhaps  his  ruin,  in  the  very  action  that  is  trumpeted 
as  a  favour  to  him.  It  may  seem  harsh  to  attribute 
a  want  of  feeling  to  any  class  of  men.  But  let  not 
the  reader  misapprehend  me  ;  it  is  the  situation, 
not  the  man,  that  I  condemn.  An  injudicious 
system  places  a  great  number  of  persons,  not  of 
any  liberal  rank  in  life,  in  a  state  abounding  with 
a  variety  of  opportunities  of  oppression,  every  act 
of  which  is  profitable  to  themselves. 

"  But  farther :  the  dependence  of  the  occupier 
on  the  resident  middleman  goes  to  other  circum- 
stances. Personal  service  of  themselves,  their  cars 


212    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

and  horses,  is  exacted  for  loading  turf,  hay,  corn, 
gravel,  etc.,  insomuch  that  the  poor  under-tenants 
often  lose  their  own  crops  and  turf  from  being 
obliged  to  obey  these  calls  of  their  superiors. 
Nay,  I  have  even  heard  these  jobbers  gravely  assert 
that  without  under-tenants  to  furnish  cars  and 
teams  at  half  or  two-thirds  the  common  price  of 
the  country,  they  could  carry  on  no  improvements 
at  all,  yet  making  a  merit  to  themselves  for  works 
wrought  out  of  the  sweat  and  ruin  of  a  pack  of 
wretches  assigned  to  their  plunder  by  the  in- 
humanity of  the  landholders. 

"  In  a  word  .  .  .  intermediate  tenants  work  no 
improvements.  If  non-resident  they  cannot,  and 
if  resident  they  do  not.  But  they  oppress  the 
occupiers,  and  render  them  as  incapable  as  they  are 
themselves  unwilling." 

Speaking  of  the  effects  of  centuries  of  class  and 
religious  ascendancy,  the  same  author  remarks  : 

"The  age  has  improved  so  much  in  humanity 
that  even  the  poor  Irish  have  experienced  its 
influence,  and  are  every  day  treated  better  and 
better.  But  still  a  remnant  of  the  old  manners, 
the  abominable  distinction  of  religion,  united  with 
the  oppressive  conduct  of  the  little  country  gentle- 
men— or,  rather,  vermin  of  the  country,  who  never 
were  out  of  it — altogether  bear  still  very  heavy  on 
the  poor  people,  and  subject  them  to  situations 
more  mortifying  than  we  ever  behold  in  England. 
The  landlord  of  an  Irish  estate  inhabited  by  Roman 


A  DEEP-SEATED  DISEASE         213 

Catholics  is  a  sort  of  despot,  who  yields  obedience 
in  whatever  concerns  the  poor  to  no  law  but  that 
of  his  will.  A  long  series  of  oppressions,  aided 
by  many  very  ill-judged  laws,  have  brought  land- 
lords into  a  habit  of  exerting  a  very  lofty  superi- 
ority, and  their  vassals  into  that  of  an  almost  un- 
limited submission.  Speaking  a  language  that  is 
despised,  professing  a  religion  that  is  abhorred,  and 
being  disarmed,  the  poor  find  themselves  in  many 
cases  slaves  even  in  the  bosom  of  written  liberty." 

THE  TAINT  OF  ASCENDANCY. 

The  state  of  things  thus  described  was  not  by 
any  means  universal.  Arthur  Young  speaks 
highly  of  the  conduct  of  many  estates  and  of 
the  affectionate  relations  existing  between  resident 
landlords  and  their  tenants.  But  the  disease 
affected  the  whole  body  social,  and,  though  it  has 
long  since  passed  away,  the  taint  of  ascendancy 
has  to  some  extent  poisoned  the  relations  between 
classes,  and  consequently  has  reacted  unfavourably 
upon  the  landed  gentry  as  a  class.  They  cannot 
be  held  responsible.  As  Arthur  Young  remarked  : 
"  It  is  the  situation,  not  the  men,  that  must  be 
condemned."  It  was  for  centuries  the  policy  of 
England  to  force  ascendancy  upon  them. 

The  Irish  gentry,  by  nature  improvident  and 
fond  of  display,  sought  during  times  of  prosperity 
to  emulate  the  lavish  expenditure  of  their  peers 
and  neighbours  across  the  Channel.  They  over- 


214    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

built  themselves.  Their  mode  of  life  left  little 
or  no  margin  for  a  rainy  day.  They  lived 
beyond  their  means,  and  when  the  rain  fell  they 
had  no  reserve  to  shelter  them.  The  Act  of 
Union  intensified  the  evil.  It  shifted  the  centre 
of  gravity  from  Dublin,  the  capital  of  a  poor 
country,  to  London,  the  wealthy  capital  of  a 
wealthy  country.  It  may  have  enlarged  the  views 
of  Irishmen ;  it  certainly  increased  their  expendi- 
ture and  stimulated  absenteeism.  If  their  horizon 
was  extended,  it  was  at  the  expense  of  their  sense 
of  nationality.  In  the  larger  field  they  lost  sight 
of  their  duty  to  their  native  land,  and  their  affec- 
tion for  it  waned.  Many  of  them  lived  abroad, 
leaving  their  agents  to  collect  rent,  while  others 
lived  at  home  in  a  style  they  could  not  afford. 
The  Irish  gentry  sought  London  instead  of  Dublin. 
They  were  proud,  hospitable,  lavish — shall  I  say 
extravagant  and  reckless  ? — and,  in  their  attempt 
to  hold  their  own  and  emulate  the  more  expensive 
life  of  the  richer  community,  financial  equilibrium 
was  destroyed. 

Under  the  Union  their  political  power  and 
prestige  gradually  waned.  A  class  that  had 
governed  during  Grattan's  Parliament,  and  had 
practically  administered  Irish  affairs  for  half  a 
century  before,  and  had  administered  them,  on  the 
whole,  well,  lost  value,  significance,  and  caste  in 
an  Ireland  merged  and  submerged  in  the  greater 
volume  of  an  United  Kingdom.  The  Union  de- 


THE  POTATO  215 

prived  them  of  the  opportunity  of  dealing  with 
Catholic  Enfranchisement,  the  reform  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  other  needful  measures.  They  lost 
influence  over,  and  sympathy  with,  the  people. 
When  Emancipation  was  tardily  and  unwillingly 
granted,  it  was  accompanied  by  a  measure  of 
electoral  reform  that  still  further  dissociated  the 
landlord  from  his  tenants. 

THE  FORTY-SHILLING  FREEHOLDER. 

In  order  to  understand  the  position  at  this  time 
in  Irish  history,  it  is  essential  to  study  the  origin 
of  the  40s.  freeholder.  By  the  middle  of  1845 
the  population  of  Ireland  had  risen  to  8,295,061, 
or  about  twice  the  population  which  Ireland  con- 
tains to-day.  In  his  book  on  the  Famine,  Mr. 
W.  P.  O'Brien,  C.B.,  who,  as  a  former  Poor  Law 
and  Local  Government  Board  Inspector,  writes  with 
peculiar  authority  on  agrarian  conditions,  remarks 
that — "  Of  this  vast  population  considerably  more 
than  a  third  may  be  described  as  being  then  almost 
wholly  dependent  on  potatoes  for  their  daily  exist- 
ence. By  far  the  largest  proportion  of  those  in 
this  hapless  condition  was  concentrated  in  the 
western  and  southern  districts  of  the  country,  but 
even  there  they  were  not  all  placed  in  this  respect 
on  an  exactly  common  level.  They,  in  fact,  con- 
sisted of  three  distinct  classes,  who  presented,  in 
regard  to  the  means  of  subsistence  then  available 
for  them,  varying  degrees  of  wretchedness. 


216    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

"  The  three  classes  were  constituted  as  follows  : 
(1)  Occupiers  of  cabins  with  small  farms,  varying 
in  extent  from  one  to  five  acres  ;  (2)  cottiers  living 
on  the  lands  of  the  farmers  for  whom  they  worked, 
in  cabins  to  which  were  attached  small  plots  of 
ground  of  from  a  rood  to  a  half  or  an  entire  acre  ; 
(3)  below  these  classes  there  stood,  at  the  bottom 
of  the  scale,  the  labourers  who  had  no  fixed 
employment  and  no  land,  but  who  simply  rented 
the  hovels  or  apartments  they  resided  in,  and 
depended  for  support  on  the  patches  of  con-acre* 
potato  ground  they  were  able  to  hire  each  year 
from  some  neighbouring  farmer." 

"  In  the  census  returns  for  1841,  the  total 
number  of  farms  in  Ireland  exceeding  one  acre  in 
size  is  given  as  691,202.  and  of  these,  310,436,  or 
not  far  short  of  one-half,  consisted  of  holdings 
between  one  and  five  acres.  The  existence  of 
this  undoubtedly  deplorable  state  of  things  was 
clearly  traceable  to  the  joint  operation  of  three 
distinct  causes,  all  making  in  the  same  direc- 
tion." 

"  By  an  Act  passed  in  1782,  Roman  Catholics 
were  permitted  to  acquire  freehold  property  for 
lives,  or  by  inheritance ;  and  in  1793,  by  a  further 
enactment,  the  40s.  freehold  franchise  was  conferred 

*  Mr.  O'Brien  thus  describes  con-acre :  "  The  parties  to  it  do 
not  stand  to  each  other  in  the  ordinary  relation  of  landlord  and 
tenant ;  it  is  simply  a  licence  to  occupy  a  certain  part  of  a  field 
for  the  production,  as  usually  limited,  of  a  single  crop." 


SMALL  HOLDERS  AND  POLITICS    217 

upon  them.  Landlords  then  recognized  the  political 
importance  to  be  acquired  by  having  at  their  com- 
mand a  large  body  of  dependent  and  subservient 
voters,  and,  under  this  impulse,  the  number  of 
holdings  of  this  class  was  rapidly  increased  and 
multiplied.  The  Roman  Catholic  Relief  Act  of 
1829,  however,  abolished  this  franchise  altogether, 
and,  the  political  value  of  the  tenants  of  this  class 
to  the  landlords  being  thus  extinguished,  they  were 
then  regarded  as  a  burden,  not  a  blessing,  to  the 
estates,  and  the  persistent  efforts  subsequently 
made  to  get  rid  of  them  at  any  cost  constituted  one 
of  the  many  consequential  evils  of  this  pernicious 
system." 

Mr.  O'Brien's  views  on  this  point  appear  to 
be  somewhat  illogical.  The  term  "freehold"  is 
liable  to  be  misunderstood.  It  was  applied  to 
tenancies  held  under  leases,  generally  for  three 
lives.  The  Bill  passed  by  Flood  for  granting  the 
franchise  to  tenants  holding  under  leases  of  40s. 
valuation  undoubtedly  stimulated  the  creation  of 
small  holdings  by  augmenting  the  political  impor- 
tance of  landlords  having  a  large  body  of  voters 
holding  under  them,  but  it  could  not  have  had  the 
effect  attributed  to  it  of  creating  a  subservient 
class.  It  is  true  that,  as  a  rule,  the  40s.  freeholders 
voted  solidly  with  their  landlord,  but  not  under 
compulsion.  The  status  of  a  leaseholder  is  ob- 
viously more  independent  than  that  of  a  tenant  at 
will.  The  fact  is  that  landlords,  as  a  class,  opposed 


218    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

O'Connell,  and  O'Connell,  in  insisting  upon  dis- 
franchising the  40s.  freeholders,  sought  to  break  the 
power  of  the  landowning  class. 

THE  GREAT  FAMINE  OF  1846-47. 
In  1846  Ireland  was  visited  by  the  awful  catas- 
trophe of  the  Great  Famine.  Books,  and  libraries  of 
books,  have  attributed  the  famine  and  its  conse- 
quences, to  the  rapacity  and  cruelty  of  the  land- 
owning class.  They  have  been  accused  of  exacting 
rent  from  a  starving  peasantry,  of  snatching  food 
from  the  lips  of  perishing  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren, and  exporting  it  for  their  own  gain.  The 
money  they  spent  in  assisting  emigration,  the  efforts 
they  made  to  minimize  the  horrors  of  emigration, 
have  been  cited  against  them.  Never  has  a  class 
been  so  cruelly  libelled.  Had  the  resolutions  and 
recommendations  passed  by  a  mass  meeting  of 
Irish  peers  and  gentry,  under  the  presidency  of  the 
Marquess  of  Ormonde,  held  in  Dublin  on  January  14, 
1847,  been  adopted,  the  consequences  of  the  uni- 
versal failure  of  the  potato  crop—practically  the 
sole  food  of  the  people — could  never  have  assumed 
the  proportions  they  did.  At  this  gathering, 
18  Irish  peers,  700  landowners  and  magistrates, 
and  37  Members  of  Parliament,  met  in  the  vain 
endeavour  to  save  Ireland.  It  was  a  meeting  of 
faithful  sons  of  Ireland,  anxious  only  for  one  thing 
—to  rescue  their  country  ;  and  they  passed  a  series 
of  resolutions  which  sufficiently  indicate  the  serious 


LANDLORDS  TO  THE  RESCUE    219 

purpose  of  the  movement,  of  which  the  meeting 
was  the  outcome.  These  resolutions  are  worth 
recalling : 

"  1.  The  formation  of  an  Irish  Party  to 
represent  the  whole  country  on  the  policy 
required  for  the  famine. 

"  2.  The  suspension  of  all  laws  impeding  the 
advent  of  food,  and  the  employment  of  all 
means,  regardless  of  cost,  required  to  save  the 
people. 

"3.  The  use  of  the  Royal  Navy  to  carry 
food  so  as  to  save  the  costs  of  transport, 
which,  inflated  by  private  speculation,  enor- 
mously increased  the  price  of  food. 

"  4.  Productive  works  of  relief  to  be  a  charge 
on  landed  property,  but  not  unproductive 
works  —  such  as  the  useless  road -making 

(imposed   as   a   labour   test   without   practical 
utility. 

"  5  and  6.  As  a  permanent  encouragement 
to  better  tillage,  tenants  should  receive  com- 
pensation for  improvements ;  and  as  an  en- 
couragement to  a  residential  proprietary, 
absentee  landlords  should  pay  an  absentee 
tax." 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  great  Convention 
of  the  landowners  of  Ireland  recommended,  among 
other  matters,  that  the  cost  of  productive  works  of 
relief  should  be  a  charge  upon  their  estates,  that 


220    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

tenants  should  receive  compensation  for  improve- 
ments, and  that  absenteeism  should  be  discouraged 
by  fine. 

The  views  of  the  landed  gentry  as  expressed  in 
these  resolutions  fell,  it  need  hardly  be  added,  upon 
deaf  ears.  The  British  Parliament  and  British 
Ministers  had  the  matter  in  hand  ;  they  dealt  with  it 
in  accordance  with  their  theories,  and  without  refer- 
ence to  the  opinions  of  competent  men  on  the  spot, 
and  the  Famine  pursued  its  terrible  course  practi- 
cally unchecked.  The  peasantry  perished  by 
thousands,  and,  as  a  class,  the  landed  gentry 
perished  with  them.  The  Famine  ruined  them. 
They  did  not  immediately  starve,  as  the  poor 
peasants  did  ;  they  had  some  resources  to  sustain 
them,  but  they  were  irretrievably  broken.  It  is 
improbable  that  more  than  one  in  one  hundred 
weathered  the  storm.  Ireland  foundered  in  the 
Famine,  and  the  landed  gentry  went  down  in  the 
ship. 

If  blame  attaches  to  landowners  as  a  class,  it  is 
to  their  action  long  antecedent  to  the  Famine  in 
allowing  minute  subdivision  and  the  multiplication 
of  small  holdings ;  but  in  extenuation  it  may  be 
fairly  pleaded,  that  the  temptation,  both  in  the 
direction  of  increased  political  power  and  enhanced 
income,  was  great,  and  that  efforts  to  check  the 
tendency  towards  subdivision  would  have  been 
bitterly  resented  by  the  people.  Their  conduct 
during  the  Famine  is,  I  think,  fairly  summed  up  by 


THE  LANDLORDS'  CRITICS        221 

O'Connell,  when  on  January  11,  1847,  he  said  : 
"  As  a  general  rule,  none  can  find  fault  with  the 
conduct  of  the  Irish  landlords  since  the  awful 
calamity  came  upon  us." 

IRISH  RELIEF  AND  ENGLISH  ECONOMICS. 

In  the  wholesale  denunciation  of  Irish  landlords 
critics  are  all  too  apt  to  forget  the  many  circum- 
stances which  contributed  to  the  Famine,  and  the 
amazing  character  of  a  catastrophe  with  which 
the  Irish  administration  could  deal  only  by  leave 
of  an  English  Government  asphyxiated  by  Cob- 
denite  economic  principles.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  the  disaster  could  not  have  been  avoided — the 
staple  crop,  the  potato,  the  sole  sustenance  of  the 
people,  failed ;  but  had  a  native  Parliament  been  in 
power  many  of  its  consequences  would  have  been 
averted.  Whatever  their  faults  may  be,  the  Irish 
gentry  understood  their  country,  its  needs  and 
requirements,  and  it  is  only  necessary  to  read  the 
recommendations  of  the  landlords  alluded  to  above, 
to  see  that,  if  they  had  had  the  power  as  they 
certainly  had  the  will,  measures  competent  to  deal 
with  the  emergency  would  have  been  taken.  It 
is  to  the  utter  ignorance  of  Parliament  and  its 
fanatical  devotion  to  economic  principles  then  held 
to  be  immutably  true — the  iron  principles  of  the 
Manchester  School — that  the  tragic  consequences 
of  the  Famine  are  due.  The  one  thing  Parliament 
appears  to  have  dreaded  was  imposture — rather 


222    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

might  people  die  than  any  obtain  relief  improperly. 
The  one  principle  it  acted  upon  was  under  no 
circumstances  to  interfere  with  the  natural  course 
of  trade  and  the  natural  effect  of  cause.  Lest 
relief  should  be  misapplied,  food  for  the  starving 
was  refused  to  any  man  holding  more  than  a 
quarter  acre.*  Conceive  the  unutterable  folly  of 
thus  practically  '  evicting  an  entire  nation,  arid 
making  it  impossible  for  the  people  ever  to  recover 
themselves.  Instead  of  tiding  them  over  an 
emergency,  finding  them  in  seed,  and  endeavouring 
to  help  the  people  to  help  themselves,  the  British 
Parliament  deliberately  turned  every  starving 
family  out  of  their  holding,  and  forced  them,  for  a 
morsel  to  put  into  their  mouths,  to  abandon  the 
only  means  they  had  of  subsistence  in  the  future. 
Instead  of  employing  them  to  till  the  land,  they 
set  them  to  make  roads  leading  to  nowhere,  and  to 
do  all  kinds  of  useless  relief  works.  The  folly  of 
it,  the  incredible  folly  of  it  all !  In  deference  to 
the  rigid  methods  of  the  Manchester  School  of 
Economics,  King's  ships  were  not  allowed  to  carry 
grain  to  starving  localities — lest  the  freights  of 

*  "  In  the  new  Act  of  the  Out-door  Relief  there  was  one  sig- 
nificant clause.  It  was  enacted  that  should  any  farmer  who  held 
land  be  forced  to  apply  for  aid  under  this  Act  for  himself  and 
his  family,  he  should  not  have  it  until  he  had  first  given  up  all 
his  land  to  the  landlord  except  one  quarter  of  an  acre.  It  was 
called  the  Quarter-Acre  Clause,  and  was  found  the  most  efficient 
and  the  cheapest  of  all  the  Ejectment  Acts"  (Mitchell's 
"  Ireland,"  vol.  i.,  p.  218). 


DOOM  OF  THE  GENTRY  223 

private  shipowners  should  suffer ;  the  ordinary 
current  of  trade  must  not  be  stopped,  checked,  or 
diverted,  even  though  the  people  perish. 

THE  RUIN  OF  THE  LANDED  GENTRY. 

Having  perpetrated  the  last  but  one,  and  in 
some  respects  the  worst,  of  all  the  confiscations,  by 
compelling  a  starving  peasantry  to  oust  themselves 
out  of  their  holdings  for  a  handful  of  Indian  corn, 
the  Government  proceeded  to  complete  the  opera- 
tion by  killing  and  burying  the  landed  gentry. 
They  were  broken  financially.  Poor  rates  had  gone 
up  to  twenty  or  even  thirty  shillings  in  the  pound. 
Doubtless  they  might  have  been  saved  by  timely 
assistance,  but  that  would  not  have  been  in  accord- 
ance with  the  doctrines  of  the  Manchester  School 
of  Economics.  They  were  virtually  bankrupt,  and 
obviously  the  proper  thing  to  do  on  proper  business 
lines  was  to  sell  them  up  for  anything  their  estates 
would  fetch,  for  the  benefit  of  their  creditors,  and 
clear  them  out  of  the  way  as  speedily  as  possible. 
Accordingly  a  Court  was  established — the  En- 
cumbered Estates  Court — with  power  to  deal  with 
all  estates  in  that  all  but  universal  condition. 
Estates  were  summarily  put  up  to  auction,  gener- 
ally advertised  as  capable  of  carrying  a  larger 
rental,  and  sold  with  a  clear  parliamentary  title  to 
the  highest  bidder.  The  old  race  of  gentry, 
animated  by  many  sentiments  toward  the  land 
and  the  people,  unbusinesslike  perhaps,  but  kindly 


224    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

and  valuable,  disappeared  to  a  large  extent,  and 
their  place  was  taken  by  speculators,  treating  their 
purchases  on  strict  business  lines,  and  considering 
mainly  how  much  profit  was  to  be  made. 

Parliament  is  not  to  be  blamed  for  the  attitude 
adopted  towards  the  famine  as  implying  deliberate 
cruelty  or  callousness,  but  it  was  culpable  to  the 
last  degree  in  shutting  its  eyes  to  the  extent  and 
dimensions  of  a  terrible  national  catastrophe,  and 
closing  its  ears  to  the  advice  of  those  who  realized 
the  gravity  of  the  situation.  In  the  case  of  a  com- 
munity in  which  the  whole  social  and  economic 
machinery  has  been  thrown  out  of  gear  by  a  dis- 
astrous war,  invasion  and  temporary  occupation  by 
a  successful  enemy,  no  Government  would  hesitate 
to  suspend  for  a  time  all  legal  processes  and  obliga- 
tions affecting  trade,  commerce,  industry,  and  the 
whole  civil  life  of  the  people.  The  sudden  and  com- 
plete failure  of  the  potato  crop — the  sustenance  of 
some  eight  millions  of  people  in  Ireland — produced 
a  condition  of  chaotic  dislocation  more  formidable 
than  could  have  resulted  from  foreign  invasion, 
however  disastrous,  and  nothing  short  of  suspension 
of  the  ordinary  machinery  of  civilization  in  order 
to  give  time  for  recovery  would  have  availed  to 
save  Ireland  from  the  consequences  of  the  Famine. 

Nothing  of  the  kind  was  done.  On  the  contrary, 
nothing  was  allowed  to  be  done  that  could  inter- 
fere in  any  way  with  the  ordinary  processes  of  law, 
the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  and  the  ordinary 


A  PERNICIOUS  POLICY  225 

working  of  economic  theories  then  in  vogue.  To 
forbid  the  unloading  of  gifts  of  foreign  food  and 
the  transportation  of  food  in  King's  ships,  to  serve 
notices  of  eviction  on  practically  the  whole  popula- 
tion and  compel  them  to  labour  on  artificial  and 
useless  works,  leaving  their  fields  derelict  and  uii- 
tilled,  to  exact  20  or  30  shillings  in  the  pound  in 
poor  rates  from  men  depending  entirely  upon 
agricultural  rents,  and  to  allow  the  ordinary  pro- 
cesses of  law  for  the  recovery  of  debt  to  continue 
in  force,  was,  under  the  circumstances,  the  most 
pernicious  policy  that  could  possibly  be  pursued. 
The  potato  blight  was  the  Act  of  God,  but  assuredly 
the  consequences  of  the  Famine  from  which  Ireland 
has  never  recovered  were  the  act  of  men. 

ENGLAND'S  FATAL  ERROR. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  worst  of  motives 
have  been  attributed  to  the  English  people  and 
English  statesmen.  The  futile  attempts  at  relief, 
the  failure  to  grasp  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  in 
fact,  the  whole  attitude  adopted  does,  it  must  be 
admitted,  give  colour  to  the  accusation  that  an 
opportunity  was  seized  to  sweep  Ireland  clean  by 
allowing  a  great  calamity  to  pursue  its  natural 
course  ;  but  such  an  accusation  is  totally  unfounded 
and  most  unfair.  Great  sympathy  was  felt  and 
expressed  by  the  people  of  England,  and  the  men 
who  controlled  Parliament  and  the  men  who  com- 
posed it  acted  according  to  their  lights,  and  their 

15 


226    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

lights  were  derived  from  the  rigid  Manchester 
School  of  Economics.  They  knew  little,  and  per- 
haps it  is  not  unjust  to  say  they  cared  less,  about 
Ireland.  But  two  assertions  may  safely  be  made. 
Had  the  Famine,  with  all  its  awful  consequences, 
occurred  in  England,  the  action  of  Parliament 
would  have  been  very  different.  Had  the  fate  of 
Ireland  been  in  the  hands  of  an  Irish  Parliament, 
very  different  action  would  have  been  taken.  With 
a  famine  brought  face  to  face  with  them  at  home, 
Englishmen,  however  deeply  imbued  with  Man- 
chester-made economics  and  however  fanatically 
attached  to  the  strict  observance  of  legal  obliga- 
tions, would  have  recognized  the  force  majeur 
of  a  great  catastrophe ;  and  a  native  Parliament 
would  have  adopted  the  same  attitude  towards  a 
famine  in  Ireland. 

Parliament  sinned  through  ignorance,  and  erred 
owing  to  that  strange  intellectual  perversity  which 
enables  Englishmen  to  look  upon  Ireland  as  an 
integral  part  of  the  United  Kingdom  or  as  a 
separate  entity,  as  suits  their  convenience.  It 
suited  their  convenience  then  to  regard  Ireland 
as  a  separate  entity.  Money  voted  for  relief  was 
considered  to  be  a  loan  to  Ireland  to  be  sub- 
sequently repaid.  In  1853,  when  raising  the  duty 
on  spirits  and  imposing  the  income  tax  in  Ireland 
for  the  first  time,  Mr.  Gladstone  said  that  as  a  set- 
off  to  these  new  burdens  he  would  relieve  Ireland 
of  certain  remaining  charges,  amounting  to  £240,000 


THE  CORN  LAWS  227 

a  year,  which  had  been  incurred  in  connection  with 
Famine  relief,  and  which  were  still  due.  But  whether 
the  cause  of  malpractice  be  culpable  or  blameless 
ignorance,  the  effect  is  the  same:  the  horrors  of 
the  Famine  left  a  bitter  legacy  of  hatred  in  Ireland, 
in  the  United  States,  and  wherever  Irish  immigrants 
sought  new  homes ;  and  the  incapacity  then  dis- 
played engendered  a  deep  distrust  in  government 
by  a  Parliament  at  Westminster. 

THE  FAMINE  AND  FREE  TRADE. 

The  abolition  of  duties  on  cereals  is  often,  but 
erroneously,  attributed  to  the  Famine.  The  Famine 
may  have  precipitated  the  event,  but  the  object  of 
the  Corn  Law  League  was  to  cheapen  manufactur- 
ing labour.  It  is  true  that  Cobden,  the  great 
apostle  of  Free  Trade,  argued  that  agriculture 
would  not  suffer,  and  believed  that  all  other 
nations  would  speedily  follow  the  example  of  the 
LTnited  Kingdom  in  abolishing  import  duties  of  all 
kinds ;  but  the  true  motive  was  the  desire  of  the 
manufacturer  to  cheapen  food  in  order  to  cheapen 
labour,  and  so  cheapen  the  cost  of  production,  and, 
according  to  the  Manchester  School  of  Economics, 
such  a  proceeding  was  perfectly  legitimate,  what- 
ever the  consequences  might  be.  If  capital  was 
rendered  unproductive  in  one  industry,  the  labour 
and  the  capital  would,  it  was  argued,  find  place  and 
employment  in  some  other  industry.  That  theory 
still  finds  favour,  but  even  the  most  hardened 


228    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

advocates  of  free  imports  must  admit  that  free 
imports  of  corn  have  gone  far  to  ruin  agriculture, 
and  that  as  in  Ireland  agriculture  was  practically 
the  only  industry,  the  effect  on  Ireland  was 
especially  severe.  No  other  industry  existed  in 
which  displaced  agricultural  labour  could  find 
employment.  The  opening  of  the  ports,  coupled 
with  the  development  of  new  countries  and  cheap 
freights,  completed  the  ruin  of  a  class  that  relied 
entirely  upon  agricultural  rent. 

HOME  RULE  AND  AGRARIANISM. 

The  coupling  of  agrarian  questions  and  political 
schemes  that  constitutes  so  remarkable  a  feature 
of  modern  agitation  had  its  origin  in  the  writings 
of  Lalor  in  1848.  His  theories  were  that,  as  land- 
owners derived  their  titles  from  a  foreign  Govern- 
ment, they  had  no  legal  or  moral  right  in  their 
property;  that  they  constituted  the  greatest  obstacle 
to  repeal ;  that,  as  Ireland  paid  no  direct  tax,  the 
Government  could  not  be  struck  at  by  a  refusal  to 
pay  taxes,  but  that  rent  could  be  refused,  and  by 
that  means  the  Government  could  be  indirectly 
coerced ;  and  that  the  agitation  for  repeal  lacked 
reality  and  force.  "  Our  means,"  he  said,  "  are  im- 
potent against  the  English  Government,  which  is 
beyond  their  reach,  but  resistless  against  the  English 
garrison  who  stand  here  scattered  and  isolated, 
girded  round  by  a  mighty  people."  "  The  land 
question  contains,  and  the  legislative  question  does 


LALOR'S  THEORIES  229 

not  contain,  the  materials  from  which  victory  is 
manufactured."  Speaking  of  the  prospects  of  Re- 
peal, he  states  that — "  There  is  but  one  way  alone, 
and  that  is,  to  link  Repeal  to  some  other  question, 
like  a  railway  carriage  to  the  engine,  possessing  the 
intrinsic  strength  which  Repeal  wants,  and  strong 
enough  to  carry  both  itself  and  Repeal  together, 
and  such  a  question  there  is  in  the  land."  The 
interest  of  the  peasantry  in  Repeal  was,  he  said, 
"never  ardent,  nor  was  it  native  and  spontane- 
ous, but  forced  and  factitious."  The  Union  was 
carried  by  bribery — peerages  and  place  for  many. 
According  to  Lalor,  the  Union  could  be  repealed 
only  by  bribery  on  a  still  more  gigantic  scale 
- — land  for  nothing  for  all.  Without  touching 
upon  the  morality  involved,  the  theory  was  cer- 
tainly a  most  self-destructive  one  for  Repealers  or 
Home  Rulers  to  entertain,  since  obviously,  if  true, 
it  divested  the  political  ideal  of  all  reality  and 
force.  Its  adoption  was  most  unfortunate  both  for 
the  cause  they  had  at  heart  and  for  the  social 
welfare  of  the  country,  for  it  robbed  political 
reform  of  the  support  of  property,  and  raised  an 
artificial  barrier  between  class  and  class  ;  but  it 
appealed  to  Mitchell  and  later  leaders  of  the 
people,  and  was  put  in  practice  with  vigour. 
Owners  of  land,  whatever  their  race  and  lineage, 
were  denounced  as  the  British  garrison  and  alien 
land-thieves,  extortionate  tyrants  without  moral 
claim  or  legal  title,  and  as  the  only  obstacle  to 


230    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

Home  Rule.  The  result  was  inevitable.  Owners 
of  property  of  any  kind  were  forced  into  Unionism, 
whatever  their  political  opinions  might  be.  It  is 
to  this  illegitimate  union  between  political  and 
agrarian  reform  that  the  strange  political  change 
that  has  taken  place  in  recent  times  is  mainly 
due,  The  demands,  first  for  freedom  of  trade 
and  subsequently  for  legislative  independence, 
were  made  by  Property.  The  landowning  classes 
were  intensely  Nationalist,  but  they  were  also 
loyal  to  the  Crown  and  to  the  connection  with  Great 
Britain.  Property  won  legislative  independence. 
Property  fought  hard  to  retain  it,  and  struggled 
to  the  end  against  the  Union.  The  people  were 
comparatively  lukewarm  in  the  fight.  Since  then 
the  interests  that  fought  hardest  against  the  Union 
have  become  its  warmest  supporters,  while  Nation- 
alism has  become,  to  some  extent,  identified  with 
separation,  and  even  with  disloyalty,  to  the  Crown. 
The  descendants  of  men  who  viewed  the  Union 
with  comparative  indifference  have  become  its 
opponents ;  and  the  descendants  of  men  who 
gloried  in  being  Irish  have  been  driven  to  identify 
themselves  with  Great  Britain,  and  to  consider 
themselves  to  be  the  British  garrison  in  Ireland. 
Thus  was  the  downfall  of  the  landed  gentry,  social 
and  political,  all  but  accomplished. 

To  draw  in  anything  like  detail  a  picture  of  the 
gradual  change  from  tribal  to  modern  tenure  is 
obviously  impossible  in  a  short  treatise  of  this  kind. 


RENTS  AND  PRICES  231 

The  change  may  be  said  to  have  commenced  with 
Henry  II.  in  1171,  and  was  not  completed  until 
1860,  when  an  Act  was  passed,  known  as  Deasy's 
Act,  to  the  effect  that  the  relation  of  landlord  and 
tenant  was  deemed  to  be  founded  on  the  express 
or  implied  contract  of  the  parties,  and  not  upon 
tenure  or  service.  Eleven  years  after,  in  1871,  the 
tenure  as  set  out  in  Deasy's  Act  was  knocked 
to  pieces.  It  took  689  years  to  accomplish  the 
revolution,  and  in  eleven  years  it  was  destroyed. 

MODERN  LAND  LEGISLATION. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  touch  upon  the  land 
legislation  of  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years.  Far  be 
it  from  me  to  say  that  rents  had  not  become  too 
high  owing  to  the  great  fall  in  prices.  Impoverished 
landowners  no  doubt  exacted,  or  tried  to  exact, 
excessive  rent ;  but  in  justice  to  them  it  must  be 
remembered  that  they  were  deeply  encumbered, 
and  the  living  margin  remaining  to  them  was  very 
small,  that  the  demand  for  land  was  excessive,  and 
that  non-payment  of  rent  had  become  a  political 
creed.  Nevertheless,  legislation  was  fully  justi- 
fiable. The  great  mistake  made  by  Gladstone  was 
in  merely  tinkering  with  a  social  and  economic 
condition  that  required  drastic,  even  heroic,  treat- 
ment. The  Disestablishment  of  the  Church  was, 
from  the  Home  Rule,  or  "  Ireland  a  separate 
entity,"  point  of  view,  absolutely  justifiable ;  it  is 
impossible  to  defend  the  proposition  of  a  State 


232    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

Church,  representing  barely  one-fourth  of  the 
population  of  the  State.  From  the  Union  point 
of  view  it  was  unjustifiable.  Whatever  may  be 
thought  of  it,  this  much  is  certain :  Disestablish- 
ment and  Disendowment  produced  no  effect  what- 
ever upon  the  social  condition  of  the  country. 
Almost  equally  futile  were  Gladstone's  attempts 
at  remedial  land  legislation.  He  could  not  grasp 
the  nettle.  What  was  needed  was  to  put  Ireland 
into  liquidation ;  fix  rents  in  perpetuity  so  low  as 
to  be  of  the  nature  of  a  quit  rent,  or  fix  fair  rents 
periodically  revisable  on  definite  data,  such  as  price 
of  produce  and  cost  of  labour ;  pay  fair  compensa- 
tion, and  apportion  losses  among  all  those  inter- 
ested in  any  estate.  Nothing  of  the  kind  was 
done.  Fixity  of  tenure  and  fair  rent  were  theo- 
retically sound,  but  rents  were  fixed  on  no  known 
principle,  and  were  revised  on  no  ascertainable 
data.  They  varied  according  to  the  idiosyncrasies 
of  the  men  who  fixed  and  revised  them.  Free  sale, 
accompanied  as  it  was  by  an  inordinate  desire  to 
obtain  land  at  almost  any  price,  was  of  very  doubt- 
ful value.  The  most  that  can  be  said  for  the 
numberless  Acts  affecting  land  which  passed  be- 
tween 1871  and  1903  is  that  they  gave  immediate 
and  greatly  needed  relief  to  tenants,  that  they  con- 
tained the  germs  of  the  only  sound  solution  of  the 
problem,  and  paved  the  way  for  a  complete  transfer 
of  tenure.  The  evil  in  them  was  that  they  were 
unjust  to  the  landlord  and  injurious  to  agriculture. 


LAND  AND  FINANCE  233 

They  encouraged,  nay,  they  almost  compelled, 
every  tenant  to  show  his  holding  in  the  worst  pos- 
sible condition  when  he  came  to  have  his  rent  fixed 
or  revised.  They  were  inequitable  to  the  land- 
owner, in  that  he  was  compulsorily  deprived  of 
property,  to  which  he  had  an  undeniable  legal  title, 
without  compensation,  and  the  whole  loss  fell  upon 
his  shoulders,  instead  of  being  borne,  as  it  should 
have  been  borne,  by  all  those  beneficially  interested 
in  an  estate. 

WYNDHAM  ACT  OF  1903. 

This  chaotic,  illogical,  and  ill-feeling-breeding 
condition  of  things  was  put  an  end  to  by  Mr. 
Wyndham's  great  Act  of  1903 — or,  rather,  would 
have  been  put  at  end  to  had  that  Act  been  carried 
into  full  effect.  The  restoration  of  actual  owner- 
ship by  the  transfer  of  title  from  landlord  to 
occupier  on  fair  and  reasonable  terms  to  both, 
offered  the  only  possible  solution,  and  the  1903  Act 
was  admirably  adapted  to  carry  it  out.  But 
Parliament  was  guilty  of  the  mistake  it  invariably 
makes  in  reference  to  Ireland.  All  through  the 
history  of  Ireland  it  has  been  the  same.  Remedial 
legislation  has  always  been  a  little  too  late  or  a 
little  too  small.  In  this  case  legislation  was  not  too 
late,  but  its  action  was  too  limited.  It  is  perfectly 
true  that  owing  to  various  causes  affecting  British 
credit  unforeseen  difficulty  was  experienced  in 
financing  the  Act ;  but  the  case  was  urgent,  and  no 


234    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

difficulty  should  have  been  allowed  to  stand  in  the 
way.  A  complete  settlement  of  the  land  question 
on  the  lines  of  the  Act  of  1903  is  an  essential  pre- 
liminary to  social  accord,  peace,  confidence,  and 
prosperity,  and,  as  I  shall  presently  endeavour  to 
show,  a  contented  Ireland  is  of  paramount  impor- 
tance to  Great  Britain  and  the  Empire.  No  price 
is  too  high  to  pay  for  the  achievement  of  so 
desirable  an  object.  Among  all  the  mistakes  of 
Parliament  in  its  dealings  with  Ireland,  not  one  can 
be  found  more  fatal  in  its  consequences  than  that 
it  committed  in  allowing  the  Act  of  1903  to  fail 
for  lack  of  funds. 

THE  LANDLORDS:  HISTORY'S  VERDICT. 

In  sketching  out  the  causes,  economical  and 
political,  that  have  contributed  to  the  decay  of  the 
Irish  landed  gentry,  I  have  endeavoured  to  pre- 
serve an  impartial  mind.  The  task  is  a  difficult 
one  in  dealing  with  the  class  to  which  I  belong, 
and  I  may  have  failed ;  but  after  reviewing  all  the 
circumstances,  I  can  honestly  say  that  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  class  in  any  country  has  had  to 
contend  with  difficulties  so  great  as  those  which 
beset  them,  and  I  do  believe  that,  as  a  class,  they 
have  acquitted  themselves  well.  Deeply  rooted  in 
the  Irish  mind  had  ever  been  the  sentiment  that 
the  rightful  owners  of  the  soil  had  been  supplanted 
by  men  of  alien  blood  ;  and  equally  ineradicable  has 
been  the  instinct  derived  from  old  tribal  law  and 


THE  LANDLORDS'  BURDEN       235 

custom  that,  whatever  else  might  betide  him,  an 
occupier  could  not  be  evicted,  and  that  subdivision 
to  supply  land  for  his  children  was  legitimate  and 
proper.  The  inevitable  changes  consequent  upon 
the  operation  of  laws,  natural  or  artificial,  have 
been  attributed  to  the  action  of  individual  land- 
lords. The  great  change  from  tillage  to  pasture 
that  took  place  in  1815,  when  Ireland  ceased 
to  be  the  granary  of  England,  and  again  later  on, 
when  the  opening  of  the  ports,  the  development 
of  new  countries  and  of  the  means  of  transporta- 
tion threw  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  out 
of  cultivation  throughout  the  United  Kingdom, 
have  been  attributed  to  landlordism,  and  so  has 
the  artificial  stimulus  given  to  pasture  by  the 
iniquitous  system  of  charging  tithes  solely  upon 
tillage  land.  Clearances,  which  existed  at  the  time 
Arthur  Young  visited  Ireland  in  1771,  have  been 
laid  to  the  account  of  men  now  living. 

The  great  Famine  of  1846-47  placed  landlords 
in  an  impossible  position.  A  catastrophe  of  such 
national  dimensions  and  intensity  could  be  handled 
only  by  the  State,  and  the  State  refused  to  do  so. 
To  deal  with  it  was  beyond  the  power  of  any  class. 
It  meant  throwing  the  whole  burden  of  supporting 
the  population,  of  reconstituting  society,  and  re- 
establishing agriculture,  upon  a  small  class,  them- 
selves involved  in  the  catastrophe.  Poor  rates  were 
a  first  charge  upon  property,  and  rates  could  not  be 
met  without  rent.  Landlords,  such  as  were  able, 


236    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

did  what  they  could.  Money  to  assist  emigration 
was  found  by  those  not  dependent  upon  Irish  rent, 
and  tenants  for  life  were  given  powers  to  mortgage 
property  for  the  same  purpose.  Their  efforts  have 
been  cited  against  them.  It  was  Parliament,  not 
the  landowners,  that  evicted  practically  the  whole 
nation  at  the  time  of  the  great  Famine,  but  the 
landlords  bear  the  blame.  The  evils  due  to  ab- 
senteeism can  scarcely  be  exaggerated.  The  owner 
of  the  soil  was,  it  is  true,  primarily  responsible,  but 
it  was  the  poor  Irish  middleman  who  ground  the 
faces  of  his  poorer  Irish  fellow-countrymen  that 
held  under  him.  If  a  landlord  condoned  subdivi- 
sion, allowed  rents  to  run  into  arrears,  and  lived 
in  a  somewhat  reckless,  haphazard  way,  he  was 
blamed  by  English  critics  for  not  managing  his 
estate  on  sound  business  principles.  If  he  consoli- 
dated farms,  insisted  on  punctual  payment,  and 
introduced  sound  commercial  principles,  he  was 
cursed  in  Ireland  as  a  tyrant  and  evictor.  In 
England  the  letting  value  of  agricultural  land  was 
easily  ascertainable ;  it  was  the  rent  a  solvent, 
sensible  man  would  contract  to  pay.  In  Ireland, 
owing  to  the  excessive  land  hunger,  no  commercial 
index  to  true  letting  value  was  to  be  found. 
During  centuries  every  effort  had  been  made  to 
erect  impassable  barriers  between  English  and 
Irish,  between  the  planter  and  the  supplanted, 
between  lessor  and  lessee,  between  landlord  and 
tenant,  between  Protestant  and  Catholic.  The 


THE  LINE  OF  CLEAVAGE         237 

Irish  have  ever  been  tolerant  in  matters  of  religion. 
Religious  faith  has  never  been  considered  as  a  dis- 
qualification affecting  the  services  of  Irishmen  to 
Ireland,  nor  as  a  matter  for  personal  reproach  ;  but, 
nevertheless,  the  social  effect  of  the  meeting  of  all 
classes  in  a  parish — landlord  and  tenant,  farmer 
and  labourer,  squire  and  peasant  —  in  common 
worship  is  infinitely  great  in  softening  manners, 
creating  sympathy,  and  tightening  those  invisible 
bonds  that  knit  society  together.  From  the  benign 
influence  of  common  worship  Ireland  was  debarred, 
and  the  fact  that  one  line  of  cleavage  ran  through 
religion,  race,  and  class  has  not  lessened  the  diffi- 
culties with  which  landowners  have  had  to  contend. 

POLITICS  AND  THE  LAND. 

For  years  landlords  were  attacked,  from  purely 
political  motives,  for  actions  for  which  they  were 
not  responsible  and  on  grounds  having  no  justifi- 
cation in  theory,  fact,  or  reason.  Consider  the 
position  of  landowners  when  prices  collapsed  and 
evil  times  befell  agriculture  in  1871.  They  were 
subjected  to  violent  agrarian  agitation  of  a  threefold 
character.  They  were  attacked  on  purely  political 
grounds  as  the  English  Garrison  that  must  be 
destroyed.  They  were  attacked  on  the  ground  of 
holding  property  without  legal  or  moral  title,  and 
therefore  deserving  of  expropriation,  with  a  second- 
class  ticket  to  Holyhead  as  compensation.  They 
were  attacked  for  extorting  rents  rendered  ex- 


238    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

cessive  by  the  fall  in  prices  of  agricultural  produce. 
Landlords  were  but  human,  and  even  had  they  been 
so  far  above  passion  and  prejudice  as  to  have  felt 
no  resentment,  it  would  have  been  hard  for  them  to 
sift  truth  from  falsehood,  justice  from  injustice, 
right  from  wrong,  in  the  agrarian  struggle  in 
which  they  became  engaged.  With  no  commercial 
standard  of  fair  letting  value  to  guide  them,  in  the 
face  of  demands  in  many  cases  preposterous,  con- 
fronted with  an  agitation  largely  dictated  by  political 
motives,  it  cannot  be  thought  strange  if  under  cir- 
cumstances of  such  confusion  men  lost  sight  of 
strict  equity  and  justice,  and  stood  rigidly  upon 
their  legal  rights.  Much  has  been  charged  un- 
deservedly against  landlords  through  ignorance, 
for  when  Gladstone  undertook  to  regenerate  Ire- 
land, and  landlordism  was  on  its  trial,  they  did  not 
properly  state  their  case.  Attacked  as  a  class  for 
political  object,  they  held  together  as  a  class  to 
resist  political  attack,  though  many  may  have  felt 
uneasy  at  the  injustice  to  tenants  involved  in  many 
cases.  Partly  for  that  reason,  partly  from  that  want 
of  cohesion  that  seems  characteristic  of  the  Irish 
race,  and  partly  perhaps  because  the  old  landlords  had 
but  little  sympathy  with  the  new  race  established 
under  the  Encumbered  Estates  Act,  the  case  of 
landlordism  was  allowed  to  go  by  default.  Yet 
Gladstone  admitted  that  "  they  (the  landlords)  have 
stood  their  trial,  and  have  as  a  rule  been  acquitted." 
Irish  landlords  have  been  unjustly  blamed  in 


RISE  OF  AGRARIANISM  239 

history,  but  from  all  blame  they  cannot  be  ex- 
onerated. They  were  reckless  in  methods  and 
expenditure,  lavish  in  hospitality,  giving  too  little 
thought  to  the  future.  While  during  the  great 
European  War  Ireland  was  England's  principal 
source  of  food- supplies,  they  lived  as  though  wheat 
would  always  command  high  prices,  and  good  times 
for  agriculture  would  last  for  ever.  Too  often  they 
encouraged  or  shut  their  eyes  to  subdivision  and  the 
creation  of  small  holdings,  and  thus  may  be  said  to 
have  indirectly  connived  at  the  Famine.  When 
the  great  decline  in  prices  occurred  in  1871,  they 
did  not  meet  their  tenants  half-way.  There  was 
not  sufficient  intimate  acquaintance  between  the 
classes,  and  sympathy  was  deficient.  Landowners 
left  their  properties  too  much  in  the  hands  of 
agents  whose  main  duty  was  to  collect  rent,  and  did 
not  concern  themselves  personally  as  they  should 
have  done  with  the  injustice  to  tenants  of  their 
claims  under  the  altered  circumstances,  or  with  the 
means  adopted  to  enforce  those  claims.  Demands 
for  a  rent  that  had  become  excessive  were  met  by 
excessive  demands  for  reduction  of  rent,  and  an 
agrarian  war  arose  that  might  have  been  averted  by 
closer  personal  intercourse,  greater  sympathy  and 
wider  views.  As  a  class,  landowners  have  suffered 
in  the  past  from  the  blighting  influence  of  ascend- 
ancy, religious  and  racial ;  and  in  quite  modern 
times  they  have  failed  to  free  themselves  entirely 
from  its  deadening  effects,  to  realize  how  circum- 


240    EMIGRATION— LANDLORDISM 

stances  have  changed,  and  to  adapt  themselves  to 
them.  The  Irish  landowners  have  remained  too 
much  a  class  apart ;  they  succumbed  too  easily  to 
class  animosity  created  for  political  purposes,  were 
too  proud  to  come  down  into  the  arena,  take  off 
their  coats  and  demand  their  right  to  take  part  in 
the  conduct  of  affairs.  It  is  a  false  pride  that  fears 
defeat  at  the  polls  as  a  dishonour  ;  and  it  is  a  foolish 
pride,  for  in  spite  of  all  the  demagogues  that  have 
preached,  and  will  preach,  class  hatred,  the  Irish 
people  still  feel,  and  will  feel  in  their  hearts,  affec- 
tion and  respect  for  the  "  old  stock."  The  country 
gentlemen  fought  for  their  natural  and  legitimate 
position  half-heartedly,  more  or  less  content  with 
the  amenities  and  amusements  of  life,  shorn  of  the 
social  and  political  influence  that  ought  to  attach 
to  it.  Well,  they  have  still  an  opportunity.  Land 
purchase  must,  and  will,  be  made  operative  again. 
In  that  lies  their  chance.  For  their  sake,  and  the 
sake  of  Ireland,  may  they  make  the  most  of  it, 
for  it  is  the  last. 


PART  V 

CONCLUSION:   IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

IN  condensing  the  history  of  700  years  into  the 
compass  of  a  few  pages,  it  is  obviously  impossible 
to  do  more  than  merely  touch  upon  the  most 
salient  points,  and  briefly  notice  the  principal 
episodes  and  events.  Critical  examination  of 
policy,  of  incidents  and  their  consequences,  minute 
descriptions  of  happenings,  and  of  what  caused 
them  and  resulted  from  them,  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion ;  and  all  that  I  have  endeavoured  to  do  is  to 
dismiss,  so  far  as  is  possible,  all  bias  from  my 
mind,  and  to  present  an  impartial  and  truthful 
sketch.  The  morals  to  be  drawn,  and  the  con- 
clusions as  to  the  future  which  may  be  arrived  at, 
will  naturally  vary,  according  to  personal  idiosyn- 
crasies and  the  political  and  social  views  of 
individuals.  The  moral  I  draw  and  the  conclusions 
at  which  I  arrive  represent  my  purely  personal 
views  and  convictions.  They  may  be  deemed  out 
of  place  in  an  essay  of  this  kind,  but  I  give  them 
because  these  pages  would  not  have  been  compiled 
had  I  not  formulated  ideas  as  to  the  means 

241  16 


242  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

whereby  the  regeneration  of  Ireland  may  be 
accomplished.  Mere  criticism  of  England's  policy 
and  action  in  the  past  would  be  a  barren  endeavour 
without  some  definite  conception  of  what  the 
policy  of  the  future  ought  to  be. 

An  interesting  theme  for  psychological  study  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  British  statesmen  and 
the  British  people,  who,  as  a  whole,  are  sagacious 
and  far-sighted  in  their  dealings  with  other  nations, 
with  their  Colonial  Empire,  and  with  their  de- 
pendencies, have  invariably  exhibited  the  opposite 
qualities  in  their  relations  with  Ireland ;  and  that 
they  are  even  now  unable,  apparently,  to  under- 
stand that  their  failure  in  Ireland  is  due  to  the 
very  same  national  characteristic  that  has  made  their 
success  so  pronounced  as  colonizers  and  builders 
of  Empire.  As  a  centralizing,  assimilating  agency 
England  has,  as  compared  with  other  nations, 
been  unfortunate.  Whenever  she  has  abstained 
from  centralizing,  or  has  adopted  decentralization, 
good  fortune  has  attended  her  action.  France  is 
a  combination  of  a  great  number  of  independent 
and  semi-independent  States.  Some,  such  as 
Normandy  and  Gascony,  conquered ;  some,  like 
Anjou  and  Burgundy,  annexed ;  and  others — 
Brittany  and  Champagne,  for  instance — incorpor- 
ated by  marriage.  These  States,  however  acquired, 
were  absorbed  in  France.  They  became  France, 
and  natives  of  Provence,  Burgundy,  or  Normandy 
answer  to  the  name  of  Frenchmen  all  over  the 


ENGLAND'S  FAILURE  243 

world.  France  assimilated  the  elements  near  at 
hand,  but  in  colonizing  distant  regions  her  career 
does  not  show  a  marked  success.  England  has 
not  absorbed  Ireland,  Scotland,  or  Wales.  The 
British  Islands  are  not  England,  the  inhabitants 
are  not  English.  No  common  name  distinguishes 
them  among  nations.  They  describe  themselves 
as  English,  Scots,  Irish,  or  Welsh;  but  England 
has  colonized  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe.  By 
refraining  from  centralization  she  has  kept  the 
Channel  Islands  contented  and  loyal.  By  attempt- 
ing centralization  she  lost  the  Colonies  in  North 
America.  By  the  adoption  of  one  principle  an 
Empire  was  lost ;  by  acting  on  the  other  principle 
another  and  a  greater  Empire  was  created  and  is 
held  together.  The  failure  to  give  content,  pros- 
perity, and  good  government  to  Ireland  is  due  to 
persistence  in  a  vain  attempt  to  accomplish  a  task 
for  which  the  English  character  is  unsuited.  Eng- 
land cannot  assimilate  Ireland. 

ERRORS  IN  ENGLISH  POLICY. 

During  the  earlier  periods  with  which  this 
treatise  deals  the  conduct  of  England  was  at 
least  consistent,  and  though  eminently  unwise,  it 
was  in  accordance  with  views  current  at  the  time. 
Her  policy  was  to  exploit  Ireland  for  the  benefit 
of  England  without  concern  for  the  effect  upon 
the  former  country.  She  aimed  at  annihilating 
the  Irish  in  order  to  plant  English  in  their  places, 


244  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

and  at  destroying  Irish  trade,  manufacture  and 
commerce,  in  the  interests  of  English  trade,  manu- 
facture and  commerce.  Though  not  at  variance 
with  the  custom  of  the  age,  the  policy  was  short- 
sighted and  foolish  to  the  last  degree,  and,  un- 
fortunately, the  same  selfish  methods  have  been 
continued  long  after  wiser  views  of  the  relations 
between  the  two  islands  came  to  be  generally 
entertained. 

Looking  back  upon  the  pages  of  Irish  history, 
and  endeavouring  to  judge  the  causes  that  have 
made  Ireland  what  she  is,  motives  are  more  im- 
portant than  facts,  sentiment  than  deeds.  Wars, 
persecutions,  and  confiscations  pass  and  may  be 
forgotten.  Albeit  they  bleed  freely,  the  wounds 
heal.  But  a  false  policy  cripples  so  long  as  it  lasts, 
and  treachery,  injustice,  and  humiliation  cause  en- 
during hurt.  The  consequences  of  a  mistaken 
policy,  of  the  treachery  displayed  towards  the  Irish 
in  carrying  it  out,  of  the  injustice  with  which  they 
were  treated,  and  of  the  contumely  heaped  upon 
them,  abide  with  us  still.  The  conception  of  ex- 
tinguishing Irish  nationality  by  forcing  upon  the 
people  a  system  of  land  tenure  and  law  alien  to 
them  and  utterly  irreconcilable  with  their  percep- 
tion of  nationality  lies  at  the  root  of  all  the  trouble. 
In  the  effort  to  carry  out  that  fatally  false  policy, 
methods  were  used  which  were  bound  to  fail,  and 
which  success  could  not  justify  or  condone.  Every 
page  of  the  history  of  England's  dealings  with 


BROKEN  PLEDGES  245 

Ireland  is  defiled  by  broken  faith.  I  make  no 
reference  to  isolated  events,  such  as  the  attempt  to 
poison  O'Neill  by  a  gift  of  wine  sent  by  the  King's 
Deputy  as  a  token  of  goodwill  on  the  conclusion 
of  peace.  Such  cases  may  be  attributed  to  the 
crime  of  individuals,  but  in  mentioning  deliberate 
breaches  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  State,  what  a 
terrible  list  may  be  made  out !  The  Earl  of  Kil- 
dare  surrendered  on  the  promise  that  his  life  would 
be  spared,  and,  "  sore  against  the  will  of  his  coun- 
cillors, dismissed  his  army."  The  promise  of 
clemency  made  on  his  behalf  was  broken  by  the 
King.  The  Composition  of  Connaught  was  set 
at  naught.  The  King's  word  was  broken  in  the 
matter  of  the  "  Graces."  In  nearly  all  the  so- 
called  rebellions  of  Desmond,  Tyrone,  and  others 
the  cause  was  broken  faith. 

The  Treaty  of  Limerick  was  violated.  The 
troops  surrendered  on  honourable  terms,  stipulat- 
ing, among  other  conditions,  all  of  which  were 
agreed  to,  for  the  free  exercise  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  in  Ireland.  Winter  was  coming 
on.  The  condition  of  the  Williamite  forces  was 
bad.  Surrender  was  of  infinite  value  to  William. 
Capitulation  was  accepted,  but  the  terms  were 
broken.  Instead  of  granting  toleration,  the  penal 
laws  were  put  in  force.  Transportation  was  to  be 
provided  for  the  troops  and  those  under  their  pro- 
tection— their  wives  and  families.  Sufficient  trans- 
portation was  not  found,  and  when  the  troops 


246  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

embarked  a  great  number  of  women  were  left 
behind,  and  many  of  them,  clinging  desperately  to 
the  boats,  were  drowned. 

After  the  Restoration  the  pledges  of  restitution 
were  not  fulfilled. 

The  smashing  of  the  Constitution  granted  in 
1782  may  perhaps  be  condoned.  The  Irish  Parlia- 
ment created  by  that  Constitution  destroyed  its 
creator ;  but  nothing  can  condone  the  destruction 
of  the  Constitution  without  an  appeal  to  the  people, 
or  the  broken  promises  of  Catholic  Emancipation 
and  the  Commutation  of  Tithes — held  out  as 
inducement  to  accept  the  Union. 

Pages  of  instances  of  broken  pledges  might  be 
given,  but  perhaps  the  whole  case — the  difference 
between  the  "  superior !"  and  "  inferior !"  race  in 
matters  of  good  faith — may  be  summed  up  in  the 
words  of  St.  Leger  to  the  King,  Henry  VIII. 
St.  Leger  may  be  trusted  to  have  put  the  matter 
as  leniently  as  he  could.  Writing  in  1546,  he 
said :  "  For  Irishmen  keeping  their  pacts  I  know 
not  wherein  they  have  greatly  broken  them ; 
but  perchance  if  Englishmen  being  there  were 
well  examined  they  all  keep  not  their  promises." 
Let  Irish  and  English  honour  rest  at  that.  As 
it  was  then,  so  it  was  later  ;  and  thus  through 
all  the  dismal  pages  of  English  history  in  Ireland 
perfidy  stands  out  as  pre-eminently  the  cause  of 
Irish  distrust. 


THE  LAND  ACT  OF  1903  247 

THE  MORAL  OF  PAST  MISTAKES. 

What  is  the  moral  to  be  drawn?  That  the 
most  punctilious  observance  of  good  faith  towards 
Ireland  is  necessary  to  create  trust  in  the  good- 
will of  England.  Has  Parliament  understood 
that?  I  think  not.  The  great  Land  Act  of 
1903 — the  wisest  measure  ever  passed  for  Ireland, 
a  measure  capable  of  transforming  the  face  of 
the  country  and  the  temper  of  the  people  — 
was  not  a  treaty,  nor  a  covenant,  nor  a  contract ; 
but  it  was  an  Act  of  Parliament  conveying  a 
definite  pledge.  Parliament  cannot  make  a  bind- 
ing contract.  What  Parliament  does  it  can  undo. 
Nevertheless,  Parliament  did  enter  into  a  specific 
undertaking.  Great  Britain  did,  in  so  far  as  she 
can  speak  through  Parliament,  pledge  herself ;  and 
Parliament,  in  so  far  as  it  can  speak  through  the 
medium  of  the  recognized  chiefs  of  recognized 
parties,  did  pledge  itself  to  fulfil  its  part  of  a 
contract  if  the  other  parties  to  the  contract  ful- 
filled theirs.  The  honourable  understanding  was 
that  if  the  Act  worked  well  it  would  be  financed. 
It  did  work  well,  and  it  was  not  financed.  Is  it  not 
strange  that  with  this  modern  instance  before  their 
eyes,  and  with  unquestionable  cases  of  broken  faith 
in  the  past  within  their  memories,  the  belief  of  the 
Irish  peasant  in  the  good  faith  of  England  and  in 
the  justice  of  Parliament  is  not  very  robust  ? 

The  expulsion  of  the  best  blood  of  the  country 


248  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

by  confiscations  and  penal  laws,  and,  above  all, 
the  destruction  of  all  handicrafts,  manufacturing 
industries,  and  trade,  have  left  an  impression 
upon  Irish  character  and  the  economic  and  social 
condition  of  the  country  difficult  to  erase.  What 
is  the  moral  ?  The  condition  in  Ireland  is  not  due 
to  natural  causes.  She  is  not  responsible.  Her  con- 
dition is  due  to  artificial  causes  for  which  England 
is  responsible.  Ireland  must  be  looked  upon  as  a 
portion  of  an  estate  run  to  waste,  not  because 
it  is  unprofitable  for  cultivation,  but  because 
cultivation  was  forbidden  and  the  land  was  laid 
desolate.  Ireland  is  sick  in  mind,  body,  and  estate, 
but  convalescing.  Convalescence  must  be  helped. 

Whatever  England  has  done  in  the  way  of 
reform  for  Ireland  has  been  marred  in  its  effect  by 
being  a  little  too  small  or  a  little  too  late  ;  and  this 
fatal  error  is  making  its  malign  influence  felt  even 
now.  All  parties  and  all  statesmen  are,  I  am  sure, 
agreed  that  the  transfer  of  tenure  in  Ireland  should 
be  speedily  accomplished,  to  the  great  advantage  of 
the  whole  United  Kingdom,  but  the  operations  of 
the  Land  Act  of  1903  are  hung  up  for  want  of  a 
little  money,  to  the  dismay  of  the  friends,  and  to 
the  delight  of  the  enemies,  of  a  peaceful  Ireland. 
A  most  beneficial  measure  is  handicapped  because 
its  financial  provisions  are  just  a  little  too  small. 
The  same  unfortunate  defect  operated  disastrously 
during  the  period  we  have  had  under  review. 
Catholic  Emancipation,  the  Commutation  of 


IRELAND'S  LONG  STRUGGLE      249 

Tithes,  and  other  remedial  measures,  were  too  long 
deferred.  A  policy  well  designed  to  satisfy  the 
requirements  of  Ireland  at  that  time  was  utterly 
ruined  because  concessions  were  granted  a  little  too 
late.  "  Too  small  or  too  late  "  is  the  epitaph  of 
British  endeavour. 

THE  POLICY  OF  "CONQUEST." 

A  sketch  of  Ireland  attributing  all  her  ills 
solely  to  a  natural  incapacity  to  effect  centraliza- 
tion inherent  in  the  character  of  the  English 
people,  or  to  English  misrule,  would  be  quite  out 
of  perspective.  Defects  in  the  Irish  character  are 
also  responsible,  though  in  justice  it  must  be 
admitted  that  most  of  them  are  due  to  causes 
beyond  her  control,  and  are  the  direct  consequences 
of  misrule.  The  root  of  evil,  for  which  England 
was  responsible,  was  planted  in  the  resolution  to 
transform  Ireland,  to  melt  down  her  civilization 
wholly,  and  recast  it  in  an  English  mould,  instead 
of  utilizing  and  adapting  it.  The  root  of  evil,  so 
far  as  Ireland  is  concerned,  lay  in  arrested  develop- 
ment ;  and  her  history  is  a  record  of  perpetual 
struggle  to  preserve  nationality  and  achieve  unity, 
in  despite  of  the  determination  to  make  unity 
impossible,  and  to  obliterate  nationality  by  craft 
and  force.  The  tribal  system  and  the  memory 
and  tradition  of  it  made  unity  for  national  pur- 
poses difficult  of  achievement,  and  England  utilized 
the  difficulty  to  the  utmost.  It  was  ever  her 


250  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

policy — a  not  unnatural,  but  a  short-sighted  policy 
—to  frustrate  all  efforts  in  that  direction.  From 
the  invasion  by  Henry  II.  in  1171  to  1529,  when 
a  great  man  and  a  great  conciliator,  the  Earl  of 
Kildare,  died  in  the  Tower  and  his  son  and  five 
brothers  were  hanged,  numerous  instances  may  be 
mentioned  when  internal  differences  could,  under 
the  influence  of  a  strong  and  patriotic  personality, 
have  been  arranged.  All  through  Irish  history 
occasions  stand  clearly  out  when  the  commonest 
justice  would  have  reconciled  Ireland  and  Eng- 
land, and  would  have  enabled  the  two  communities 
to  pursue  converging  courses  in  amity.  But  the 
object  of  English,  and  afterwards  British,  policy  was 
ever  the  same — the  exploitation  of  Ireland  for  the 
benefit  of  a  Sovereign,  a  trade,  or  a  class  ;  and 
the  method  employed  was  ever  the  same — the  en- 
couragement by  every  possible  means  of  internal 
strife. 

What  is  the  moral  ?  To  assist  by  all  legitimate 
means  the  efforts  towards  the  reconciliation  of 
creeds,  classes,  and  divergent  interests  in  Ireland. 
Is  that  acted  upon  by  the  State  ?  I  think  not.  Can 
it  be  truthfully  said  that  even  now  the  theory  of 
divide  to  conquer  has  been  quite  abandoned,  that 
Ireland  is  no  longer  used  in  the  interest  of  class  or 
party,  and  that  statesmen  have  risen  to  the  true 
conception  that  in  a  united  Ireland  they  must  look 
for,  and  will  find  loyalty  to,  the  British  connection 
and  the  Empire  ? 


FRUITS  OF  UNITY  251 

Lack  of  the  power  of  combination  and  co-opera- 
tion, want  of  cohesiveness,  difficulty  in  subordin- 
ating personal  and  private  to  national  and  public 
objects,  inordinate  impatience  for  results,  have  ever 
stood  in  the  way  of  Ireland  ;  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  assume  that  the  want  of  qualities  so  essential 
to  the  achievement  of  great  purposes  is  the  result 
of  natural  and  racial  defects  of  character,  and  is 
not  due  to  the  fact  that  national  character  never 
had  a  chance  to  develop  and  grow.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  the  fact  is  that  with  few  exceptions  the  Irish 
have  never  acted  as  one. 

FRUITS  OF  IRISH  UNITY. 

In  1014  Ireland,  for  the  time  united,  fought  and 
won  the  Battle  of  Clontarf,  an  action  which  ought 
to  be  considered  one  of  the  great  battles  of  the 
world.  Their  dream  of  dominion  was  at  stake, 
and  Northmen  from  Iceland,  Norway,  Sweden, 
England,  Scotland,  and  the  Isle  of  Man  fought 
to  realize  it,  but  were  worsted  in  a  battle  which 
shattered  the  prospect  of  a  great  Scandinavian 
Empire  with  its  capital  in  London,  and  inciden- 
tally paganism  with  it.  England  remained  part 
of  a  Continental  kingdom,  but  the  battle  left 
Ireland  unfettered  and  free. 

In  1779  Ireland  acted  as  a  nation  under  the 
influence  of  the  Volunteer  Movement,  and  won 
freedom  of  trade  and  a  constitution. 

In  1901-02  a  revival  of  national  spirit  brought 


252  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

about  a  conference  on  the  Land  Question  that 
led  to  an  Act  of  Parliament,  which  would  have 
settled  for  ever  the  cause  of  centuries  of  strife,  had 
that  national  spirit  been  allowed  fair  play.  Had 
Ireland  held  together,  Land  Purchase  could  never 
have  been  killed,  and  Ireland  would  have  by  now 
obtained  most  of,  if  not  all  of,  the  reforms  she  can 
legitimately  desire.  But  a  people  lacking  in  inde- 
pendence were  worked  upon  by  misguided  men, 
and  the  national  spirit  that  could  have  achieved  so 
much  was  stifled.  For  that  lost  opportunity  Ire- 
land has  herself  to  blame.  From  time  to  time 
individuals  and  associations  have  striven  to  con- 
centrate nationality  into  action,  but  in  vain.  Ire- 
land has  been  in  all  her  troubles  helpless,  because 
divided  against  herself. 

Suspicion,  the  sad  legacy  of  persecution  disgraced 
by  flagrant  acts  of  treachery  and  broken  faith,  makes 
co-operation  hard.  Perpetual  injustice  has  twisted 
the  nature  of  a  law-abiding  people  into  a  deep 
distrust  of  law,  and  has  inclined  them  to  seek 
in  secret  societies  and  through  underhand  means 
to  right  their  wrongs.  Centuries  of  failure  have 
sapped  their  self  -  reliance  and  centuries  of  un- 
deserved contempt  their  self-respect.  From  all 
these  causes  spring  that  difficulty  in  uniting 
genuinely,  that  impatience  and  that  suspicion  of 
each  other  that  has  militated  so  greatly  against 
them  in  all  their  efforts  for  redress.  Through 
all  the  movements  of  modern  times,  through 


THE  IRISH  REVIVAL  253 

O'C (Hindi's  agitation  for  repeal,  Butt's  efforts  for 
reconstruction  on  federal  lines,  Parnell's  campaign 
for  separation,  impatience,  suspicion,  the  intrusion 
of  selfish  motives  into  national  concerns,  and,  in 
consequence,  internal  dissension,  are  plainly  visible 
as  factors  disqualifying  for  success.  In  their 
efforts  to  secure  unity,  parties  in  Ireland  have  ever 
made  the  huge  mistake  of  seeking  to  achieve  unity 
by  force,  and  have  succeeded  only  in  creating  a 
semblance  of  unity,  useless  and  worse  than  useless, 
in  that  it  stifles  all  independence  of  thought,  and 
by  transforming  the  people  into  mere  dummies  in 
a  political  game,  renders  real  unity — unity  in 
action  brought  about  by  unity  of  thought  and  of 
spontaneous  national  sentiment — so  difficult  to 
attain. 

What  is  the  moral?  That  in  independence  of 
thought,  co-operation,  trust,  the  attitude  of  free- 
men towards  each  other — in  short,  in  the  quicken- 
ing sense  of  a  common  nationality  and  the  sub- 
ordination of  all  else  to  it,  lies  the  regeneration 
of  Ireland.  Fortunately,  abundant  evidences  of 
an  awakening  in  that  direction  are  plainly  to 
be  seen.  Attainment  of  local  self-government 
did  a  good  deal.  The  Land  Purchase  Acts 
have  done  much  more.  Men  feel  themselves 
to  be  men.  In  the  belief  that  at  last  they  will 
have  fair  play,  self-reliance  is  quickening  in  them. 
In  the  hopes  of  better  mutual  understanding,  self- 
respect  and  respect  for  others,  energy  and  enter- 


254  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

prise  are  taking  the  place  of  lethargic  despair, 
hatred,  and  distrust.  The  people  are  alive  to  the 
fact  that  though  help  in  some  things  is  needful  to 
them,  the  privilege  of  regenerating  their  country  is 
with  them.  They  understand  that  Ireland  must 
learn  to  walk  alone,  or  crawl  a  cripple  all  her  life ; 
and  that  they  must  see  to  it.  They  know  that 
self-help  and  mutual  help  is  the  only  formula  that 
can  transform  Ireland.  That  they  alone  can  work 
out  their  country's  salvation  is  becoming  a  living 
faith  with  them.  But  help  is  needed,  and  in  two 
directions. 

THE  FIRST  DUTY  :  COMPLETION  OF  LAND 
PURCHASE. 

The  completion  of  Land  Purchase  is  the  primary 
obligation.  That  question  must  be  viewed  from 
the  point  of  view  both  of  ethics  and  expediency. 
Parliament  is  omnipotent.  It  can  give  and  it  can 
take  back.  But  when  Parliament  undertakes  a 
great  social  revolution,  with  the  unanimous  consent 
of  all  parties,  and  pledges  itself,  so  far  as  it  can  be 
pledged  by  the  words  of  the  leaders  of  parties  and 
the  assent  of  their  followers,  to  carry  through  that 
revolution,  the  moral  obligation  must,  I  think,  be 
admitted.  Parliament  was  bound  to  carry  on  the 
Act  of  1903.  It  has  not  done  so.  Whatever  may 
be  thought  about  the  ethics  of  the  case,  no  doubt 
can  be  entertained  of  the  expediency  of  complet- 
ing the  transfer  of  tenure  as  speedily  as  possible. 


PARLIAMENT'S  OBLIGATIONS     255 

Title  to  more  than  half  the  holdings  in  Ireland  has 
been  transferred  from  the  owners  to  the  occupiers, 
and  with  such  excellent  results  that  the  casual 
traveller  can  distinguish  at  a  glance  between  the 
farms  that  have,  and  the  farms  that  have  not,  been 
purchased. 

It  is  unthinkable  that  a  revolution  so  benefi- 
cent can  be  stopped  half-way.  To  do  so  would 
be  to  make  confusion  worse  confounded,  and  the 
millions  advanced  may  be  written  off,  not  as  a  bad 
debt  in  terms  of  money,  but  as  wasted  to  a  great 
extent,  in  terms  of  social  improvement  and  economic 
fructifying  effect.  No  parallel  can  be  drawn  ;  but 
imagine  a  condition  existing  in  the  great  industries 
of  Great  Britain  of  such  a  character  that  the  welfare 
of  millions  of  wage-earners  depended  upon  Parlia- 
ment carrying  out  an  arrangement  to  which  it  had 
pledged  itself.  The  conception,  though  straining 
the  imagination,  is  not  impossible ;  but  it  is  im- 
possible to  imagine  Parliament  repudiating  its 
obligation  when  the  operation  was  half  completed, 
and  the  good  results  were  clearly  proved,  on  the 
ground  that,  though  the  transaction  was  a  pro- 
nounced success,  and  the  money  advanced  in 
furtherance  of  it  perfectly  secured,  more  money 
than  was  originally  estimated  for  was  required. 
And  the  real  case  in  Ireland  is  stronger  than  any 
imaginary  case  affecting  Great  Britain,  for  the 
welfare  of  practically  the  whole  population  of 
Ireland  is  involved.  Land  Purchase  must  go  on. 


256  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

Landlordism  must  be  abolished  in  toto,  and  it 
must  be  on  the  lines  of  the  Act  of  1903.  That 
Act  was  a  marvellous  success,  because  it  was  just, 
and  gave  reasonable  satisfaction  to  all  parties  con- 
cerned. It  may  be  modified  in  detail,  but  it  is 
idle  to  suppose  that  land  transfer  can  be  com- 
pleted under  any  Act  departing  from  it  in  prin- 
ciple. 

The  establishment  of  a  peasant  proprietary  is 
essential  to  the  social  and  industrial  well-being  of 
the  country,  and  that  is  obligatory  on  the  State  ; 
but  it  must  not  be  deemed  all-sufficient  in  itself. 
Occupying  owners  of  land  must  learn  to  make 
the  most  of  their  opportunities,  and  other  indus- 
tries must  be  revived  in  order  to  reduce  land 
hunger  from  the  craving  of  starvation  to  a  healthy 
appetite.  Co-operation,  the  conduct  of  agriculture 
on  up-to-date  lines,  and  industrial  revival  are 
necessary,  and  require  the  exercise  of  qualities 
which  have  shrunk  under  the  enervating  influence 
of  centuries  of  misrule.  Irishmen  alone  can  revive 
those  qualities  :  that  is  Ireland's  task. 

NECESSITY  FOR  POLITICAL  REFORM. 

Land  Purchase  will  not  satisfy  the  aspirations 
or  the  necessities  of  the  people.  Political  reform 
is  also  required.  Constitutional  reform  is  desirable 
both  for  its  material  and  moral  effect.  It  is 
necessary  to  ensure  better  government,  it  is  neces- 
sary as  an  expression  of  nationality,  and  a  true 


COUNSELS  OF  DESPAIR  257 

sense  of  nationality  finding  a  legitimate  mode 
of  expression  is  necessary  for  the  creation  and 
development  of  those  civic  virtues  without  which 
Ireland  cannot  progress.  Ireland  cannot  be  content 
without  some  political  recognition  of  her  national- 
ity :  nor,  save  under  the  stimulus  of  control  over 
her  own  affairs,  can  the  people  of  Ireland  regain 
the  self-confidence  and  energy  necessary  for  in- 
dustrial development  in  agriculture  and  other 
trades.  It  is  true  that  the  doctrine  that  agitation 
for  Home  Rule  is  impossible  alone,  and  must  be 
tacked  on  to  agrarian  agitation  to  obtain  vitality 
and  force,  has  been  held  by  Irish  politicians,  and 
true  also  that  some  leaders  of  a  deluded  people 
have  laboured  to  wreck  land  purchase,  fearing  lest 
a  settlement  of  the  Land  Question  would  make  the 
people  indifferent  about  Home  Rule.  Forms  of 
government  are  but  means  to  an  end — the  welfare 
of  the  governed — and  to  strive  deliberately  to  make 
Ireland  miserable,  in  order  to  create  artificially  an 
agitation  which,  if  she  were  allowed  to  be  happy, 
could  not  arise,  is  mere  traitorous  fanaticism ;  but 
the  fanatics  are  mistaken  and  the  fanaticism  is 
foolish.  The  people  of  Ireland  are  not  likely, 
under  any  circumstances,  to  abandon  their  political 
claims.  If  they  did,  I  should  deeply  regret  it, 
for  I  do  not  believe  that  under  the  legislative  Union 
as  it  stands,  real  prosperity  and  progress  is  possible. 
But  I  am  not  uneasy  on  the  subject.  With  the 
present  political  condition  Ireland  will  not  be 

17 


258  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

content ;  and  the  questions,  therefore,  that  I  would 
put  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain  are  these ;  and 
they  are  simple  ones.  Can  the  aspiration  of  Ireland 
for  control  of  her  own  affairs  be  satisfied  without 
menacing  the  interests  of  Great  Britain  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  make  such  satisfaction  impossible  or 
even  unwise  ?  Is  not  a  large  devolution  of  business 
necessary  for  the  efficiency  of  the  Imperial  Parlia- 
ment ?  Would,  or  would  not,  Home  Rule  on 
federal  lines  react  beneficially  upon  the  Empire 
and  the  prospects  of  civilization  throughout  the 
world  ? 

No  DESIRE  FOR  INDEPENDENCE. 

Judging  by  letters  which  from  time  to  time 
appear  in  the  Press,  the  first  of  my  queries  appears 
to  be  the  kind  of  question  which  the  oft-quoted 
"  man  in  the  street "  puts  to  himself  when  he  turns 
a  thought  to  Ireland.  And  the  answer  generally  is, 
that  the  Union  must  be  maintained  intact  because 
it  is  the  only  and  essential  basis  upon  which  a 
federated  Empire  may  be  built ;  because  decentra- 
lization would  be  a  retrograde  step ;  and  because 
separation  is  Ireland's  object,  and  independence  is 
desired  in  order  to  inflict  injury  upon  Great  Britain. 
"  Imagine,"  they  say,  "  the  intolerable  danger  of 
our  position  in  some  great  conflict  hampered  by  an 
independent  Ireland  on  our  flank  harbouring  and 
welcoming  foreign  fleets  and  foreign  troops.  Come 
what  may,  the  Union  must  not  be  touched ;  it  is 
essential  to  our  safety."  Even  were  the  premisses 


FALSE  WAR  CRIES  259 

correct,  they  scarcely  warrant  the  deduction. 
Though  in  times  of  persecution  in  the  distant  past 
Irishmen's  eyes  turned  to  foreign  aid,  there  never 
was  a  general  appeal,  and  history  does  not  record 
an  enthusiastic  reception  of  foreign  troops.  Ireland 
for  the  Irish  was  the  ideal  then  and  is  the  ideal 
now,  and  the  notion  that  Irish  freeholders  or 
tenants  would  see  Ireland  invaded  and  turned  into 
a  field  of  battle  in  order  to  gratify  a  feeling  of 
hatred  is  pre-eminently  absurd.  Moreover,  the 
conception  of  serious  menace  from  a  population 
not  half  that  of  London,  and  divided,  as  it  would 
be,  into  hostile  camps,  is  scarcely  worthy  of  con- 
sideration. But  let  that  pass.  The  premisses  are 
not  correct.  Ireland  does  not  desire  independence. 
Flamboyant  speeches,  demanding  independence 
and  breathing  hostility  to  England,  may  be  useful 
for  dollar-extracting  purposes  abroad,  and  may 
appeal  to  people  whose  knowledge  of  Ireland  is 
traditional  only ;  but  such  war  cries  produce  no 
practical  echo  in  Ireland.  The  Irish  people,  .what- 
ever they  may  be,  are  not  fools.  The  destruction 
of  their  market,  even  if  they  could  accomplish  it, 
does  not  commend  itself  to  Irish  farmers  as  likely 
to  conduce  to  their  prosperity  and  welfare.  Of 
American-Irish  sentiment  I  know  little  or  nothing ; 
of  Irish-Irish  not  more  than  many  others ;  but  of 
this  I  am  certain — that,  with  the  exception,  perhaps, 
of  a  small  and  insignificant  minority,  the  people  of 
Ireland  have  no  desire  for  separation ;  it  does  not 


260  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

suggest  itself  as  a  solution  of  the  difficulties  that 
beset  them.  What  they  do  want  is  the  conduct 
of  their  own  affairs,  and  they  ardently  desire  it  for 
three  reasons :  Firstly,  to  satisfy  national  senti- 
ment ;  secondly,  because  they  believe,  and  rightly, 
that  they  could  manage  their  own  affairs  far  better 
than  they  are  managed  for  them ;  and  thirdly, 
because  they  instinctively  feel  that  the  recognition 
of  nationality  and  the  responsibility  of  government 
is  necessary  to  nourish  and  stimulate  into  activity 
those  qualities  of  enterprise,  industry,  self-con- 
fidence, and  self-respect,  which  have  withered  under 
ages  of  misgovernment,  servitude,  and  persecu- 
tion. Self-government  on  the  lines  that  have 
made  Quebec  a  loyal  partner  of  the  Dominion  and 
member  of  the  Empire  would  satisfy  Ireland  as  it 
satisfied  Quebec,  and  would  produce  similar  results. 
The  opinion  is  very  generally  held  that  any 
change  in  the  relations  of  the  three  kingdoms  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland  towards  each  other 
in  the  direction  of  decentralization  is  a  retrogressive 
step,  involving  such  a  weakening  of  the  forces  of 
connection  as  must  eventually,  and  probably 
speedily,  lead  to  the  disruption  of  the  British 
Empire.  This  political  concept  is  absolutely 
erroneous.  It  arises  from  a  misunderstanding  of 
facts,  is  contrary  to  experience,  and  cannot  be 
justified  either  in  theory  or  in  practice. 


HOME  RULE  ALL  ROUND         261 

*  • 

IRELAND'S  LONG  PROTEST  AGAINST  UNION. 

I  have  alluded  to  the  three  kingdoms — England, 
Scotland,  and  Ireland — because,  in  theory,  the 
advantages  of  decentralization  apply  equally  to  all ; 
but  I  confine  myself  to  Ireland,  because  her  circum- 
stances are  peculiar,  and  in  her  case  the  necessity 
for  change  is  urgent. 

It  is  futile  to  consider  whether  Ireland  could, 
under  any  circumstances,  have  prospered  under  the 
Union.  In  dealing  with  human  nature,  one  must 
take  facts  and  their  action  and  their  reaction  upon 
human  beings,  and  the  facts  are  that  the  Irish 
Parliament  was  abolished  without  reference  to  the 
only  authority  competent  of  such  action — the  Irish 
people — and  that  Ireland  has  not  prospered  under 
the  Union.  The  inevitable  result  is  that  the  legality 
of  the  Act  of  Union  has  been,  and  is,  consistently 
denied,  and  that  Ireland  has,  and  does,  and,  in  my 
opinion,  always  will,  attribute  her  lack  of  material 
prosperity  to  the  effects  of  the  instrument  that 
deprived  her  of  control  over  her  own  affairs. 

Though  at  the  time,  in  the  apathy  of  exhaustion, 
she  acquiesced  in  the  Union,  she  has  never  ceased 
to  protest,  and  it  will  therefore  be  conceded  that 
if  any  change  is  made  in  the  direction  of  decentra- 
lization, if  the  constitution  of  the  United  Kingdom 
is  recast  on  the  lines  of  federation,  Ireland  stands 
on  a  footing  very  different  from  Scotland  or  Eng- 
land. Ireland  bases  her  claim  for  control  over  her 


262  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

own  affairs  on  the  grounds  of  sentiment,  necessity, 
and  the  illegality  of  the  instrument  that  deprived 
her  of  that  control.  Scotland  can  plead  sentiment 
and  convenience  ;  England  convenience  only. 

Of  all  peoples  we — and  by  "  we  "  I  mean  the 
unnamed  nationality  existing  in  these  islands — are 
the  most  subject  to  self-delusion.  On  no  other 
ground  is  it  possible  to  account  for  the  sort  of 
sanctity  attached  to  the  Acts  of  the  Union.  They 
are  looked  upon  as  giving  legal  expression  to 
accomplished  facts,  as  the  outward  and  visible  sign 
of  an  inward  union,  as  the  final  phase  of  a  natural 
process  of  amalgamation,  and  any  tampering  with 
them  is  viewed  as  an  attempt  to  dissociate  forcibly 
elements  which  have  naturally  combined.  Nothing 
can  be  further  from  the  truth.  Ireland  is  governed 
by  a  Governor-General,  who  is  advised  by  his  own 
Privy  Council.  Ireland  has  a  Lord  Chancellor  all 
to  herself.  Her  system  of  jurisprudence  is  in  some 
respects  peculiar,  and  that  is  the  case  in  Scotland  to 
a  far  greater  extent.  Marriage  laws  and  customs 
lie  at  the  root  of  human  institutions.  The  English 
and  Scotch  laws  of  marriage  are  distinct,  and 
divorce  cannot  be  obtained  in  Ireland.  Under 
such  circumstances  Union  is  a  misnomer.  It  con- 
notes legislative  Union  only,  and  even  in  that  con- 
nection it  is  misapplied,  for  disputes  are  frequent 
in  Parliament  as  to  whether  some  particular  enact- 
ment should,  or  should  not,  apply  to  the  various 
units  constituting  the  so-called  United  Kingdom. 


CHANGED  CONDITIONS  263 

A  United  Kingdom  is,  we  are  told,  essential  as 
the  only  basis  upon  which  the  structure  of  a  more 
closely  connected  Empire  can  be  raised.  To  that 
I  agree,  but  the  Union  must  be  a  real  one  based 
on  mutual  advantage,  sentiment,  and  affection. 
At  present,  so  far  as  Ireland  is  concerned,  it  is  a 
sham  one  sanctioned  by  force. 

REPEAL  OF  THE  UNION  IMPOSSIBLE. 

To  repeal  the  Union  is  absurd,  so  it  is  said.  You 
might  as  well  propose  to  restore  the  Heptarchy. 
I  accept  that.  Repeal  is  out  of  the  question. 
Certain  defects  were  inherent  in  the  constitution 
of  Ireland.  Without  modification  her  Parliament 
could  not  have  adapted  itself  to  changing  condi- 
tions, and  new  circumstances.  The  vast  growth 
and  increasing  power  of  Great  Britain,  her  industrial 
development,  and  the  effects  of  steam  and  electricity 
in  modifying  time  and  space,  have  wrought  a  pro- 
found change. 

Gigantic  movements,  industrial,  social,  economic, 
and,  I  may  say,  geographical,  have  since  the  days 
of  Grattan's  Parliament  taken  place  in  Great 
Britain,  in  Ireland,  and  in  the  relations  between 
the  two  kingdoms.  Ireland  has  now  but  little 
command  of  money,  and  individually,  no  credit ; 
she  must  rely  upon  the  credit  of  the  United 
Kingdom.  Dublin  was  then  as  far  from  London 
as  New  York  is  now  from  Liverpool.  London 
and  Dublin  are  not  half  as  far  apart  now  as 


264  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

were  Dublin  and  Cork  in  those  days.  Letters 
go  from  any  part  of  Ireland  now  to  any  part  of 
England  or  Scotland  in  a  day  at  the  cost  of  one 
penny.  Time  and  space  have  been  well-nigh 
annihilated,  and  electricity  has  made  communica- 
tion between  men  almost  instantaneous.  There  is 
a  large  settled  population  of  Irish  in  Great  Britain, 
and  migratory  bodies,  chiefly  from  the  west  of 
Ireland,  find  employment  among  British  farmers 
every  autumn.  The  interchange  of  population  is 
far  greater  than  of  yore.  Many  more  English  visit 
Ireland,  chiefly  for  pleasure,  and  many  more  Irish 
visit  England,  chiefly  for  business.  The  professions 
in  Great  Britain  are  crowded  with  Irishmen,  and 
great  numbers  of  them,  in  proportion  to  the  popu- 
lation of  their  native  land,  find  an  outlet  for 
their  enterprise,  energies,  and  talents  in  the  Civil 
Service,  in  India,  and  in  the  Colonies.  In  social 
and  commercial  matters  the  lives  of  the  two  nations 
have  become  so  closely  interwoven  that  political 
issues  which  at  one  time  would  have  been  confined 
in  their  effects  to  one,  now  make  themselves  felt  in 
both. 

Some  form  of  legislative  union  in  the  shape  of 
federation  would  inevitably  have  taken  place.  But 
even  if  that  be  so,  the  time  chosen  for  proposing 
legislative  union  was  most  inopportune,  the  methods 
employed  to  carry  the  Act  were  scandalous,  and  the 
measure  was  far  too  complete.  It  deprived  Ireland 
of  all  control.  It  transferred  legislation  and  adminis- 


FAILURE  OF  THE  UNION         265 

tration  down  to  the  minutest  details  to  a  Parliamen 
sitting  in  London.  It  made  a  complete  fusion  o 
the  Legislatures,  and  aimed  at  making  a  complete 
fusion  of  the  nations.  It  succeeded  in  the  formei 
object  to  the  detriment  of  both  kingdoms,  and  it 
succeeded  partially — if  it  can  be  called  success — in 
the  latter  object,  by  stimulating  absenteeism,  and 
by  degrading  the  landed  gentry  of  the  country 
from  their  natural  position  ;  but  it  failed  to  accom 
plish  amalgamation,  and  it  was  bound  to  fail  in 
view  of  the  unalterable  characteristics  of  the  English 
and  Irish  peoples.  In  spite  of  the  intermingling  of 
interests,  and  notwithstanding  the  obliteration  of 
distance  by  electricity  and  steam,  Ireland  remains 
a  distinct  nation  with  a  character  of  her  own,  and 
a  united  Parliament  has  demonstrated  its  inability 
to  govern  Ireland,  to  enforce  law  and  order,  or  to 
administer  her  affairs  well.  The  Act  of  Union 
has  proved  a  failure  because  it  was  constructed  on 
wrong  lines,  introduced  at  the  wrong  time,  passed 
by  wrong  means.  A  legislative  union  would  have 
taken  place,  but  as  it  would  have  been  to  the 
interest  of  both  parties,  it  would  have  been  entered 
into  willingly,  and  it  would  have  been  constructed 
on  sound  federal  lines.  It  would  have  aimed  at 
unification  on  all  great  and  essential  matters,  while 
leaving  the  local  legislature  control  over  local 
affairs  as  was  originally  contemplated  by  Pitt 
It  is  on  those  lines  that  the  Union  must  be  re- 
constructed now. 


266  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

Is  FEDERATION  DESIRABLE? 

Repeal  of  the  Union  and  the  re-creation  in  Ire- 
land of  a  sovereign  independent  parliament  could 
not  be  conceded  by  Great  Britain,  it  is  not  de- 
manded by  Ireland,  and  may  be  dismissed.  The 
question  is,  Is  federation  as  between  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland  desirable  ?  What  are  the  objec- 
tions ? 

1.  That  federation  is  impossible  in  the  case  of 
kingdoms    already    united.       That    is    true,    but 
pedantic,  and  may  be  disposed  of  by  amending  the 
question,  and  asking,  Is  devolution  on  federal  lines 
desirable  ? 

2.  That   it  is  a  retrograde  step.     That   is   not 
true.     It  could  be  true  only  under  two  conditions. 
Firstly,  that  the  legislative  union  had  been  will- 
ingly arrived   at  as  the  outward   expression   and 
logical  conclusion  of  inward  union — a  proposition 
obviously  contrary  to  the  facts  ;  and,  secondly,  that 
a  legislature  capable  of  attending  to  the  affairs  of 
the    United    Kingdom  one  hundred  years  ago  is 
equally  capable  of  managing  the  vastly  extended 
business    of    the    United    Kingdom    and    of    the 
Empire  now.     That  proposition  is,  I  submit,  also 
contrary  to  the  facts.     To  remedy  a  mistake  does 
not  involve  retrogression.     The  principle  of  union 
has  not  gained  strength  under  the  Act  of  Union. 
To  amend  the  Act  is  a  step  in  advance. 

3.  That   Ireland,   being   represented   in   Parlia- 


THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  DEVOLUTION  267 

ment,  enjoys  self-governing  power,  and  that,  there- 
fore, no  change  is  needed  —  a  fallacy,  and  a 
dangerous  one,  for  on  that  theory  representation 
of  the  Dominions  on  any  Imperial  body  would  be 
for  ever  impossible. 

4.  That  Ireland  would  control  not  only  her  own 
affairs,  but  the  affairs  of  Great  Britain  also,  and 
that  under  Devolution  the  Imperial  Parliament, 
having  little  or  nothing  to  do,  would  become 
degraded.  The  first  of  these  objections  will  find 
solution  when  the  respective  functions  of  the 
superior  and  inferior  Legislatures  are  determined  ; 
and  under  a  broad  and  comprehensive  federal 
scheme  it  could  not  arise.  Whether  England, 
Scotland,  and  Wales  desire  subordinate  Parlia- 
ments is  a  question  that  the  future  will  decide. 
The  principle  is  sound,  but  their  case  is  not  quite 
on  all  fours  with  that  of  Ireland ;  and  so  far,  at 
any  rate,  as  England  is  concerned,  her  influence 
in  the  Imperial  Parliament  will  always  be  so  pre- 
dominant as  probably  to  render  the  creation  of  a 
separate  subordinate  Parliament  unnecessary  to 
secure  her  in  the  control  of  purely  English  affairs. 
On  the  second  objection  comment  is  scarcely 
necessary.  Experience  disproves  it.  The  United 
States  consists  of  forty-six  States  and  four  Terri- 
tories, all  having  their  own  legislatures.  The 
Dominion  of  Canada  contains  ten  Provinces,  each 
with  its  own  Parliament.  Six  Parliaments  are 
comprised  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  and 


268  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

South  Africa  has  four.  Germany  is  a  federation 
of  twenty-six  States  ;  and  Switzerland  is  a  federa- 
tion of  twenty-two  Cantons.  Congress  has  not 
fallen  into  ignominy  and  disrepute,  nor  have  the 
Parliaments  of  the  Dominions,  nor  have  the  central 
federal  bodies  in  the  German  and  Swiss  confedera- 
tions ;  and  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  an  Imperial 
Parliament  dealing  with  matters  common  to  the 
47,000,000  inhabitants  of  the  British  Islands  and 
supervising  the  affairs  of  an  Empire  with  a  popu- 
lation of  410,000,000,  would  find  its  hands  idle  or 
its  status  and  dignity  lowered  in  the  eyes  of  the 
world. 

5.  Fear  that  the  Protestant  minority  would  be 
exposed  to  persecution,  and  that  the  industrial  and 
wealthy  North  would  suffer  injustice  in  matters  of 
taxation.  Every  page  of  history  contradicts  the 
assumption  of  religious  or  secular  intolerance  and 
injustice  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic  majority.  But 
let  that  pass.  The  safeguarding  of  property  and  of 
all  civil  and  religious  rights  is  a  question  of  detail 
depending  upon  the  control  of  the  Imperial  Par- 
liament, or  on  the  wording  of  a  bill  of  rights  and 
the  nature  of  the  federal  arrangement  entered  into. 
Religious  liberty  and  the  rights  of  property  are 
secured  almost  too  rigidly  in  the  great  federation— 
the  United  States.  I  believe  the  fears  for  the 
minority  to  be  groundless ;  but,  be  that  as  it  may, 
they  can  be  effectually  dispelled.  The  minority 
cannot  be  guaranteed  exceptional  treatment 


A  HOSTILE  IRELAND  269 

founded  on  religious,  racial,  or  class  ascendancy, 
and  they  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  demand  it ;  but 
they  can  be  guaranteed  equality  and  fair  play, 
and  for  more  than  that  they  have  no  right  to  ask. 

6.  That  Home  Rule  could  be  used  as  a  lever  to 
raise  Ireland  to  independence,  that  independence 
would  be  utilized  as  an  instrument  of  hostility,  and 
that  the  strategic  position  of  an  hostile  Ireland 
would  imperil  Great  Britain  in  the  event  of  war. 
All  such  objections  are  founded  on  ignorance,  or 
are  derived  from  the  imagination.  Ireland  knows 
she  cannot  stand  alone.  Ireland  is  proud  of  the 
Empire  she  has  done  so  much  to  create,  and  in 
the  life  of  which  she  takes  so  honourable  a  part. 
She  will  recognize  to  the  full  the  advantages  of 
her  connection  with  Great  Britain,  and  her  Im- 
perial duties,  whenever  Great  Britain  recognizes 
the  distinct  characteristics  of  Ireland  and  the 
wisdom  of  giving  her  freedom  in  the  management 
of  her  own  affairs.  I  submit  that  satisfactory 
answers  can  be  given  to  all  the  objections  raised 
to  a  policy  of  devolution. 

BRITAIN'S  NEED  OF  DEVOLUTION. 

Devolution  is  necessary  for  Ireland  and  for  Great 
Britain.  It  is  necessary  in  order  to  restore  efficiency 
to  Parliament.  Parliament  must  be  purged  if  the 
Democracy  is  to  rule.  We  are  drifting,  if  we  have 
not  already  drifted,  into  a  bureaucratic  system, 
partially  controlled  by  an  oligarchy.  By  a  large 


270  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

delegation     of    power,     departments    have     been 
placed  beyond  parliamentary  control.     From   the 
indecent   and   fraudulent    tumult  of    an    election 
a  number  of  individuals  emerge,  the  majority  of 
whom,    however    loosely    compacted,   proceed    to 
delegate  all  authority  to  a  small  committee,  who 
become   Ministers   of  the    Crown.     They  control 
administration,    and,    so    far    as    the    House    of 
Commons    is    concerned,   legislation    also.     They 
allow  or  forbid,  lengthen  or  shorten  debate,  as  they 
will.     For  any  practical  good  that  he  can  do,  the 
private  member  has  ceased  to  exist.     The  repre- 
sentatives  of  the   people   have  become  a  sort  of 
electoral  college  for  the  creation  of  a  cabinet.     An 
oligarchy    masquerading    as    a    democracy   rules. 
Representative  government  and  parliamentary  in- 
stitutions are  becoming  a  sham. 

For  this  evil  evolution  many  reasons  may  be  given, 
but  at  the  bedrock  lies  the  inability  of  the  parlia- 
mentary machine  to  cope  with  the  stupendous  mass 
of  business  coming  before  it.  The  only  remedy  lies 
in  delegation  of  power,  not  to  irresponsible  bureaux, 
but  to  representative  bodies  responsible  to  the 
people.  Devolution  to  an  Irish  body  of  Irish  busi- 
ness is  closely  connected  with  devolution  of  a  more 
extended  character,  and,  though  confining  myself 
to  urging  a  delegation  of  authority  to  an  Irish 
body,  I  have  not  been  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  a 
more  general  delegation  may  become  necessary  to 
restore  the  Commons'  House  of  Parliament  to  the 


IMPERIAL  ASPECTS  271 

position  of  the  live  and  responding  instrument  of  a 
free  and  responsible  people ;  and  that  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Second  Chamber  and  the  relations 
between  the  two  branches  of  the  Legislature  must 
be  dealt  with.  The  constitutional  problem  must 
be  viewed  as  a  whole.  If  the  people  are  to  rule,  if 
the  democracy  is  to  conduct  the  United  Kingdom 
and  the  Empire  along  the  lines  that  destiny  has 
marked,  the  democracy  must  learn  the  lesson  all 
democracies  have  had  to  learn — the  duty  of  pro- 
tecting itself  against  itself.  A  strong,  well- 
balanced  constitution,  finding  expression  in  a 
Parliament  free  to  exercise  the  high  functions 
entrusted  to  it,  is  necessary  if  the  democracy  is 
really  to  rule. 

A  FEDERATED  EMPIRE. 

With  the  scheme  of  federation  within  the  three 
Kingdoms  the  vision  of  a  federated  Empire  is 
bound  up.  Speculation  as  to  the  form  which 
Imperial  unity  may  take  would  be  out  of  place  here  ; 
but  this  much  is  certain.  Parliament,  in  the  con- 
dition in  which  it  is  now — controlled  by  log-rolling, 
paralyzed  by  congestion,  rent  on  such  a  funda- 
mental question  as  the  relations  between  the  two 
Houses,  or  perhaps  on  the  still  graver  question 
whether  it  is  to  consist  of  two  Chambers  or  one — 
can  offer  no  attraction  to  the  great  Dominions  over- 
sea, nor  is  it  likely  to  create  a  body  on  which  they 
would  consent  to  be  represented.  If  ever  their 


272  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

voices  are  to  be  heard  in  a  council  of  the  Empire, 
that  council  must  emanate  from  or  be  a  Parliament 
worthy  of  the  Empire.  Stability  of  Parliament,  and 
of  the  constitution  it  acts  under,  is  a  condition  pre- 
cedent to  Imperial  consolidation.  A  consolidated 
Empire  is  but  a  vision,  it  may  be  said.  Well,  yes  ; 
but  not  an  idle  dream.  Thought  precedes  action,  and 
imagination  precedes  thought,  visions  materialize 
and  dreams  may  come  true.  It  is  a  dream  which, 
if  converted  into  substance  by  any  party,  would 
entitle  that  party  to  be  styled,  "  the  Democratic 
and  the  Unionist  Party."  But  such  matters  should 
not  be  the  prey  of  party.  The  majority  of  both 
the  great  political  parties  are  near  enough  in  their 
views  on  great  questions  to  make  compromise  and 
construction  feasible.  Party  considerations,  the 
necessity  of  disagreement  for  party  purposes,  distort 
the  view,  exaggerate  difficulties  and  cause  obstacles 
and  details  to  assume  dimensions  out  of  all  propor- 
tion to  their  true  size  and  shape.  In  ordinary 
affairs  the  fierce  criticism  of  party  is  invaluable, 
but  a  constitutional  question  of  such  magnitude 
should  be  raised  above  party,  and  should  at  least 
be  dispassionately  discussed  with  the  honest  hope 
of  reconciling  those  few  differences  which  lie  at 
the  root  of  the  many  differences  manifested  in  the 
organization  of  parties. 

Is,  then,  devolution  on  federal  lines  desirable  ? 
For  the  reasons  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  pages  I 
believe  it  to  be  desirable — nay,  essential — in  the 


IRELAND  BARS  THE  ROAD       273 

interest  of  Ireland,  of  Great  Britain,  and  of  the 
Empire.  It  would  satisfy  the  vast  majority  of  th 
people  of  Ireland  and  become  a  permanent  settle- 
ment. It  would  relieve  the  House  of  Commons  of 
a  mass  of  business  with  which,  under  present  cir- 
cumstances, it  is  impossible  for  it  efficiently  to 
deal.  It  would  strengthen  the  union  of  the  three 
kingdoms,  and  by  so  doing  would  tend  to  con- 
solidate the  Empire.  It  would  add  to  the  strength 
of  the  Empire  as  a  world  Power. 

COLONIAL  AND  AMERICAN  SENTIMENT. 

A  quarter  of  a  century  has  passed  since  Mr. 
Gladstone's  struggle  for  Home  Rule.  All  the 
circumstances  have  changed.  Ireland  is  not  the 
same  Ireland ;  England  is  not  the  same  England ; 
the  Empire  is  not  the  same  Empire ;  and  there  is  a 
growing  movement  towards  some  sort  of  federation 
of  the  Empire  and  some  practical  recognition  of 
the  fact  that  a  good  understanding  between  all 
English-speaking  peoples  makes  for  civilization  and 
peace.  The  conditions  underlying  the  solution  of 
the  Irish  problem  are  very  different  from  those  of  a 
quarter  of  a  century  ago ;  but  one  fact  remains — 
Ireland  bars  the  road  to  a  better  control  of  the 
affairs  of  the  United  Kingdom,  to  closer  relations 
with  the  Oversea  Dominions,  and  to  the  conclusion 
of  an  arbitration  treaty  between  all  the  English- 
speaking  peoples  which  may  lift  from  them  some- 
thing of  the  shadow  of  war  and  of  the  increasing 

18 


274  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

burden   of  armaments,  and  which   might   set   an 
example  of  the  gospel  of  peace. 

Irish  sentiment  is  a  powerful  factor  in  the  politics 
of  the  United  States.  In  all  the  great  Dominions 
it  makes  itself  felt.  Chary  as  they  naturally  are 
of  appearing  to  wish  to  interfere  in  our  domestic 
affairs,  the  opinions  of  responsible  statesmen  in  the 
Oversea  Dominions  of  the  Crown  that  a  settle- 
ment of  the  Irish  question  would  be  a  relief  to 
them  and  a  strengthening  of  the  Empire  cannot  be 
ignored. 

Unionists  must  cease  to  look  at  the  problem  in 
the  dim  light  of  the  past,  and  must  consider  it  in 
view  of  things  as  they  are  now  and  of  questions  to 
be  settled  in  the  future. 

The  wisdom  and  justice  of  the  case  for  Home 
Rule  has  been  temporarily  compromised  by  the 
insane  policy  of  pinning  it  on  to  the  skirts  of  con- 
stitutional revolution  or  reform  ;  but  that  phase  will 
pass.  Federation  is  the  only  principle  on  which 
Home  Rule  can  be  accomplished.  A  strong  second 
chamber — a  stable,  well-balanced  constitution — is 
essential  to  the  principle  of  federation. 

The  success  of  the  Land  Conference  ten  years  ago 
produced  a  marked  change  in  Ireland  in  favour  of 
conciliatory  methods ;  a  new  spirit  arose  which,  in 
spite  of  all  efforts  to  extinguish  it,  persists  and  grows. 
A  strong  sentiment  of  conservatism,  in  the  best 
and  largest  sense,  has  been  created  by  land  pur- 
chase. Ireland  will,  when  she  gets  control  over  her 


UNIONIST  POLICY  275 

own  affairs  on  federal  lines,  be  playing  to  a  gallery 
of  Irish  opinion  throughout  the  Empire  and  the 
United  States,  content  that  her  legitimate  demands 
have  been  complied  with,  and  expecting  her  to  use, 
and  not  to  abuse,  the  privileges  conferred  upon  her. 
All  these  matters  must  be  fairly  considered  by 
Unionists.  The  old  non  possumus  attitude  of  the 
Unionist  Party  towards  Ireland  is  obsolete  and 
dangerous  —  obsolete  because  all  the  conditions 
creating  it  have  changed,  and  dangerous  because 
the  continuance  of  the  open  sore  in  Ireland  is  a 
scandal  to  the  Empire  and  a  source  of  irritation 
throughout  the  English-speaking  world.  * 

THE  CINDERELLA  OF  THE  FAMILY. 

That  Ireland,  the  Cinderella  of  the  family,  is 
destined  to  play  so  important  a  part  in  the  pageant 

*  A  significant  statement  of  the  new  Irish  problem  was  made 
by  Mr.  J.  L.  Garvin  in  the  Fortnightly  Revieiv  of  November,  1910, 
and  Mr.  Garvin's  attachment  to  the  Unionist  Party  is  above 
suspicion  :  "  It  is  only  one  acute  sign  of  the  fact  known  to 
everyone  who  makes  a  candid  study  of  American  conditions  that 
there  is  no  possibility  not  only  of  an  alliance,  but  of  a  close 
rapprochement,  or  even  of  a  permanent  treaty  of  arbitration, 
between  the  British  Empire  and  the  American  Republic  while 
the  Irish  question  remains  on  its  present  footing.  To  place  it 
on  a  different  footing  has  become  one  of  the  chief  needs  of  our 
foreign  policy.  Further,  we  have  to  reckon  with  the  senti- 
ment ofthe  self-governing  Dominions. .  . .  To  the  Dominions,  our 
dealing  with  this  question  in  the  twentieth  century,  in  spite 
of  the  immense  changes  of  the  last  twenty  years  in  every 
single  aspect  of  our  policy,  external  and  internal,  seems  to  be 
madness." 


276  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

of  Empire  is  a  notable  example  of  the  irony 
of  fate.  Yet  it  is  so.  Ireland's  grievance  and 
her  persistent  efforts  to  find  redress  have  created 
a  parliamentary  situation  that  has  forced  atten- 
tion to  the  suffocating  results  of  a  congestion  of 
business  in  the  House  of  Commons  which  must 
be  relieved  if  Parliament  is  to  exercise  more 
than  a  nominal  control  over  the  affairs  of  the 
State. 

The  probable  results  of  devolution  to  Ireland 
must  be  viewed  with  the  eye  of  faith.  It  is  im- 
possible to  express  in  any  definite  terms  the 
energizing  effect  of  satisfied  national  sentiment 
upon  the  moral  and  industrial  attributes  of  a 
community.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that,  looking 
at  communities  in  general,  and  upon  Ireland  in 
particular,  legislative  and  administrative  responsi- 
bility reacts  favourably  upon  the  social  and 
economic  life  of  a  people,  and  that  Ireland  is 
disposed  to  make  a  good  use  of  opportunities 
offered  to  her.  Those  who  know  Ireland  best 
will  agree  with  me  in  saying  that,  in  spite  of  moral 
cowardice  and  suspicion,  the  damnable  legacy  of 
bad  government,  the  whole  sentiment  of  Ireland  is 
towards  the  development  of  her  natural  resources, 
and  is  in  favour  of  peace  at  home,  friendship  to- 
wards Great  Britain,  and  a  due  appreciation  of 
Imperial  privileges  and  duties. 

The  experiment  is  not  a  novel  one.  It  has  been 
tried,  and  with  success,  in  all  the  great  self-govern- 


THE  PARTING  OF  THE  WAYS     277 

ing  Colonies,  and  Continental  nations  have  not 
found  it  a  failure.  That  it  must  meet  with  great 
difficulties  in  Ireland,  I  am  very  ready  to  admit. 
Public  opinion  might  form  but  slowly.  It  would 
take  time  for  all  that  is  best  in  the  character  of  the 
nation  to  assert  itself.  A  people  cannot  be  ex- 
pected to  scrape  off  in  a  moment  all  the  moral 
accretions  of  a  dismal  past  and  to  emerge  at  once 
into  the  condition  of  a  wise,  prudent,  self-governing 
community,  but  great  is  the  charm  of  property 
and  wonderful  the  magic  of  responsibility.  That 
Ireland  would  win  her  way,  though  perhaps 
through  many  obstacles  and  difficulties,  to  a  con- 
dition of  good  government,  contentment,  pros- 
perity, and  peace,  there  is  no  good  reason  to 
doubt. 

With  the  eye  of  faith  also  must  the  larger  issues 
be  regarded,  avoiding  stumbling-blocks  of  detail, 
and  trusting  to  the  instincts  of  a  masterful  people 
and  the  destinies  of  the  Empire.  Of  one  thing 
there  can  be  little  doubt.  We  are  approaching,  if 
we  have  not  reached,  the  parting  of  the  ways. 
Immobility  is  impossible.  We  must  go  downwards 
towards  the  misery  inseparable  from  degradation  to 
the  condition  of  an  isolated  and  decaying  State,  or 
upwards  towards  the  prosperity  incidental  to  the 
condition  of  a  great  and  growing  Imperial  State. 
Whether  the  curve  is  to  be  upward  or  downward, 
whether,  contraction  or  expansion  is  to  be  our  fate, 
depends,  as  it  seems  to  me,  upon  whether,  through 


278  IRELAND'S  FUTURE 

the  foresight  of  our  statesmen  and  the  wisdom  of 
our  people,  adequate  means  are  taken  to  set  our 
house  in  order,  and  to  adapt  our  constitution  and 
our  institutions  to  the  demands  which  expansion 
must  make  upon  them. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORITIES  AND 
OPINIONS  QUOTED 


ABERCROMBIE,  General  Sir  Ralph,   | 
87,  88 

Adams,  Mrs.,  92 

Adrian  IV.,  Pope,  Bull  of,  to 
Henry  II.,  10-13 

Armagh,  finding  of  the  magis- 
trates of,  79 

Carte,  Thomas,  52,  55 
Chatham,  Earl  of,  73 
Clanricarde,  Earl  of,  56 
Clare,  Lord,  134 
Clogy,  Alexander,  49 
Cole,  Sir  William,  51 

Davis,  H.  W.  C.,  "England 
under  the  Normans  and  An- 
gevins,"  9  n. 

Davis,  Sir  John,  38,  40,  110, 
123 

Fitzwilliam,  Lord,  82 
Flood,  Henry,  135 
Foster,  John,  175 
Four  Masters,  Annals  of  the,  31, 
32 

Garvin,  J.  L.,  275  n. 

Gordon,  Loyalist  historian,  101 

Grattan,  Henry,  80,  81,  153,  174 

Harvey,  Bagenall,  104 
Holinshed,  Raphael,  30,  32 


Kildare,  Countess  of,  46 
Knox,  Alexander,  176 

Lalor,  James  Fintan,  228 
Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  36,  53,  72, 195  n. 

Macaulay,  Lord,  25 
Mitchell,  John,  "  History  of  Ire- 
land," 222  n. 
Molyneux,  William,  169 
Montesquieu,  Baron  de,  169 

O'Brien,  W.  P.,  215-217 
O'Neill,  Sir  Phelim,  54 
Ormonde,  Earl  of,  63 

Parnell,  Sir  John,  134 
Pitt,  William,  170 
Pius  V.,  Pope,  Bull  of,  21  n. 
Preston,  General,  51 

St.  Leger,  Sir  W.,  246 
Smith,  Adam,  169 
Smith,  Goldwin,  40  n. 
Spenser,  Edmund,  30 

Taylor,  J.  F.,  108  n. 
Tone,  Wolfe,  86 

United  Irishmen,  pledge  of,  77 
Usher,  Archbishop,  31 

Young,  Arthur,  70,  208-213 


279 


GENERAL  INDEX 


ABERCROMBIE,  General  Sir  Ralph, 

87,88 

Abjuration  Oath,  131 
Adrian  IV.,  Pope,  9,  10 

Bull  of,  to  Henry  II.,  10-13, 

14,  16,  19 
Agriculture,  30,  31,  37,  70,  114, 

205,  209,  210,  227,  235,  236 
Alexander  III.,  Pope,  9  n. 
Allegiance,  Oath  of,  131 
Alva,  Duke  of,  26,  61 
American  War  of  Independence, 

73,  74,  166 
Anglo-Norman    settlements,    17, 

24,  202 
Anne,    Queen   of  England,    130, 

168,  179 
Antrim,  94 
Ardglass,  117 
Ards,  Barony  of,  95 
Arklow,  97 
Armagh,  53,  78,  79 
Augher,  53 
Aughrim,  78 

Ballinahinch,  95 

Ballymena,  95 

Bantry,  31,  86,  117 

Barrymore,  Lord,  46 

Becket,  Thomas  a,  16 

Bedell,  Bishop,  107 

Belfast,  55,  74,  76,  95 

Belturbet,  54 

Beresford,  John,  83 

Birr,  55 

Bolton,  Sir  Richard,  149 

Bond,  Oliver,  89 

Boulavogue,  96 

Boyne,  Battle  of  the,  65,  66,  78 


Brehon  law,  34,  36,  199 
Burgh,  Walter  Hussey,  151 
Bushe,  Charles  K.,  187 
Butler,  Simon,  76 
Butt,  Isaac,  253 

Camden,  Lord,  87 
Canning,  George,  189 
Carew,  George,  30 
Carlow,  93,  94 
Carrick  Magryffid,  55 
Castlehaven,  Lord,  59 
Castlereagh,  Lord,  176 
Catholic  Association,  the,  81 
Catholic  emancipation  : 

approved  by  the  Cabinet,  82 
and    by   the    Protestant    in- 
habitants, 83 
but  resisted  by  "The  Castle," 

83 

and  not  granted  for   thirty- 
five  years,  84 
Pitt's  desire  for,  167,  170 
an  argument  for  the  Union, 

172 

but  Act  not  passed  for  twenty- 
nine  years,  192 
too  long  deferred,  192,  215, 

217,  248 
Cattle  Act,  124 
Caulfield,  Dr.,  Roman  Catholic 

Bishop,  99 

Charlemont,  Lord,  77,  79,  175 
Charles  I.,  King  of  England,  24, 

27,  28,  44,  45,  47,  56,  60,  144 
Charles  II.,  King  of  England,  28, 

47,  63,  146,  203 

Charter  of   Irish   Independence, 
160 


280 


INDEX 


281 


Chieftainship,  elective,  8 
Church  in  Ireland,,  the,  15,  231 
Eastern  in  tradition  and  cus- 
tom, 15 
throws  off  the  authority  of 

Canterbury,  15 
Civilization  in  Ireland,  4,  13,  37, 

115 

Civil  War  of  1688,  the,  06,  146 
Clanricarde,  Earl  of,  19,  50,  55, 

59 

Clare,  Lord,  83,  167,  185 
Cloghoughter,  54 
Clorimel,  55 
Clontarf,  Battle  of,  251 
Cobdeii,  Richard,  227 
Coligny,  Admiral,  26 
Commerce,  14,  17,  37,    70,    82, 
114,    115-130,    134-136,    146, 
147,    148,   151,  152,  153,  161- 
164,  166, 171, 172,  224,  227,  244 
Composition   of  Connaught,    41, 

42,  44,  49,  201,  203,  245 
Con-acre,  216 
Corbridge,  53 
Cork,   47,    117,    123,    171,    184, 

264 

Cork,  Earl  of,  46,  127 
Corn  Laws,  208 
Cornwallis,  Lord,  186 
Corry,  Lord,  187 
Council.     See  Parliament 
Cromwell,  Oliver,  Protector,  24, 
27,  40,  47,  58-66,  128,  145,  168, 
194 

Cromwell,  Richard,  Protector,  47 
Cromwellian  Campaign,  1649,  58- 

66 

under  strict  discipline,  60 
decrease  of  population  during, 

61 
wholesale  confiscation  as   its 

result,  62 

its  objects  and  character,  63 
Crosby,  Sir  Edward,  93 
Curragh  of  Kildare,  the,  93 

Deasy's  Act,  1860,  231 
De  Burgos,  the,  42 
Declaration  of  rights,  the,  81  n 
"Defenders,"  74,76,  77,  78,  79, 

81,  85,  103 
Deputy.     See  Lord -Lieutenant 


Desmond,  Earl  of,  18,  19,  32,  38 
Devolution,  269-271 
Dickey,  James,  104 
Dingle,  31,  117 
Discoverers,  40 
Disestablishment     of    the     Irish 

Church,  231,  232 
Dixon,  Thomas,  99 
Drogheda,  54,  61,  117 
Dublin,  29,  54,  55,  61,  76,  78,  81, 

106,  117,  119,  122,   134,   184, 

214,  263 
Dundalk,  55,  77 
Dungannon,  117, 154 

Edward   III.,  King  of  England, 

65,  168 

Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  8, 
18,  19,  21,  24,  25,  26,  27,  28, 
33,  35,  60,  64,  110,  120,  141 
Emigration,  67,   68,  70,  73,  81, 

193-196 

Emmet,  Thomas,  75,  89 
Encumbered  Estates  Court,  223, 

238 
England's  reasons  for  war  against 

Ireland,  20,  21 
English  misconceptions,  117 

policy  towards  Ireland  mis- 
taken, 2,  125,  127,  128, 
243-246 

treachery,  29,  30,  245,  246 
Enniscorthy,  96,  98 
Essex,  Earl  of,  29 

Famine,  the  Great,  208,  218-228, 

235,  239 

Federation,  266,  271,  272,  274 
Fennell,     member    of    Supreme 

Council,  59 
Fermanagh,  53 
Feudal  system,  5,  18,  22,  23,  34, 

42,  201,  204 

Fitzgerald,  Lord  Edward,  89,  90 
Fitzjames,  Duke  of,  67 
Fitzwilliam,  Lord,  82,  83,  84,  87, 

89 

Flood,  Henry,  135,  151,  217 
Forty-shilling     freeholder,     215, 

216 

Foster,  John,  162,  175,  185,  187 
Freedom  to  trade,  151-153 
Free  Trade,  227,  228 


282 


INDEX 


French  Revolution,  73,  74,  80,  85, 

86,  102,  103,  166 
French  troops,  landing  of,  86, 171 
Frobisher,  Sir  Martin,  120 

Galway,  55,  117,  121,  123 
George  I.,  King  of  England,  130, 

148,  157 
George  II. ,  King  of  England,  130, 

150 
George  III.,  King  of  England,  150, 

153, 155,  156, 157,  158, 163,  192 
Gilbert,  Sir  Humphrey,  30,  120 
Gladstone,  W.  E.,  226,  232 
Glamorgan,  Earl  of,  58 
Goold,  Thomas,  187 
Gorey,  96,  97 
Gosford,  Lord,  79 
Graces,  the,  44,  45,  245 
Grattan,  Henry,  80, 134, 151,  154, 

155,  156,  159,  160,  174 
Grogan,  Cornelius,  100,  101 

Habeas  Corpus  Act  suspended,  89 

Haggardstown,  93 

Harvey,  Bagenal,  91,  97, 100, 104 

Harvie,  Captain,  31 

"Hearts  of  Steel/' 71 

Henry  II.,  King  of  England,  8,  9, 

16,  41,  137,  138,  142,  145,  203, 

231,  250 

Henry  III.,  King  of  England,  138 
Henry  VIII.,  King  of  England,  8, 

10,  17,  120,  139,  246 
Hoche,  General,  86 
Home  Rule,  229,  230,  257,  269 
Hospitality  of  the  Irish,  38 

Inchiquin,  Lord,  58,  59,  60 
Intermarriage,   laws   against,   40, 

65,  130 
Ireland,  early  condition  of,  1 

extermination  of  the  race  the 
object  of  the  English  con- 
quest, 1,  2,  33,  39.  40,  114, 
124 
vitality  of  the  race,  2,  34,  64, 

107,  112,  114,  124,  135 
never  felt  the  direct  influence 

of  the  Roman  Empire,  4 
before  the  Conquest,  6-9 
its  power  of  assimilating  other 
races,  13,  17,  64,  65,  112, 
122,  201 


Ireland,  her  missionary  activities, 

13 
general  qualities  of  the  race, 

106-111 

more  law-abiding  than  Eng- 
land, 111 

See  also  under  Agricul- 
ture,    Anglo-Norman 
Settlements,  Chieftain- 
ship,         Civilization, 
Commerce,      Emigra- 
tion, Military  History, 
Nationality,       Parlia- 
ment, Prosperity  ,Wars 
Irish  Brigade,  the,  67,  194 
Irish  Reform  Association,  170 

James  I.,  King  of  England,  28, 

43,  44,  142,  194,  203 
James  II.,  King  of  England,  65, 

66 

John,  King  of  England,  138 
Jones,  General,  59 

Kenmare,  Lord,  81 

Keogh,  Matthew,  91,  97,  98,  99, 

100,  101 
Kildare,  tenth  Earl  of,  18,  245, 

250 

Kildare,  sixteenth  Earl  of,  46 
Kilkenny,  56 
Kilmacthomas,  96 
Kingsborough,  Lord,  98 
Kinsale,  31,  117 

Lake,  General,  89 

Lalor,  James  Fintan,  208,  228,  229 

Land  Act  of  1903,  43,  233,  247, 

248,  252,  253,  254,  256 
Land  hunger,  35-38,  39,  129 
Land,  ownership  of,  24,  62,  69, 

196-200,    202,   206,   207,   210, 

213,    214,   221,    223-225,    228- 

240,  256 
Land  tenure,  18,  21,  34,  42,  69, 

130,  173,  196-201,  204-213 
Lawrence,  English  M.P.,  175 
Leinster,  Duke  of,  79 
Lestrange,  Colonel,  97 
Limerick,  66,  107,  117,  123,  184 

Treaty  of,  66,  192,  245 
Lisburn,  95 
Loftus,  Sir  Arthur,  51 
Londonderry,  78 


INDEX 


283 


Lord-Lieutenant,  19,,  45,  59,  82, 
87,  88,  138,  140,  145,  152,  155, 
150,  158,  186,  245 

Lucas,  Charles,  149 

McCormick,  Richard,  89 
McCracken,  Henry  Joy,  94 
McNevin,  William  James,  89 
Malone,  Anthony,  151 
Manchester  School  of  Economics, 

222,  223,  226,  237 
Manufactures.     See  Commerce 
Mary  Queen  of  England,  20,  25, 

26,  109,  110,  202 
Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  27 
Maryborough,  202 
Maynooth,  46 
Middleman,  the,  210-214 
Military  history  of  Irish,67, 194, 195 
Mitchell,  John,  229 
Molyneux,  William,  149,  169 
Monastereven,  93 
Monk,  George,  60 
Monro,  Robert,  59 
Moore,  General,  99,  100 
Mountgarret,  Lord,  46,  55,  56,  76 
Mountjoy,  Lord,  30 
Munro,  Henry,  95 
Murphy,  Father  John,  96 
Murphy,  Father  Michael,  97 
Muskerry,  Lord,  46,  58 

Nationality,  Irish  conception  of, 

4,5,6 

Navigation  Act,  124-127 
New  Ross,  97,  104,  107 
Newtown  Barry,  97 

"Oak  Boys,"  71 

O'Connell,  Daniel,  218,  221,  253 

O'Connors,  the,  202 

O'Connor,  Arthur,  89 

O'Dempsies,  the,  202 

O'Moores,  the,  202 

O'Neill,  first  Viscount,  95 

O'Neill,  Sir  Brian,  29 

O'Neill,  Conn,  afterwards  first  Earl 

of  Tyrone,  23 
O'Neill,  Hugh,  37 
O'Neill,  Owen  Roe,  53,  55,  58, 

59,60 

O'Neill,  Sir  Phelim,  53,  54,  55 
O'Neill,   Shane,    second   Earl   of 

Tyrone,  18,  19,  23,  29, 37,  245 


"  Orangemen,"  74,  77,  78,  79,  85, 

185 

O'Reilly,  Philip,  54 
Ormond,  Earl  of,  19,  32,  51,  58, 

59,  60,  62 

Ormonde,  second  Marquess  of,  218 
Ossory,  Earl  of,  47 
Oulart,  96 

Pale,  the,  17,  49,  51,  57,  126 
Parliament,  Irish,  45,  72,  75,  77, 
79, 125,  126, 132,  134, 136, 
137-194,  214 

historical  sketch  of,  137-192 
and  the  Act  of  Union,  185- 

189,  246 

Parnell,  C.  S.,  253 
< '  Peep-of-Day  Boys,"  74,  77,  78, 

79,  85,  103 

Pelham,  Sir  William,  30,  32 
Penal  Laws,  68,  129-133, 149, 150 
Percie,  Sir  Richard,  31 
Perrot,  Sir  John,  41,  110,  141 
Persecution   for    religion,   24-29, 

131 
absence  of,  on  the  part  of  the 

Irish,  109-111 

of  majority  by  minority,  129 
Peter's  Pence,  15 
Philip  II.,  King  of  Spain,  26,  60, 

202 

Phillipstown,  202 
Pirn,  Joshua,  162 
Pitt,  William,  82,  162,  163,  167, 

170,  185,  188,  189,  265 
Plantation  of  Connaught,  43,  45 
Plantation  of  Ulster,  43,  69 
Plunket,  William  C.,  187 
Political     societies.       See     "De- 
fenders,"  "Hearts    of    Steel," 
"Oak    Boys,"    "Orangemen," 
"Peep-of-Day     Boys,"    United 
Irishmen,  "  Whiteboys  " 
Ponsonby,  George,  79,  187 
Population,  61,  67,  159,  215 

decrease  in,  at  close  of  war  in 

1652,  61 
about  100,000  emigrated  after 

the  Civil  War,  67 
450,000  Irish  soldiers  died  in 
the  French  service  between 
1691  and  1745,  195 
Portadown,  53 


284 


INDEX 


Portaferry,  95 
Portland,,'  Duke  of,  67,  82 
Poynings'  Act,  1494,  140,  156 
Preston,  General,  afterwards  Vis- 
count Tara,  58,  59 
Prosperity  in  Ireland,  14 
three  periods  of,  115 
before   the    invasion    of  the 

northmen,  115 
for  five  centuries  till  1663, 

116-127 

under  Grattan's  Parliament, 
134-136 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  120 
Randalstown,  95 

Rebellion  of  1641,  its  origin 
purely  agrarian,  47,  48 

numbers  massacred  greatly 
exaggerated,  48 

motives  differed  in  the  four 
Provinces,  49,  50 

atrocities  of  the  Army,  50-52 

contrasted  with  the  actions  of 
rebels,  53-58 

truce  signed  between  Charles 
I.  and  confederated  Catho- 
lics, 57 

Rebellion  of  1798,  an  attempt  to 
overthrow  constituted  au- 
thority, 72 

the  discontent  that  caused  it 
stimulated  by  the  American 
War  of  Independence  and 
the  French  Revolution,  72  ; 
and  by  political  societies, 
74-78 

the  violence  of  the  conflict 
attributable  to  the  "  Peep- 
of-Day  Boys"  and  "De- 
fenders," 79,  and  to  rejec- 
tion of  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion, 82 

summary  of  the  position  be- 
fore the  outbreak,  84-85 

the  attitude  of  France,  86 

failure  of,  89,  93 

only  formidable  in  Wicklow 
and  Wexford,  90;  where 
religion  was  the  prominent 
factor,  91  ;  though  to  re- 
possess the  land  was  the 
rebels'  chief  motive,  92 


Rebellion  of  1798,  fighting  at 
Monastereven,  C  a  r  1  o  w, 
Haggardstown,  in  County 
Meath,  and  at  the  Curragh, 
93 

commenced  in  Counties  An- 
trim  and   Down,  but  was 
quickly       suppressed       in 
Ulster,  94,  95 
incidents    in    Wicklow    and 

Wexford,  96-99 
its  close,  100-101 
causes  of  defeat,  101-105 
might  have  been  averted,  101 
its  results,  106,  170,  179 
Rebellions,  wrongly  so-called,  18, 

19,  194,  202,  245 
Regent,  Prince,  165 
Risings  since  1798,  105 
Roche,  Edward,  98 
Roche,  Father  Philip,  98,  99,  100 
Roman  Catholic  religion,  formally 
forbidden  under  Elizabeth, 
20 
absolutely  prohibited    under 

Cromwell,  64 

disabilities  of  adherents  dis- 
approved of  by  Grattan  and 
the  Whig  Club,  80 
See  also  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion and  Penal  Laws 
Roman  civilization  influenced  Ire- 
land through  Gaul,  4 
Roman  Empire,  its  influence  on 

Irish  civilization,  4,  5 
Ross,  31 
Rutland,  Duke  of,  170 

St.   Leger,  Sir  William,  51,  55, 

246 

Sarsfield,  Patrick,  66 
Saurin,  William,  187 
Scandinavian  raids,  13,  15,  202 
Scullabogue,  91,  104 
Settlement,  Acts  of,  146,  147,  160 
Shannon,  Lord,  79 
Sheridan,  R.  B.,  185,  189 
Shrule  Bridge,  55 
Sligo,  ]  17 

Spenser,  Edmund,  32,  65,  118 
Stratford,  Earl  of,  Thomas  Went- 

worth,  45,  47,  144,  145 
Swift,  Jonathan,  149 


INDEX 


285 


Tandy,,  Napper,  76,  77 

Three  Rocks,  96,  98,  99,  100 

Tithe  Commutation  Act,  190 

Tone,  Wolfe,  74-77,  86 

Trade.     See  Commerce 

Tribal   System,  5,  7,  8,  17,   18, 

22,  23,  34,  42,  206,  230,  234, 

249 
Tyrone,   Earl  of.      See   O'Neill, 

Conn 

"Undertakers,"  69,  70 

Union,   Act  of,  1800,    106,   137, 

173,  180, 185-189,  208,  214, 

261,  262,  266 
early  Irish  projects  for,  168- 

171 

arguments  for,  171-173 
opposition  to,  173-177 
consequences  of,  177  180 
differences  between  that  with 

Scotland  and  with  Ireland, 

178,  179 
the  constitutional  issue,  180- 

183 
extent  of   popular    hostility 

uncertain,      bribery      un- 
doubted, 183-185 
repeal  of,  impossible,  263-265 


Union  under  the  Commonwealth, 

128,  145-146,  178 
"United  Irishmen,"  74,   76,   77, 

79,  80,  85,  89,  94,  102-103,  185 

Vikings  in  Ireland,  the,  115 
Vinegar  Hill,  96,  97,  98,  100 
Volunteer  movement  of  1779, 133, 
151-154,  157,  185,  251 

Wars  in  Ireland,  their  transitory, 

physical,  and   enduring   moral 

effect,  33,  34 

Waterford,  31,  55,  117,  123 
Wentworth,   Thomas,  afterwards 

Earl  of  Strafford.    See  Stratford, 

Earl  of 
Wexford,  90,  91,  92,  95-99,  100, 

117,  184 

Whig  Club,  the,  79,  80 
"  Whiteboys,"  71,  72 
William  III.,  King  of  England, 

65,  78,  130,  147 
Williamson,  Rev.,  94 
Wilmot,  Sir  Charles,  31 
Wyndham's  Act.    See  Land  Act  of 

1903 

Youghal,  117 

Young,  Arthur,  70,  208-213,  235 


BJLiJNG  AND  SONS,    LTD.,    PRINTERS,   OUILDKORD 


Questions  of  the  Day"  Series 


FALLACIES    AND     FACTS.      An    Answer    to 

"  Compulsory  Service."  By  Field-Marshal  Earl  Roberts,  V.C., 
K.G.  Second  Impression.  Crown  8vo.  2s.  6d.  net. 

COMPULSORY  SERVICE.    By  General  Sir  Ian 

Hamilton.     With    an    Introduction    by   the   Viscount   Haldane 
of  Gloan.     2s.  6d.  net. 
Second  Edition,  with  Notes  on  the  Admiralty  View  of  the  Risk  of  Invasit  n. 

The  Daily  Telegraph  says  : — "  A  singularly  lucid  and  important  statement 
by  the  First  Sea  Lord  of  the  Admiralty  on  the  peril  of  invasion.  ...  It  may 
be  hoped  that  these  words  of  solemn  warning  will  sink  deep  into  the  hearts 
of  the  business  men  of  the  country." 

The  Army  and  Navy  Gazette  says  : — "  This  volume  is  one  that  all  students 
of  Imperial  Defence  will  welcome.  .  .  .  The  whole  memorandum  is  the  work 
of  a  master  of  his  subject,  able  to  bring  to  the  aid  of  his  arguments  a  literary 
style  of  exceptional  grace." 

THE  CASE  AGAINST  FREE  TRADE.     By  the 

Venerable  Archdeacon  W.  Cunningham,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge  ;  Author  of  ' '  The  Growth  of  English  Commerce 
and  Industry,"  "  Rise  and  Decline  of  Free  Trade,"  etc.,  etc. 
Crown  8vo. 

SIGNS  OF  CHANGING  OPINION  ;  THE  SHORTSIGHTEDNESS  OF  FREE 
TRADE  ;  ITS  EXAGGERATIONS  ;  ITS  INSISTENCE  ON  MECHANISM  ;  ITS 
INCONSISTENCIES  ;  ITS  CORRUPTING  INFLUENCE. 

IRISH   AFFAIRS   AND   THE    HOME    RULE 

QUESTION.  A  Comparison  of  the  Attitude  of  Political 
Parties  towards  Irish  Problems.  By  Philip  G.  Cambray.  With 
an  Introduction  by  the  Marquess  of  Londonderry,  K.G.  Demy 
8vo,  3s.  6d.  net. 

The  Home  Rule  Question  is  examined  in  its  various  aspects.  Light  is 
thrown  on  the  aims  of  its  supporters,  and  its  results  are  shown  to  be  without 
benefit  to  Ireland.  Emphasis  is  laid  on  the  constructive  side  of  the  Unionist 
policy  as  materially  assisting  Ireland's  progress  and  improving  the  condition 
of  her  people.  The  tendencies  of  thought  and  action  of  the  "new"  Ireland 
that  is  arising  on  the  foundation  of  common  sense  are  described  in  relation  to 
the  old  agitation  based  on  the  doctrine  of  "hatred"  and  militant  nationality. 


"  Questions  of  the  Day"  Series — continued 

EAST  AND  WEST.  Based  on  the  Address  De- 
livered to  the  Students  of  the  University  of  Glasgow.  By  Lord 
Curzon  of  Kedleston,  Lord  Rector  of  the  University  of  Glasgow. 
Crown  8vo. 

FEDERALISM  AND  HOME  RULE.    Letters -to 

The   Times  upon  the  Constitutional  Conference.     By  "  Pacificus." 
Crown  8vo.     2s.  6d.  net. 

"They  are  marked  by  insight,  imagination,  discernment,  and  ripeness  of 
knowledge.  .  .  .  Written  from  a  fresh  and  original  standpoint,  and  entirely 
detached  from  party,  this  book  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  study  of 
current  constitutional  problems,  and  contains  suggestive  ideas  as  to  the 
probable  trend  of  political  development  in  this  country." — Daily  Chronicle. 


ANCIENT    AND    MODERN    IMPERIALISM. 

An  Address  delivered  to  the  Classical  Association  in  January,  1910, 
By  the  Earl  of  Gromer,  G.C.B.,  O.M.,  G.G.M.G.  Third 
Impression.  Crown  Svo.  2s.  6d.  net. 

Mr.  ROOSEVELT,  in  his  Guildhall  speech,  said: — "Those  of  you  who 
know  Lord  Cromer's  excellent  book  in  which  he  compares  Ancient  and 
Modern  Imperialism  need  no  words  from  me  to  prove  that  the  dominion  of 
modern  civilised  nations  over  the  dark  places  of  the  earth  has  been  fraught 
with  widespread  good  for  mankind." 


THE    PEOPLE'S    PROGRESS.     A   Study   of  the 

Facts  of  National  Wealth  and  some  Answers  to  Socialists.     By  Frank 
Ireson,  B.A.     Demy  Svo.     2s.  6d. 

"As  a  text-book  of  political  economy  Mr.  Ireson's  little  volume  will  be 
cordially  welcomed.  As  a  scathing  exposure  of  Fabian  absurdities  it  has  few 
if  any  equals." — Globe. 

UNIVERSITIES  AND  NATIONAL  LIFE.    By 

the  Viscount  Haldane  of  Gloan.     Crown  Svo.     2s.  6d.  net. 

"  The  subjects  dealt  with  in  these  papers  are  of  far  wider  scope  than  would 
be  imagined  from  their  title.  So  far  as  it  is  possible  to  summarise  the  lesson 
which  they  teach,  they  may  be  said  to  describe  from  various  standpoints  the 
ideal  character,  and  to  sketch  out  the  best  methods  of  developing  it." 

Spectator. 


DA 

911 

D8 


Dunraven,  Windham  Thomas 
Wyndham-Quin,   4th  earl  of 
The  legacy  of  past  years 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY