Skip to main content

Full text of "The new Larned History for ready reference, reading and research; the actual words of the world's best historians, biographers and specialists: a complete system of history for all uses, extending to all countries and subjects and representing the better and newer literature of history;"

See other formats




Original Edition — j volumes 1803-4 

Second Edition — original edition revised, with 

supplemental volume igoi 

Third Edition — as second, with second supple- 
mental volume igio 

Complete Revision — 12 volumes igzz-j 








OF 1:2 5. ..V 

to I,- 

6=-^ -p 


I \TE 


UOUhlS, AHh 


r«. TV i^o^n'Ei^jANb, yRON'nspiEOES w color; also kitherous 
i aic-OTSEE UAPs m color, from original 
5iiv *[.A^c. reiley and others 

= a - a 

g =• » 

VOL. VI. -alv-t TO LVKI 

5 a. 3 

%\ « 

3 Is: 

to *i ■»• 

O u 

C. A. 


•stiiitii to 



g s 


i ^ 


o J= 





o ^ 


^ . 

«i C 



, the 

fc ■ 

.5 o 


£■ ™ 


■5 £. 





■0 3 


■- S 

J2 ^ 






C *' 





















Copyright, i8g4, igoi, 1910, 

Copyright. 1913, 


(Above copyrights have been assigned to the publishers.) 

Copyright, 1923, 

All rights reserved 

\. J Little & Ives Company, New York City. U. S. A. 
Composition. Plates & Presswork 

C. S. Hammond & Co., New York City U. S. A. 
Map engravings and printing 

Zabel Brothers Company, Philadelphia, U. S. A. 
Lithographs — Maps 

J. F Tapley Company, Long Island City, U. S. A. 

Matthews-Northrup Works. Buffalo. U. S. A. 
Colored Frontispieces 

Tileston & HoUingsworth Co.. Boston, U. S. A. 




1. IRELAND FROM 1172 TO 1923 See Ireland: 1691 

2. IRELAND (colored) See Ireland 

(Editor's Note: Map of modern Ireland, showing the historic provinces of Ulster, Leinster, Munster, 
Connaught, and Mcath (later included in Leinster). The red line in Ulster incloses the region 
carried by the Unionists in the election of 1918.J 

3. ITALY IN THI-; 7TII CENTURY, AND IN 1492 See Italy; 1492-1494 

4. ITALY FROM 1815 TO 1859, AND IN 1861 See Italy: 1859-1861 

S- UNIFICATION OF ITALY, 1859-1919 (colored) See Italy 

6. RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR See Japan: 1902-1905 

7. JAPAN (colored) See Japan 

(Editor's Note: This is not a map of the entire Japanese empire — for which the reader is referred to 
the map of Asia — but shows the principal islands, or Japan proper, and the neighboring possessions on 
the mainland, such as Chosen, formerly Korea. The red line inclosing southern Manchuria indicates 
roughly the territory within the Japanese sphere of inlluence, while the area on the Laotung peninsula 
colored green shows the former Russian lease around Port Arthur.] 


See Latin America 

9. SOUTH AMERICA (colored) See Latin America 




Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives 


Noted Inventors See Inventions 

Meeting of Dail Eireann, 1921 See Ireland 

Famous Italian Writers See Italian Literature 

Meeting of Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi at Caianello, Oct. 26, i860 See Italy 

Warriors of Old Japan See Japan 

Retreat of the Russians after the Battle of Mukden See Japan 

Christ before Pilate See Jesus Christ 

The Jews Being Carried into Babylonian Captivity See Jews 

Latin Writers See Latin Literature 


Chinese Water Clock . . See Inventions: Ancient and Medieval; Measurements: Time and Space 
Improved Greek Clepsydra . . 5fc Inventions: AncientandMedieval:Measurements:TimeandSpace 
Antique Water Clock . . See Inventions: Ancient and Medieval: Measurements: Time and Space 
Ancient Egyptian Loom .... 5cc Inventions: .\ncient and Medieval: Early Industrial Processes 

Potter's Wheel 5ee Inventions: Ancient and Medieval: Early Industrial Processes 

Early Types of Lamps See Inventions: Ancient and Medieval: Artificial Light 

Hargreaves' SAnning Jenny See Inventions; i8th Century: Industry 

Whitney's Cotton Gin See Inventions: i8th Century: Industry 

Cristofori's Piano, 1720 See Inventions; i8th Century: Piano 

Siemens Regener-Wive Puddling Furnace See Inventions: igth Century: Industry 

Giant Furnaces, Manchester, England See Inventions; 19th Century; Industry 

Overshot Water Wheel of the Sixteenth Century .... See Inventions; 19th Century: Power 

First Howe Sewing Machine See Inventions; 19th Century: Sewing Machine 

McCormick Reaper, 1845 See Inventions; 19th Century: Reaper 

Cross of Kells See Ireland: sth-gth Centuries 

Brian Boru on the Plain of Clontarf 5ce Ireland: 1014 

MucKROSS Abbey. See Ireland; I2th-i4th Centuries 

Blarney Castle ; See Ireland; 1413-1467 

Grianon of Aileach See Ireland; 1559-1603 

Battle of the Boyne See Ireland: 1689 

Irish Parliament of 1790, Called "Grattan's Parliament" See Ireland; 1 793-1 798 

Henry Grattan, Daniel O'Connell, and Robert Emmet See Ireland; 1811-1829 

Charles Stewart Parnell See Ireland; 1873-1879 

Sm Horace Plunkett See Ireland: 20th Century 

Arthur Griffith See Ireland; 1905-1916 



John Edward Redmond 5ee Ireland : i8q8 (March 6) 

Edward De Valera 5ce Ireland: 1921 

Michael Collins 5« Ireland: 1922 

Timothy Michael Healy 5cc Ireland: 1922 

William Cosgrave Sec Ireland: 1922 

Four Courts, Dublin Sec Ireland: 1922-1923 

ViNCENZO Gioberti See Italian Literature: 1827-1872 

Frederick II Holding Court at Palermo .SVf Italy: 1183-1250 

Sicilian Vespers See Italy (Southern): 1282-1300 

NiccoLO Machiavelli See Italy: 1494-1527 

GoNZALO De Cordova 5ff Italy: 1501-1504 

Giuseppe Mazzini See Italy: 1831-1848 

Pope Pius IX , See Italy: 1831-1848 

Count Cavour See Italy: 1856-1S59 

Giuseppe Garibaldi 5cf Italy: 1859-1861 

Victor Emmanuel II See Italy: 1862-1866 

Gene.u-ogy of House of Savoy 5fc Italy: 1862-1866 

Francesco Crispi 5ce Italy: 1870-1871 

Giovanni Giolitti 5ce Italy: 1909-1911 

Benito Mussolini See Italy: 1922 

Jiuiru Tenno See Japan: b.c. 7th-A.D. sth Centuries 

Military Official in Court Dress See Japan: 550-708 

Michizane 5ce Japan: 833-1050 

Kiyomori See Japan: 1159-1199 

MiNAMOTO YoRiTOMO See Japan: 1159-1199 

Saint Francis Xavier Sec Japan: 1542- 1593 

Toyotomi Hideyoshi See Japan: 1549-1605 

Iyeyasu Tokugawa See Japan: 1549-1605 

Soldiers of the Tokugawa Period See Japan: 1641-1853 

Commodore Perry See Japan: 1797-1854 

Townsend Harris See Japan: 1857-1862 

Prince Keiki Tokugawa See Japan: 1863-1868 

Emperor Mutsuhito See Japan: 1868-1894 

Prince Ito Sec Japan: 1868-1894 

Prince Yamagata See Japan: 1894-1912 

Marquis Saionji Sec Japan: 1894-1912 

General Nozu, Admiral Togo, and General Oku See Japan: 1902-1905 

Count Nodi, Marquis Oyama, and General Kuroki See Japan: 1902-1905 

Count Okuma See Japan: 1905-1922 

Male Court Dancer See Japan: 1918-1921 

Baron Komura, Takashi Hara and Prince Katsura See Japan: 1918-1921 

Sculptured W.\ll of the Borobudur Temple, Java See Java 

Founding of the Society of Jesus See Jesuits: 1540-1556 

Loyola See Jesuits: 1540-1556 

Clement XIV See Jesuits: 1769-1871 

Holy of the Holies of the Temple of Jerusalem 5ce Jews: Religion and the Prophets 

Plan of the Temple of Solomon See Jews: Religion and the Prophets 

Moses Sec Jews: K^rly Hebrew History 

Pentateuch Roll '. 5c£ Jews: Exodus 

Seder, or Feast of the Passover .^ Sec Jews: iSth-iptb Centuries 



German Jew of the Eaely i6th Century See Jews: Gennany 

The Great Synagogue at Warsaw, Poland Sec Jews: Poland 

Baron Maurice de Hirsch See Jews: Zionism 

Moses Mendelssohn See Jews: Language and Literature 

Solomon J. Rabinowitz Sec Jews: Language and Literature 

Nikola Pashitch See Jugo-Slavia: 1920-1921 

Ai-EXANDER I See Jugo-Slavia: 1921 

Daniel Boone Leading Colonists for Kentucky, 1773 See Kentucky: 1765-17 78 

Korean Types See Korea 

Image of a War God See Korea 

Prehistoric Lake Dwelling See Lake Dwellings 

Restoration of the Library at Louvain See Libraries: Modern: Belgium 

Reading Room of the British Museum See Libraries: Modem: England 

Corridor of the Vatican Library See Libraries: Modern: Italy 

Library of Congress, Washtngton 5« Libraries: Modem: United States 

One of the Main Reading Rooms of the New York Public Library See Libraries: Modem: United States 

Aerial View of London See London 

Contemporary Plan of London of 1570 See London: 1666 

Evolution of Longbow and Crossbow See Longbow 

Genealogy of Later House of Lorraine See Lorraine 

The Louvre Museum See Louvre 




Volume VI 



Introduction. — "Man is fomctimes distinguished 
as a tool-using animal. . . . [His] superiority as 
a tool-user . . . ultimately secured his position 
over the beasts of the world and enabled him to 
construct our material civilization. . . . His first 
tool might have been a stone. ... A peaceful use 
of stones as agricultural tools may or may not 
have preceded their use as weapons. . . . Later 
some man may have broken a stone by throwing 
it against a rock, hoping to find among the pieces 
one suited to his needs [for digging, etc.]. In 
some such way there developed the idea of using 
tools and of forming them. Of course, it is only 
a small step from breaking the stone as just 
described and chipping off edges of the selected 
stone so as to form it more nearly to the de- 
sired shape. But this step may not have been 
taken for centuries. . . . Between the discovery of 
the method of conserving fire and its production 
by a simple machine many thousands of years 
must have intervened. A primitive method is that 
of rubbing a sharp stick back and forth in a groove 
cut in a block of wood. . . . This simple device 
is not, however, a machine. It is merely a special 
tool for rubbing and a block to be rubbed. When 
primitive man arranged a combination where the 
rubbing tool was actuated by another part of the 
device, w^hich part in turn was controlled by the 
operator, then he had a machine. . . . [This] is 
of course a development of an earlier form . . . 
where a pointed stick or drill is twisted by the 
operator's hands. . . . From this primitive design 
we can obtain a concept of a machine as a device 
in which a motion communicated to one part 
results in a different motion of a second part." — 
J. Mills, Realities of modern science, pp. i, 4-8. — 
"Probably one of the most important steps ever 
taken by primitive man in his unconscious efforts 
to escape from savagery was the discovery of the 
wheel. The fact that rolling produced less friction 
than sliding was but dimly recognised: the me- 
chanical principle involved was perhaps but vaguely 
distinguished, . . . [but the fact must soon have 
been grasped] that here was a contrivance that 
would facilitate locomotion and increase man's 
power over his surroundings. . . . This fortunate 
discoverer, together with him who first produced 
fire, were the forerunners of the engineers and 
manufacturers, the scientific discoverers and in- 
ventors of to-day. The wheel made it easy to 
move huge weights and to. cover great distances, 
and when it was applied to spinning it trans- 
ferred part of the burden of providing clothing 
from the animal to the vegetable kingdom. Rude 
skins gave place to finely woven fabrics, and the 

tiller of the soil vied with the hunter and the 
shepherd in covering man's nakedness. At first the 
wheel was driven by manual toil or by the use 
of beasts, but when, after many centuries, wind 
and water were used, man saw opening up a wider 
vista which promised speed of production and 
more leisure to him who could harness the natural 
elements to his service. Was there joy when the 
first wheel turned in the wind, or a mad clap- 
ping of hands when one of these rough contrivances 
first creaked beneath the force of a mountain 
stream? — Vi'e shall never know. [The time is too 
far back to permit of anything beyond imagina- 
tion upon the subject.]" — E. Cressy, Discoveries 
and inventions of the twentieth century, pp. 1-2. 
Measurements: Time and space. — "'The meas- 
urement of small portions of time was a very 
practical problem from the beginning. The first 
attempt to solve the problem consisted in ob- 
serving shadows cast by the sun. The chan^ng 
shadow of the human form was doubtless the 
first clock. . . . Observations of this kind led to 
the shadow clock or sun-dial. . . . Sun-dials have 
been used from the beginning of time and they 
have not yet passed -out of use. They may still 
be seen in a few public places, but they are re- 
tained rather as curiosities than as real time- 
keepers. For the sun-dial is not a good timekeeper 
for three reasons: (i) it wiJl not tell the time 
at night; (2) it fails in the daytime when the 
sun is not shining; (3) it can never be used inside 
of a house. The sun-diai can hardly be called an 
invention; it is rather an observation. There were, 
however, inventions for measuring time in the 
earliest period of man's history. .-Vmong the old- 
est of these was the fire-clock, which measured 
time by the burning away of a stick or a candle. 
The Pacific islanders still use a clock of this kind. 
'On the midrib of the long palm-leaf they skewer 
a number of the oily nuts of a candle-nut-tree and 
light the upper one.' As the nuts burn off, one 
after another, they mark the passage of equal por- 
tions of time. . . . Fire-clocks of one kind or an- 
other have been used among primitive people in 
nearly all parts of the globe, and their use has 
continued far into civilized times. Alfred the 
Great (000) is said to have measured time in the 
following way: 'He procured as much wax as 
weighed seventy-two pennyweights, which he 
commanded to be made into six candles, each 
twelve inches in length with the divisions of 
inches distinctly marked upon it. These being 
lighted one after another, regularly burnt four 
hours each, at the rate of an inch for every twenty 
minutes. Thus the six candles lasted twenty-four 
hours.' ... If we could ^tcp on board a Malay 
proa we should see floating in a bucket of water 



Ancient and Medieval 
Measurement of Time 


a cocoanut shell having a small perforation through 
which the water by slow degrees finds its way 
into the interior. This orifice is so perforated 
that the shell will fill and sink in an hour, when 
the man on watch calls the time and sets it to 

© Brown and Dawaon, Stamford. Cono. 

(Built over 1300 years ago) 

float again. This sinking cocoanut shell, the first 
form of the water-clock, is the clock from which 
has been developed the timepiece of to-day. With 
it, therefore, the story of the clock really begins. 
In Northern India the cocoanut shell is replaced by 


a copper bowl. At the moment the sinking occurs 
the attendant announces the hour by striking upon 
the bowl. The second step in the development 
of the water-clock was made in China several 
thousand years ago. In the earlier Chinese clock 
the water, instead of finding its way into the 
vessel from the outside, was placed inside and 
allowed to trickle out through a hole in the bot- 
tom and fall into a vessel below. In the lower 
vessel was a float which rose with the water. 
To the float was attached an indicator which 
pointed out the hours as the water rose. By 
this arrangement, when the upper vessel was full, 
the water, by reason of greater pressure, ran out 
faster at first than at any other time. The in- 
dicator, therefore, at first rose faster than it ought, 
and after a while did not rise as fast as it ought 
to. After centuries of experience with the two- 
vessel arrangement, a third vessel was [placed 
above so that] ... as fast as water flowed from 
the middle vessel it was replaced by a stream 
flowing from the one above it . . . and the water 
flowed into the lowest vessel at a uniform rate. 
Finally a fourth vessel was brought into use. The 
Chinese water-clock has been running in the city 
of Canton for ... six hundred years. Every 
afternoon at five, since 1321, the lowest jar has 
been emptied into the uppermost one and the clock 
thus wound up for another day. To follow the 
further development of the water-clock we must 
pass from China to Greece. In their early history 
the Greeks had nothing better than the sun-dial 
with which to measure time, .\bout the middle 
of the fifth century B.C. there arose at .Athens 
a need for a better timepiece [for use in the 
public assembly and in the courts of law]. . . . 
The sun-dial would not answer, for the sun did 
not always shine, even in sunny Greece ; so the 
idea of the water-clock was borrowed. A certain 
amount of water was placed in an amphora (urn), 
in the bottom of which was a small hole through 
which the water might slowly flow. When the 
amphora was empty the speaker had to stop talk- 
ing. The Greeks called the water-clock a clep- 
sydra, which means 'the water steals away.' The 
orator whose time was limited by a certain amount 
of water would keep his eye on the clepsydra, 
just as a speaker in our time keeps his eye on 
the clock. ... At first the Greeks used a simple 
form of the clepsydra, but they gradually adopted 
the improvements made by the Chinese, and finally 
added others. The great Plato is said to have 
turned his attention to commonplace things long 
enough to invent a clepsydra that would an- 
nounce the hour by playing the flute. However 
this may have been, there was in use in the Greek 
world, about 300 B.C., a clepsydra something like 
. . . a clock. As the water drops into the cylin- 
der E the float F rises and turns G, which carries 
the hour hand around. Inside of the funnel A is 
a cone B which can be raised or lowered by the 
bar D. In this way the dropping of the water is 
regulated. Water runs to the funnel through H, 
and when the funnel is full the superfluous water 
runs off through the pipe /, and thus the depth 
of the water in the funnel remains the same and 
the pressure does not change. . . . When the hand 
in this old clock has indicated twelve hours it 
begins to count over again, just as it does on our 
clocks to-day. ... If we pass from Greece to 
Rome, . . . we find that the Romans were slow 
to introduce new methods of timekeeping. The 
first public sun-dial in Rome was constructed 
about 200 B.C. . . . The water-clock was brought 
into Rome a little later than the sun-dial, and 
was used as a time-check upon speakers in 


Ancient and Medieval 
Time and Space 


the law courts, just as it had been in Athens. 
When the Romans first bcKan to use the 
clepsydra it was already a very Rood clock. 
Whether it rcccivea any great improveminls at 
their hands is not certain. Improvements must 
have been made somewhere, for early in the Middle 
Apes we find clepsydras in forms more highly de- 
veloped than they were in ancient times. In the 
ninth century the Emperor Chnrlemagiie received 
as gift from the Kins of Persia a most inlerestini; 
timepiece which was worked by water. 'The dial 
was composed of twelve sm:ill doors which repre- 
sented the divisions of the hours; each door opened 
at the hour it was intended to represent, and out 
of it came the same number of little balls, which 
fell, one by one at equal distances of time, on a 
brass drum. It might be told by the eye what 
hour it was by the number of doors that were 
open ; and by the car by the number of balls that 
fell. When it was twelve o'clock, twelve horsemen 
in miniature issued forth at the same time, and, 
marching round the dial, shut all the doors. ' Less 
wonderful th.m the clock of the emperor, but more 
useful, as an object of study, is the medieval 
clepsydra. This looks more than ever like the 
clock we are accustomed to see. It has weights as 
well as wheels. As the float rises with the water 
it allows the weight to descend and turns the 
spindle on the end of which is the hand which 
marks the hours. This is partly a water-clock 
and partly a weight-clock. The weight in its de- 
scent turns the spindle: the water regulates the 
rate at which the weight may descend. 

"The water-clock just described led easily and 
directly to the weight-clock. Clockmakers in the 
Middle Ages for centuries tried with more or less 
success to make clocks that would run by means 
of weights. In 1370, Henry De \'ick, a German, 
succeeded in solving the problem. De Vick was 
brought to Paris to make a clock for the tower 
of the king's palace, and he made one that has 
become famous. In a somewhat improved form 
it can still be seen in Paris in the Palais de Jus- 
tice. Let us remove the face of this celebrated 
timepiece and take a look at its works. It had 
a striking part, and a timekeeping part, each 
distinct from the other. . . . The weight, of 500 
pounds, is w-ound up by a crank (the key). 
[There is also an] . . . hour hand. [If the 
weight] is allowed to descend, it is easily seen how 
the whole system of wheels will he moved — and 
that very rapidly. But if something does not 
prevent, . . . [the weight] will descend faster and 
faster, the hour-hand will run faster and faster and 
the clock will run down at once. If the clock is 
to run at a uniform rate and for any length of 
time, the power of the weight must escape grad- 
ually. In the clepsydra the descent of the weight 
was controlled by the size of the stream of flowing 
water. De Vick invented a substitute for the stream 
of flowing water. . . . Fitted to the upper part of 
the (post] ... is a beam or balance, at the ends 
of which are two small weights, and projecting 
from the posts in different directions are two 
pallets or lips. Now, as the top of the wheel 
turns toward you, one of its teeth catches the 
pallet and tuins the post a part of the way round 
toward you. Just as the tooth escapes a tooth 
at the bottom of . . . [the wheel] (moving from 
you) catches the pallet and checks the revolving post 
and turns it from you. Thus as [the wheel] . . . 
turns, it gives a to-and-fro motion to the post and, 
consequently, a to-and-fro motion to the balance. 
. . . [The wheel] is called tbe euapemoit because 
the power of the descending weight gradually es- 
capes from its teeth. In the clepsydra the trickling 

of water regulated the descent of the weight; in De 
Vick's clock the trickling of power or force from 
the escajiemcnt regulated the descent of the weight. 
The invention of this escapement is the greatest 
event in the history of the clock. De Vick's inven- 
tion leil rapidly to the excellent timepieces of to- 
day, to both our watches and our clocks. After 
the appearance of the weight-clock, the water- 
clock gradually fell into disuse, and all the ingenui- 
ty of the clockmaker was bestowed upon weights 
and wheels and escapements and balances. A 
century of experimenting rcr-ulted in a clock with- 
out a weight. In this timekeeper is recognized 
the beginnings of the modern watch. The uncoil- 
ing of a spring drove the machinery. Instead of 
the balancing beam with its weights as in De 
Vick's clock, a balance wheel is used. The escape- 
ment is the sam? as in the first weight-clock. 
The busy and delicately-hung little balance wheel 



in your watch is a growth from De Vick's clumsy 
balance beam. The spring-clock would run in any 
l>osition. Because it could be carried about it led 
almost at once to the watch. Many places claim 
the distinction of having made the first watch, but 
seems that the honor belongs to the city of Nurem- 
berg. 'Nuremberg eggs,' as the first portable 
clocks were called were made as early as 1470. The 
first watches were large, uncouth affairs, resembling 
small table clocks but by the end of the sixteenth 
century small watches with works of brass and 
cases of gold or silver were manufactured." — 
S. E. Forman, Stories of useful inventions, pp. 188- 

For space measurement, "the oldest known stan- 
dard of length, the cubit, was the distance between 
the point of a man's elbow and the tip of his 
middle finger. In Egypt the ordinary cubit was 
18.24 inches, and the royal cubit, 20.67 inches. A 
royal cubit in hard wood, perfectly preserved, 
was discovered among the ruins of Memphis early 
in the nineteenth century. It bears the date of the 



Ancient and Medieval 
Early Industrial Processes 



reign* of Horus, who is believed to have become 
King of Egypt about 1657 B. C. The Greeks 
adopted a foot, equal to two-thirds of the ordi- 
nary Egyptian cubit, as their standard of length. 
This measure, 12.16 inches, was introduced into 
Italy, where it was divided into twelfths or inches 
according to the Roman duodecimal system, thence 
to find its way throughout Europe. Units equally 
important with the cubit were from of old derived 
from the linger and the fingers joined. The 
breadth of the forefinger at the middle part of its 
first joint became the digit; four digits were taken 
as a palm, or hand-breadth, used to this day in 
measuring horses. Another ancient unit, not yet 
obsolete, the pace, is forty digits; while the jaihom, 
still employed, is ninety-si.x digits, as spaced by 
the extended arms from the finger tips. The cubit 
is twenty-four digits, and the foot is si.iteen digits. 
Thus centuries ago were laid the foundations of 
the measurement of space as an art. A definite 
part of the human body was adopted as a stand- 
ard of length, and copied on rods of wood and 
slabs of stone. Divisors and multiples, in whole 
numbers, were derived from that standard for con- 
venience in measuring lines comparatively long or 
short." — G. lies, Inventors at work, pp. 209-210. 

Early industrial processes: Weaving. — Mak- 
ing of copper, bronze, zinc and brass, glass, 
iron and steel, rope, pottery, paper. — "The earli- 
est practical weaver on record is the spider and 
it may be that man learned his first lesson in 
weaving from this skilled workman; or the 
beautiful nest of the weaver-bird may have given 
to human beings the first hints in the weaving 
art. Whoever may have been his teacher, it is 
certain that man learned ho-.v to weave in the 
earliest stages of existence. It is thought that his 
first effort in this direction consisted in making 
cages for animals and weirs (traps) for catching 
fisii by interlacing vines or canes or slender boughs. 
The next step was taken when women began to 
make baskets and cradles and mats by interlacing 
long slender strips of wood. Basket weaving led 
to cloth weaving, and this led to the loom. The 
simplest and oldest form of the loom consisted 
of a single stick (yarn beam) of wood about four 
feet long, . . . just a straight stick of wood and 
nothing more. From the stick the threads which 
run lengthwise in the cloth were suspended. These 
threads are known as the warp. The threads 
which run breadthwise in the cloth are known 
as the weft or uioof." — S. E. Forman, Stories of 
vsejid inventions, pp. no, 112. — "The greatest step 
that was ever made in advance in the whole art 
of . . . spinning was when some untutored savage 
invented twist, or thought of what to us is the 
very elementary idea of twisting two or more 
fibres or filaments together. . . . With so much ac- 
complished we have the whole basis of spinning. 
. . . This is modern spinning, which differs from 
the primitive system only by this fact of con- 
tinuous twisting of fibres round each other." — 
J. Nasmith, Students' cotton spinning, pp. 6-7.. — 
The next invention of importance was the spindle 
and distaff, which enabled one person to do the 
work of twisting. The spindle, at first probably 
a simple cleft stick, was used by placing in the 
cleft some of the fibre which was twirled with 
one hand to make the twist, while more fibre 
was added as required from the material held 
in the other hand. When the loosely hanging 
spindle reached the ground, the yarn was wo^ind 
upon it, and the process repeated. The distaff was 
a short staff, shaped to hold the material to be 
spun. These primitive implements were used to 
spin unbelievably fine yarn such as that qscd to 



Early Industrial Processes 


weave the gossamer fabrics made by the Indian 
people. The invention of spinning not only pave 
better material for weaving, but the spindle on 
which the yarn was wound provided an easier 
means of carrying the thread across. "There is 
no evidence to show that the Tine linen' of Egypt 
or the famous textiles of Greece and Rome were 
woven in a less simple manner. Frames of vari- 
ous sizes for .stretching the warp upon were cer- 
tainly used, and the warps often consisted of a 
great number of fine threads. Rollers also were 
added to the loom, enabling the weaver to make 
long lengths of cloth, but the actual methods of 
weaving appear to have been as stated. There 
is, in use amongst some primitive tribes of to-day. 
a contrivance for bringing forward the back threads 
of the warp all together or in sections, instead 
of picking ihem up separately on the lingers as 
above described. This is sometimes called a headle- 
rod. It is a rather obvious improvement, and, 
where the threads are very fine and numerous, 
would save a great deal of time. It may have 
been used in ancient Egypt and Greece, but there 
is no evidence to prove it. ThLs appliance is a 
strong rod, a little longer than the warp is wide. 
It is suspended in iront of the loom a little 
below the cross-rods. Each back thread of the 
warp is enclosed by a loop which passes between 
the front threads and is fastened to the rod. . . . 
When this appliance is fitted to a loom the first 
opening is made by means of the shed-stick as 
already described. The second opening is made 
by the weaver giving the headle-rod a vigorous 
pull forward, and into the opening thus made the 
flat shed-stick is carefully thrust. When quite 
through the warp it is turned edgeways, and ef- 
fectually clears the opening for the passing of 
the weft. It is impossible to say how early in 
the history of weaving two most important steps 
in its development were made. These steps were 
(i) placing the warp horizontally; (2) arranging 
an automatic motion by which both the neces- 
sary .openings or sheds can be made with equal 
speed and certainty. There is little doubt that 
it was in China that these improvements were 
first made. From that country they spread to 
India and the East generally. There are in ex- 
istence very ancient representations of Chinese 
and Indian horizontal looms with such automatic 
arrangements. Moreover, the fine silk webs of 
China and India, so much valued in ancient Greece 
and Rome, could hardly have been made in the 
simple manner described above. ... It is impos- 
sible to say at what period the important im- 
provement in the apparatus of the loom was 
made, which consists in lengtheninc the short, 
heavy, independent comb, by which the weft had 
hitherto been beaten together, and attaching it 
to the loom itself, enclo.sed in a heavy swinging 
frame. ... It led, however, to a great advance 
in the weaving process, when the idea occurred 
of hanging the long comb loose in the loom, in 
order that it might be used, not only for keeping 
the warp tlyeads evenly distributed, but also for 
beating the weft together." — L. Hooper, Hand- 
loom wcaviiit;, pp. 85-S7, 95. — "With the discov- 
ery of metals, and notably the application of 
copper and its alloys in Neolithic times, we have 
one of the great turning points, if not the greatest, 
in the history of human development, the first- 
birth of the germs of that civilisation and cul- 
ture to which we have attained at the present 
day. . . . The order in which the metals were 
discovered was not the same for every region, as 
their ores arc very capriciously distributed in the 
world, and it is extremely probable, if not abso- 

lutely certain, that the metals which occur native, 
i.e., which occur as metals in nature, must 
have been first known to the men inhabiting the 
localities in which they occurred. . . . Copper 
... we only find in use to a ve»y limited extent, 
as it was not well suited for the construction 
of weapons or useful implements. On the xjthcr 
hand, its alloy with tin afforded a metal I bronze 1 
which in many physical properties could only 
be surpassed by iron or steel. According to the 
views of several ancient writers, Lucretius and 
Poseidonius, so momentous a discovery as that of 
metals contained in ores must needs have been 
brought about by ... [a conflagration which 
consumed the] forests which covered the outcrop 
of metalliferous veins, reducing the metals and 
bringing them to the notice of man, but there 
arc no grounds for such inference. The discovery 
of metals other than 'native' had no such poetic 
origin. . . . [It] had its origin in the domestic 
fires of the Neolithic age. The extraction of the 
common metals from their ores does not require 
the elaborate furnaces and compjicated processes 
of our own days, as pieces of ore, either copper 
carbonate or oxide, cassiteritc. cerusite, or mix- 
tures of these, and even iron oxides which by 


chance formed part of the ring of stones enclosing 
the domestic fire, and became accidentally em- 
bedded in its embers, would become reduced to 
metal. The camp fire was, in fact, the first metal- 
lurgical furnace, and from it, by successive modi- 
fications, the huge furnaces of the present day 
have been gradually evolved. ... In Japan the 
furnace for smelting copper, tin, and lead ores, a 
mere hole in the ground, which was in universal 
use there up to 1858, and is still extensively 
employed, is as simple, ahd rude as that of the 
men of the Bronze age. [Such primitive fur- 
naces were found in Derbyshire, England, in the 
seventeenth century.] The alloys of copper and 
tin during the early Metal age, and even some- 
what later, were obtained not by melting together 
copper and metallic tin, but by the reduction of 
oxidised copper ores containing tin-stone, or of 
copper ores to which tin-.stone was added. . . . 
The shape and structure of the lumps of copper 
which have been found in the founders' hoards of 
the Bronze age afford valuable evidence as to the 
size of the rude smelting furnaces, the method of 
smelting, and the manner in which the metal was 
removed from the hearth. . . . They show that 
the furnace was simply a small shallow hole or 
hearth scooped in the ground, about 10 or 12 in. in 
diameter. ... A small charcoal fire was first made 
in the hearth, and when this was burninc freely 
a layer of ore was spread over it, and upon this 
a layer of charcoal, then alternate layers of ore 



Early Industrial Processes 
Copper and Bronze 


and charcoal were added in sufficient quantity to 
yield a cake of copper. . . . [The earliest bronze 
alloys must have been accidentally made by the 
use of copper ores which contained cassiterite.] 
Even in the later period of the Bronze age, when 
the alloys were made by smelting the copper ore 
with cassiterite, alloys of definite composition can 
only have been accidentally obtained. Further, it 
is very questionable whether the metal tin was 
ever [intentionally] employed in making the al- 
loys until the Iron age was well advanced, as 
this metal has never been found in the founders' 
hoards. ... A curious feature of the alloys of 
which the early weapons were made in Hungary 
is the presence of antimony as an important con- 
stituent instead of tin. This doubtless arose from 
the alloys having been prepared by smelting the 

melted in crucibles and poured from them into 
moulds of clay or stone. . . . Implements and 
weapons of bronze, unlike those of copper, were 
always cast in closed moulds. ... In casting 
swords and daggers of bronze the moulds must 
have been of clay and been heated to dull red- 
ness at the time when the metal was poured 
in — a method of casting which is still practised 
in Japan — as by no other means could such per- 
fect castings of their thin blades have been ob- 
tained. The castings generally were hammered at 
the cutting edges, and it is to this hammering, and 
to it only, that the hardness of the cutting edges 
of both copper and bronze weapons is due, and 
not to any method of tempering. . . . Ordinary 
bronze of to-day can be made as hard as any, 
in fact, harder than most, of prehistoric times, by 

(Copper knives, needles, borers, and other tools) 

antimonial copper ores which occur in that coun- 
try. Axes made of these alloys would be fairly 
serviceable on account of the hardness produced 
by antimony in copper. We hence find them in 
use, with antimony largely replacing tin, until 
late in the Bronze age. The difficulties the earliest 
men had to contend with were extremely great, 
for it is self-evident that alloys of definite com- 
position could not be ensured by the early prac- 
tice of smelting mixtures of ores. It would seem, 
therefore, that when we find weapons or imple- 
ments of suitable composition for their intended 
use, some physical tests must have been applied 
to the furnace product before it had been used 
for their manufacture. . . . 

"Practically all copper celts were cast in open 
moulds. . . . The remains of . . . [the] appli- 
ances which have been found show clearly that 
the metal from the smelting operation was re- 

simple hammering alone." — Copper and its alloys 
in early times (Nature, Mar. 28, iqi2). — "A rod 
of metal found by Dr. Flinders Petrie at Mey- 
dum, and estimated to belong to a period about 
.noo B C, was found to contain 80.8 per cent, of 
copper and 9.1 per cent, of tin, together with small 
quantities of impurities. ... It is curious that 
the proportion of tin to copper is very nearly 
the same as that of modern bronze. Some battle- 
axes and other objects from the deposits, which 
Schliemann dated at about 1200 B.C., and which 
he identified with Troy, were found to consist 
of copper and tin, the tin varying from .^.8 to 8.6 
per cent.; whereas the objects found in the earlier 
deposits were of copper. The oldest relic which 
can be dated with any accuracy is a sceptre of 
Pepi I. (6lh dynasty), which is almost pure cop- 
per. All the available evidence seems to prove 
that a copper age preceded the bronze age. . . . 



Early Industrial Processes 
Zinc and Brass 


Bronzes have been found in Egypt dating from 
very early times. In Greece bronzes were very 
rare in Homeric times (900 B.C.), and the Greek 
and Trojan heroes (11Q4-1184) used copper for 
their armour, swords, knives, and spear-heads. . . . 
The presence of zinc in bronze was also probably 
the result of accident, due to the introduction 
of zinc ore into the furnace charge. An Etruscan 
bronze, dated the tifth century B.C., was found 
to contain 0.73 per cent, of zinc. Early Japanese 
bronzes have also been found to contain appre- 
ciable quantities of zinc as well as lead." — E. F. 
Law, Alleys and their industrial applications, pp. 
105-107. — "Among the earliest specimens of the 
metal which have been found in Greece are some 
copper nails which were obtained by Dr. Schlie- 
mann at Orchomenos, a city in Boeotia, which 
was in a state of decay in the time of Homer. 
They belong to that remote period in Mediter- 
ranean civilisation to which the name Mycenaean 
has been applied. . . . There is abundant evidence 
to .shew that Egypt was the first in the field in 
artistic bronze casting. When it first began it is 
difficult to say, but objects of at least as early 
as 3000 B.C. are in existence. Even in the early 
examples great technical skill is displayed. The 
most ancient Greek bronzes arc solid castings, 
whereas in Egypt they are light and hollow. . . . 
Bronze was in extensive use in Nineveh about 
1000 B C. for vessels and utensils of many kinds, 
and curiously was sometimes employed for those 
which we. should now make of more precious 
metals. The Greek copper alloys of a later period, 
many examples of which are found in the coins 
of about the fourth century B.C., are true bronzes 
consisting of copper and tin, with lead or zinc 
only as impurities and not intentionally added. 
A curious feature in them is the presence of nickel 
varj'ing from traces up to 0.5 per cent. . . . The 
Macedonian alloys more particularly are the best 
of the ancient bronzes. . . . [The] siege of Corinth, 
. . . occurred in 146 B.C. but the excellence of 
Corinthian bronze had been recognised long be- 
fore. . . . 

"With the fall of Greece and the rise of the 
supremacy of Rome \»e enter an important period 
in the history of copper and its alloys. In Spain 
and in Britain we find copper-smelting being vig- 
orously carried on by the Romans, and in Rome 
and the chief seats of the empire a further ex- 
tension of the use of bronze, not only for statues 
and other objects of arts, but for vessels of all 
kinds, furniture, and other articles of domestic 
life, . . . According to Pliny, . . . the copper ob- 
tained by smelting was brittle and useless, and 
in order to obtain malleable metal from it, it was 
mixed with lead and melted several times, and 
the oftener the operation was repeated the better 
was the quality of the copper. . . . The earliest 
Roman alloys which have come down to us are 
copper, lead, tin, alloys of the fifth century B.C. 
Their chief peculiarity is their very large content 
of lead, namely, from about ig to 25 per cent., 
the tin being about 7 per cent. They were worth- 
less for practical purposes, but formed the alloy of 
which the large coin of the republic — which 
weighed from 8 to 11 ozs. — the 'As,' was cast. 
. . . The copper-tin-lead bronzes appear also to 
have been used by the Romans for engineering 
and industrial purposes, .-^n interesting example 
of this use is afforded by the broken shaft of a 
water-wheel which was found in the lower Roman 
workings of the north lode of the Rio Tinto 
mine. The water-wheel was probably built in the 
first century of our era, as coins of the time 
of Vespasian (70 to 81 A.D.) were found near it. 

The bronze used for statues by the Romans also 
always contains lead in considerable proportions, 
as much as b to 12 per cent, being often present. 
In this they were doubtless influenced by Greek 
practice, the lead being added to the bronze to 
increase its fusibility and more especially its fluidity 
when molten. . . . Zinc as a distinct metal was 
unknown in early times; in fact, as late as the 
sixteenth century it was not known in Europe; 
but there are strong reasons for the belief that 
the Chinese were acquainted with it as metal at 
least several centuries earlier. ... In Greek al- 
loys zinc is never found as an intentional addi- 
tion, but only as an impurity, about i to 2 per 
cent, or less. ... In Roman times it first ap- 
pears in the coins of the republic as an impurity ; 
as an intentional addition, however, it only begins 
in the time of Augustus (20 B.C. to 14 A.D.), 
when brass was made for the first time in the 
world's history. One of the earliest examples is 
a coin of 20 B.C., which contains 17.31 per cent, 
of zinc. The Romans were the first makers of 
brass. Although they were unacquainted with the 
essential constituent zinc, yet they had discov- 
ered that by melting copper together with a certain 
ore (calamine), a yellow alloy of a more golden 
colour than bronze could be obtained. . . . The 
method employed by the Romans in making this 
alloy from copper and calamine was a very sim- 
ple one. . . . The calamine was ground and 
rai.xed in suitable proportions with charcoal and 
copper in granules or small fragments. This mix- 
ture was placed in a crucible, and was very care- 
fully heated for some time to a temperature suffi- 
cient to reduce the zinc in the ore to the metallic 
state, but not to melt the copper. The zinc 
being volatile, its vapour permeated the fragments 
of copper, converting them into brass. The tem- 
perature was then raised, when the brass melted, 
and was poured out of the crucible into moulds. 
This process was so effective that, until a com- 
paratively recent period, all brass was made in 
Europe by the ancient process, and even until 
a few years before 1861 it was thus made at 
Pemberton's Works in Birmingham. ... In the 
eleventh century great care was bestowed on the 
purification of the copper intended to be used 
in the manufacture of calamine brass for objects 
of arij more especially for the removal of lead, 
as it had been found that brass contaminated with 
that metal could not be satisfactorily gilt. . . . 
With the disappearance of the calamine brass, one 
of the last links in the chain connecting the mod- 
ern metallurgy of copper and its alloys with an- 
tiquity is broken. . . . [However] it must not be 
overlooked that the principles on which copper- 
refining is based were carried out in practice in 
the time of Pliny." — Copper and its alloys in 
early times {Nature, Mar. 28, 1912). — See also 
Europe: Prehistoric period: Bronze Age; Iron A_ge; 
Stone Age^ 

Also in: Engineer, Jan., 1912. 

"The origin of glass is lost in antiquity. Pliny, 
indeed, ascribes its discovery to certain Phoenician 
mariners who, being shipwrecked upon a sandy 
shore, used a block of the natron which formed 
their cargo to support a pot . . . [over their fire]. 
The heat fused the sand with the natron, and lo! 
the glass was discovered in the ashes. Since, how- 
ever, Pliny's authority was Rumour, and since, 
also, such a phenomenon is a physical impossi- 
bility ... it is possible that Rumour in Pliny's 
day had a no greater reputation for reliability than 
in the twentieth century. But the story, ... [at 
least] serves to show at how early an age in the 
world's history glass was known. It is more 



Early Indasirial Processes 
Glass and Iron 


than probable that the place of its origin was 
Ancient Egypt. ... At any rate articles of glass 
have been discovered in tombs of the fifth and 
sixth dynasties — some 3300 years before Christ. 
This, the earliest known glass, is generally opaque, 
and is chiefly used to form small articles of orna- 
ment, such as beads for necklaces, etc. ... At a 
later date glass was extensively made in Alexandria, 
the sand in the vicinity being of exceptional purity 
and so, suitable for its manufacture. The city 
speedily became celebrated for the beauty of its 
output, and articles of Alexandrian glass were 
largely exported to Greece and to Rome, where 
also, in the space of a few years, glass-houses 
were established ; and to Constantinople, which 
was, in time, to become famous for the manu- 
facture of coloured glass and of the Mosaics so 
dear to the Oriental taste. The Greeks do not 
appear to have developed the art of glass-making 
at a very early age, but specimens of glass have 
been found in Grecian tombs, and, in the Golden 
Age of Ancient Greece, when art and literature 
reached their zenith under Pericles, glass was 
certainly employed for purposes of architectural 
decoration. In Rome, however, the art of glass 
manufacture found a congenial home and was 
developed to a high pitch of excellence." — J. S. 
Lewis, Old glass and how to collect it, pp. 1-3. — 
"In the early history of glass making . . . the 
first invention . . . recorded was that of the blow- 
pipe, during the second or third century before 
Christ. This blowpipe was imported by the 
Egyptians from Asia Minor. At the time when 
the Romans conquered Egypt, they brought the 
blowpipe home with them as one of the trophies 
of war. From those early days to this time com- 
paratively slow advancement was made in the 
process of glass making, with reference to blown 
glass in particular. An example of a bottle found 
in an Egyptian tomb and brought from Egypt by 
the late Wm. Franzen, of Milwaukee, was pre- 
sented by his son to the author. This specimen 
clearly shows the same method of manufacture 
as do the bottles of early American factories up 
to 1S40." — W. S. Walbridge, American bottles, 
old. and new, p. 66. — "So widespread was . . . 
[the use of glass in Rome] that it is a truism 
to say that in Rome of two thousand years ago 
glass was employed for a greater number of pur- 
poses — domestic, architectural, and ornamental — 
than it is to-day, even though the glazing of win- 
dows was in its infancy and the use of the ma- 
terial for optical purposes was scarcely known. 
In effect, coloured and ornamental glass held much 
the same place in the Roman household that china 
and earthenware do among us to-day. Glass was 
used for pavements and for the external covering 
of walls. The Roman glass-workers were par- 
ticularly happy in their combination of colours, 
both by fusing together threads of various colours, 
or by fusing masses, so as to imitate onyx, por- 
phyry, serpentine, and other ornamental stones. 
... [It is believed by some that the famous 
Portland vase, now at the British Museum, is of 
Roman manufacture.] The art, thus brought to 
such perfection in Rome, naturally spread through- 
out Italy and the Roman colonies in France, 
Spain, Germany, and Britain. Probably workmen 
from the Italian cities also established the first 
furnaces among the lagoons of Venice, and so 
laid the foundation of what were to be the finest 
glass manufactories in the world. At the end of 
the thirteenth century a guild of glass-workers 
was formed. These sequestered their craft upon 
the island of Murano, and there cultivated it 
with an increasing skill that in a brief space 

made Venetian glass the marvel of the civilised 
world. . , . Meanwhile, other European nations 
had taken their cue from Venice, and glass-houses 
sprang up in various parts of the Continent, par- 
ticularly in France and in Bohemia ; the latter, 
indeed, speedily became the great rival of 
Venice. In England, . . . glass was made during 
the Roman occupation. Under the Saxons, glass- 
workers were imported from the Continent, but 
to judge from the number and variety of the 
specimens found in Anglo-Saxon tombs, it is prob- 
able that it was also manufactured to an equal 
extent at home." — J. S. Lewis, Old glass and how 
to collect it, pp. 4-6. 

"The most ancient method for the extraction of 
iron from its ores and adapting it to the use of 
man originated, without doubt, in the East; and 
India was most probably the seat of this primitive 
manufacturing process. . . . Large deposits of 
easily reducible ores occur in many of the hilly 
districts of India; and the Hindoos have always 
been notable workers in iron. The extraction 
of the metal was, however, almost entirely car- 
ried on by hill tribes of low caste; and it is 
difficult to conceive of any simpler smelting process 
than that still in operation among them — a process 
which, with very little modification, has been in 
existence for several thousand years. . . . This 
[primitive] smelting furnace may be described as 
a circular shaft built of refractory stone, and 
daubed over with clay to make it airtight; or it 
is made entirely of fireclay plastered inside a frame ■ 
of stakes driven into the ground to act as a 
support for the clay until it sets. . . . The Assyri- 
ans and Egyptians, and probably the Jews, ob- 
tained their iron from India at a very early 
period; later the Greeks and Romans receiyed 
supplies of the metal from the Chalybes, a tribe 
living and working on the south coast of the 
Black Sea. As the process migrated westward it 
was improved by the greater energy of the Western 
races. The Etruscans mined the ha;matite ore of 
Elba, and extracted the metal by a process simi- 
lar to that still in use in some remote districts 
of the Pyrenees." — J. H. Stansbie, Iron and steel, 
pp. 51-55. — "How man first learned to separate 
iron from the ore we do not know. Perhaps 
a bolt of lightning was sent from heaven to melt 
the rock; or a forest fire may have furnished 
the needful heat ; or a campfire built over some 
ore may have melted out the iron. We know that 
iron was well known to nearly all peoples in , . . 
[early] ages. ... A small piece of iron was found 
beneath one of the pyramids of Egypt. It had 
been placed there about six thousand years ago 
and had been saved from rust by the dry cli- 
mate of that country. There is evidence that 
iron was well known to the Assyrians, Chaldeans, 
and Babylonians, peoples who lived hundreds of 
years before the time of Christ. The writings 
of the ancient Greeks mention iron as a rare and 
precious metal. Alexander the Great took plunder 
of iron from India when he conquered the princes 
of that country. . . . The people of Spain were 
famous iron makers even before Roman times. 
When Caesar invaded England he found the na- 
tives using iron weapons. Leif Ericson and his 
bold Vikings brought iron-headed spears and other 
implements of that metal when they visited Amer- 
ica in the tenth century. This was the first iron 
in use on our continent. . . . But though the use 
of iron was so widespread, it was considered by 
the ancients as a rare and precious metal. . . . 
The great cost of iron was not due to the scarcity 
of ore, but to the difficulty in smelting it. The 
iron workers of ancient days made iron in a hole 



Early Industrial Processes 
Steel and Rope 


in the pround. This hole was duR in a hilltop. 
A tunnel was then due throuch the side ol the 
hill to the bottom of the l"ire hole. The wind 
rushini; through the tunnel Rave the required 
drailtihl, but the furnace could only be used on 
days when the wind blew. ... In very early apes 
a rude sort of bellows was invented, made of 
Roatskins and worked by hand. Finally the Cata- 
lan force was made and used at Catalonia, Spain. 
It was much like an ordinary blacksmith forRC. 
A small spot was enclosed by a wall three or 
four feet hich [built of Sandstone blocks; the 
front is of iron platesl. Into this enclosure iron 
ore and charcoal were thrown. The fire was 
started and made to burn by a draught forced 
in at the bottom by a bellows . . . [whichl was 
worked either by hand or by water power. The 
Catalan forpe was the standard method of making 
iron durinp the Middle- Ages. Experiments re- 
cently made show that iron could not now be 
made by these old methods for less than one 
thousand dollars a ton." — E. McKane, Stories of 
coal and iron, pp. 24-26. 

"The oldest written direct information now 
known on the employment and, working of steel 
is the Biblical passage in I Samuel .xiii, iq-22. 
'Now there was no smith found throughout all 
the land of Israel; for the Philistines said, Lest 
the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But 
all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, 
to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, 
and his axe, and his mattock. Yet they had a file 
for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for 
the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the 
goads. . . . The implements mentioned above, ac- 
cording to my conception, can not possibly mean 
anything other than those of steel. And so also 
very probably in the following Biblical passages 
in Joshua xvii, 16 and 18, [Judges i, 19, and 
iv, 3;] by 'chariots of iron' we should under- 
stand 'chariots of steel:' ... In short, the ref- 
erence to the scythe chariots of the Canaanites 
introduces us at once into a period of a highly 
developed steel industry. ... It is certain that the 
iron-workers who could turn out steel scythes at 
least one meter long, and of a corresponding width, 
had attained a state of excellency which pre- 
supposes the existence of the art of iron-working 
for a long space of time."- — \V. Belck, Discoverers 
of the art of iron manufacture (Smithsonian In- 
stitution Report for ign, pp. 508, 509). — "It is 
quite certain that steel implements must have been 
used ... in the construction of certain of the 
very earliest ancient monuments known to us; 
for tools of soft iron could not have cut and 
carved the very hard rocks of which they were 
constructed. In connection with the building of 
the pyramids (date fixed at about three thou- 
sand B.C.) Herodotus speaks of the immense 
sums of money which must have been spent for 
the 'iron' with which the builders worked; and 
in the Great Pyramid there was found a frag- 
ment of an iron tool which must be at least five 
thousand years old, containing a small percentage 
of carbon. There is good reason for believing 
also that the working of steel as well as of iron 
was known to and practiced by the early Greeks 
and others, perhaps as far back as ten centuries 
B C. . . . .\s to the method making of the com- 
mon steels of antiquity, little is certainly known. 
The iron to be converted into steel appears to 
have been made in a sort of crude Catalan forge; 
and as iron has a strong affinity for carbon, it 
is probable that in forging iron which . . . [by 
long contact wj(h the fuel] had taken up some 
carbon, it would be found somewhat harder and 

sliffer than common iron, and on that account 
more suitable for tools, .^mong the very ancient 
Egyptians, it is said, pieces of meteoric iron were 
heated in contact with the fuel and kept 
at a high temperature, just below- the melting 
point, for a long time. . . . [Observation and 
experience had taught these ancient artisans the 
virtue of hardness bestowed by the fire, and which 
science has taught the modern iron master lies 
in the absorption of carbon in the process known 
as cementation.] From the earliest times the 
quality of steels varied greatly. The celebrated 
wootz steels of India, and Damascus made at the 
Syrian city of the same name, and later at To- 
ledo, in Spain, were examples of superior steels 
susceptible of extraordinary tempering. They both, 
however, were crucible steels, and the latter is 
also said to have contained strong traces of tung- 
sten, nickel, manganese, and similar elements im- 
portant in the new high-speed steels. . . . Wootz 
is a steel of high quality, the manufacture of 
which reaches back to very ancient times. Aris- 
totle, the Greek philosopher, describes it as nearly 
as 350 B.C. or thereabouts, and tells us how it 
was made. Other ancient writers in the subse- 
quent centuries likewise make mention of it. This 
steel still is (or at any rate until recently was) 
fabricated by some of the remote mountain peo- 
ples in the north of India. . . . [It] has been 
used almost exclusively for swords as far back 
as tradition runs; and it has been said of Wootz 
blades, as also of Damascus, that when properly 
tempered and skillfully handled they would cleave 
a bar of iron without losing edge. . , . Recent 
archaeological discoveries indicate that a kind of 
crucible steel was known to and made by the 
Chinese probably many centuries before the In- 
dian product." — O. M. Becker, High-speed steel, 
pp. 1-2. — See also ^gy-.'cs cmLiZATiox: Minoan 
Age: B.C. 1200-750. 

The process of rope making has been known 
from very early times, and among all primitive 
peoples. Indeed, it may be that the first step 
toward the process of spinning, if not of weaving, 
was the discovery that grass or fiber could be 
twisted into a strong cord or rope, to take the 
place of thongs cut from the skins of animals. 
Of the primitive peoples known in modern times, 
almost all had a knowledge of rope making when 
they were discovered, and the people of North and 
South America and of the Patific were especially 
expert in the manufacture of beautiful rope, made 
from the fiber of a variety of plants. In ancient 
days, the Egyptians were certainly skilful in the 
making of rope in the fourth century B.C., for 
ropes have been found in tombs which probably 
date back to 3,500 B.C. The ropes which upheld 
the famous bridge of boats over the Hellespont, 
by which Xerxes and his army cros,sed in 480 B.C., 
are said to have been enormous cables twenty-six 
inches in circumference. There were six of these 
cables to each bridge, and as the strait is seven- 
eighths of a mile wide, an idea may be formed of 
their great length. It is said that two of each 
set were made of flax and four of papyrus. The 
cordage in Hiero's galley, it is said, was made of 

The art of making pottery has been well nigh 
universal from very early times. Whether bowls, or 
shallow vessels were shaped by hollowing balls 
or blocks of hardened clay; whether basket work 
was used as a primitive mold ; or whether ropes 
of clay were coiled into the desired shape, almost 
every primitive tribe or nation invented, or learned 
from its neighbors some mode of making pots of 
clay. At first the pots were sun dried, and it is of 



Early Industrial Processes 
Pottery and Paper 


course impossible to say when the Icnowledge of 
hardening by fire was learned. This knowledge 
is also so universal that it is probable its dis- 
covery was made by accident in many places. 
Gradually it was learned that some clays were 
more plastic than others; that the addition of sand 
made a harder ware; that removal of stone frag- 
ments made a smoother product, and by degrees 
a marvelous amount of skill was attained. \Vhat 
country or age produced the genius who first 
thought of moving the flat stone or block of 
wooci on which he worked, in order to facilitate 
the molding of his bowl or vase we do not know. 
Indeed it is generally believed that this discovery 
was also made independently by widely separated 
races, and that it was made at a rather late date. 
But, however this may be, the primitive inventor, 
or inventors of the first crude beginning of the 
potters' wheel founded one of the greatest indus- 
tries the world has known. The next great step 
was to cut down the molding block to a flat table 
or disc, and mount it on a pivot. Later, the 
spindle was lengthened and set on a larger wheel or 
disc, so that the throwing wheel could be rotated 
by the foot, and it is this wheel that is pictured 
on the later Egyptian tombs. From early times. 

a. Shaft, b, Stone wheel, c, Turning wheel. 

large pieces have been made in sections, joined 
together, and smoothed on the turning wheel, or 
by hand tools. Kilns for firing were probably 
also invented in very early times, and may have 
originated from the furnaces used to smelt min- 
erals. "Bv making use of the fairly plastic deposits 
of the overflow of the Nile the Egyptians in very 
ancient times manufactured bricks of rough earth 
and fired them as soon as they had discerned the 
property clay possesses of hardening under the in- 
fluence 'of heat. . . . According to Mariette Bey, 
there are found in the tombs of the Memphite 
period {5000-3000 B.C.) vases of terra-cotta which 
were intended to contain provisions for the de- 
ceased. Also, on the walls of the tombs of the 
Beni-Hassan pictures have been discovered por- 
traying scenes from the life of Egyptian potters, 
modelling vases and firing them in an oven, at a 
time corresponding to the Theban Period (3000- 
1700 B.C.). To this period is also attributed the 
discovery of glazes and the manufacture of the 
first pieces of earthenware found in the pyramid 
of Saggarah. Between 1700 B.C. and 500 B C. 
the art of earthenware manufacture acquired a 
rare perfection, as is shown by the decorations 
of the temple of Tell-el-Yadouai built by Rameses 
III. Whether the Chaldeans and Assyrians had 
borrowed their processes from the Egyptians, or 
whether they themselves had discovered these is 
not certain, but it is known that after having for 
a long time used crude bricks in their buildings 

they erected the palaces of Crcesus at Sardis, of 
Mausolus at Halicarnassus, and of Attalus at 
Tralles in beautiful, red, fired bricks. . . . The 
Persians, successors to the Assyrians, carried the 
manufacture of monumental earthenware to a 
high degree of perfection. The body employed by 
the ancient Persians was extremely silicious, having 
the appearance of a piece of soft stone. . . . The 
Greeks are important because of the perfection of 
form they were able to give to their pottery, and 
the Romans because they were the creators of the 
industry of fired wares for the purposes of con- 
struction, and because • Southern Italy was the 
country from which originated 'Campanian' ware, 
vhich will always remain the most perfect model 
of pottery in fired body. In addition to the ad- 
mirable purity of form, the Greek potters used 
fairly fine clays, probably washed and fired at 
a rather high temperature, which gave a special 
hardness and fineness. They either polished the 
surfaces before firing, in order to give a kind of 
'finish' to the fired pottery, or used the process of 
decoration known as 'slipping,' which consists in 
putting on to the body ornamentation made by 
means of another body of a different colour. Later, 
they covered the fire bodies with a lustre glaze 
which by its strongly alkaline composition deter- 
mined the vitrification of the surface. These lus- 
tres were coloured red by oxide of iron, or aark 
brown by a mixture of the oxides of iron and 
manganese. The art of faience was introduced 
into Europe fiom Persia by the Arabs and Moors 
after it had been ignored by all the classic nations 
and the Middle Ages. Towards the eleventh cen- 
tury when the Arabs were superseded by the 
Moors, a new kind of manufacture appeared in 
Spain which vjss distinguished from the Persian 
wares chiefly by the metallic lustre of the glaze. 
The manufacture of the celebrated Hispano- 
Moresque faience, wall tilings, dishes and vases, 
frequently having great purity of form, became 
concentrated in the Island of Majorca, at Malaga, 
and at Manises, near Valencia. The celebrated 
vases which adorn the Alhambra at Granada, and 
are considered masterpieces of Moorish ceramic 
art, were probably manufactured at Malaga about 
1320. . . . Up to the fifteenth century the only 
glaze known was of a plumbiferous nature Its 
transparency allowed the yellowish or red colour- 
ing of the body to be seen. The origin of its use 
is unknown, but it is generally admitted that it 
was known to the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, 
and though little used by them was handed down 
to the thirteenth century, when it became more 
largely employed." — E. Bourry, Treatise on ceramic 
industries, pp. 8-10. — See also civiliz.ation: 
Neolithic Age; Minoan Age: B.C. 3000-2200; B.C. 
2200-1600; B.C. 1200-750; Hellenism; Science 
and invention. 

"The Chinese are now generally credited with 
the art of making paper of the kind most familiar 
to us, that is from fibrous material first reduced 
to the condition of pulp. Materials such as strips 
of bark, leaves, and papyrus cannot of course be 
included in a definition like this, which one writer 
has condensed into the phrase 'Paper is an aqueous 
deposit of vegetable fibre.' A.D. 105. — The earliest 
reference to the manufacture of paper is to be 
found in the Chinese Encyclopedia, wherein it is 
stated that Ts'ai-Lun, a native of Kuei-yang, en- 
tered the service of the Emperor Ho-Ti in A.D. 
75, and devoting his leisure hours to study, sug- 
gested the use of silk and ink as a substitute for 
the bamboo tablet and stylus. Subsequently he 
succeeded in making paper from bark, tow. old 
linen, and fish nets (A.D. 105). He was created 



Early Industrial Processes 


marquis in A.D. 114 for his long years of service 
and his ability. A.D. 704.— It has been commonly 
asserted that raw cotton, or cotton wool, was first 
used by the Arabs at this date lor the manufac- 
ture of [laper, they having learnt the art from 
certain Chinese prisoners captured at the occupa- 
tion of Samarkand by the Arabs. The complete 
conquest of Samarkand does not, however, seem to 
have taken place until A.D. 751, and there is little 
doubt that this date should be accepted for the 
introduction of the art of paper-making among the 
Arabs. ... In 1877 a great quantity of ancient 
manuscripts was found at El-Faijum, in Egypt, 
comprising about 100,000 documents in ten lan- 
guages, extending from B.C. 1400 to A.D. 1300, 
many of which were written on paper. The docu- 
ments were closely examined in 1894 by these ex- 
perts, at the request of the owner, the Archduke 
Rainer of Austria. . . . The earliest dated paper 
was a letter A.D. 874, but two documents, which 
from other reasons could be identified as belonging 
to A.D. 702, proved that at the end of the eighth 
century the Arabs understood the art of making 
linen paper on network moulds, and further that 
they added starch for the purpose of sizing and 
loading the paper. ... In medieval times paper 
was known as Charta bombycina, and sometimes 
as Charta Damascena, the latter from its place of 
origin. . . . 'The oldest of the Eastern Turkestani 
papers, dating from the fourth and fifth centuries 
A.D., are made of a mixture of raw fibres of the 
bast of various dicotyledonous plants. From these 
fibres the half-stuff for the paper was made by 
means of a rude mechanical process. . . . Similar 
papers, made of a mixture of raw fibres, are also 
found belonging to the fifth, sixth, and seventh cen- 
turies. But in this period there also occur papers 
which arc made of a mixture of rudely pounded 
rags and of raw fibres extracted by maceration. 
... In the same period papers make their appear- 
ance in which special methods are used to render 
them capable of being written on, viz., coating with 
gypsum and sizing with starch or with a gelatine 
extracted from lichen. ... In the seventh and 
eighth centuries both kinds of papers are of equal 
frequency, those made of the raw fibre of various 
dicotyledonous plants and those made of a mixture 
of rags and raw fibres. In this period the method 
of extracting the raw fibre is found to improve 
from a rude stamping to maceration ; but that of 
preparing the rags remains a rude stamping. . . . 
The previous researches of Professor Karabacek 
and the author had shown that the invention of 
rag paper was not made in Europe by Germans 
or Italians about the turn of the fourteenth cen- 
tury, but that the Arabs knew its preparation as 
early as the end of the eighth century. The pres- 
ent researches now further show that the begin- 
nings of the preparation of rag paper can be 
traced to the Chinese in the fifth or fourth cen- 
turies, or even earlier. . . . [But] it was the Arabs 
who, having been initiated into the art by the 
Chinese, improved the method of preparing it, and 
carried it to that stage of perfection in which it 
was received from them by the civilised peoples 
of Europe in the mediaeval ages. . . . The author 
has shown that the process of sizing the paper with 
starch in order to improve it was already known 
to the Arabs in the eighth century. In the four- 
teenth century the knowledge of it was lost, animal 
glue being substituted in the place of starch, till 
finally in the nineteenth century, along with the 
introduction of paper machines, the old process 
was resuscitated. But the invention of it was due 
to the Chinese. The oldest Eastern Turkestani 
paper which is sized with starch belongs to the 

eighth century. . . . The Chinese were not only 
the inventors of felted paper and the imitators ol 
rag paper . . . but they must also be credited with 
being the forerunners of the modern method of 
preparing "cellulose paper." For their very ancient 
practice of extracting the fibre from the bark and 
other parts of plants by means of maceration is in 
principle identical with the modern method of 
extracting "cellulose" by means of certain chemical 
processes.' . . . The introduction of the art into 
Europe seems to have taken place early in the 
eleventh century, when the Moors manufactured 
paper at Toledo. . . . [and the] industry of paper- 
making passed through Spain into Italy. France, 
and the Netherlands. In ii8q paper was being man- 
ufactured at Hainault, in France, and the industry 
rapidly spread all over the Continent. In 1390 Ul- 
man Stromer established a mill at Nuremberg, in 
Germany, employing a great number of men. who 
were obliged to take an oath that they would not 
teach anyone the art of paper-making or make 
paper on their own account. In the sixteenth cen- 
tury the Dutch endeavoured to protect their in- 
dustry by making the exportation of moulds for 
paper-making an offence punishable by death. . . . 
The actual period at which the manufacture of 
paper was first started in England is somewhat 
uncertain. The first mention of any paper-maker 
is found in Wynkyn de Worde's 'De Proprietatibus 
Rerum,' printed by Caxton in 1405. ... In 1588 
a paper mill was erected by Sir John Spielraan, a 
German, who obtained a licence from Queen EHza- 
beth 'for the sole gathering for ten years of all 
rags, etc., necessary for the making of paper.' . . . 
The industry made but little progress for some 
time after Spielman's death, and up till 1670 
the supplies of paper were obtained almost entirely 
from France." — R. W. Sindall, Manufacture oj 
paper, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13. — See also Books: Writing 
materials; Printing and the press: Before 14th 

Gutenberg printing press. — Invention of mov- 
able type. See Printing and the press: Before 
14th century; 1430-1456. 

Artificial light: Torch, candle, and lamp.— 
"The firefly or lightning-bug which we see so 
often in the summer nights was in the earliest time 
brought into service and made to shed its light for 
man. Fireflies were imprisoned in a rude box — 
in the shell of a cocoanut, perhaps, or in a gourd 
— and the light of their bodies was allowed to 
shoot out through the numerous holes made in the 
box. We must not despise the light given out by 
these tiny creatures. 'In the mountains of Tijuca,' 
says a traveler, 'I have read the finest print by 
the light of one of these natural lamps (fireflies) 
placed under a common glass tumbler, and with 
distinctness I could tell the hour of the night and 
discern the very small figures which marked the 
seconds of a Uttle Swiss watch.' .Although fireflies 
have been used here and there by primitive folk, 
they could hardly have been the first lamp. Man's 
battle with darkness really began with the torch, 
which was lighted at the fire in the cave or in 
the wigwam and kept burning for purposes of il- 
lumination. .\ burning stick was the first lamp. 
The first improvement in the torch was made 
when slivers or splinters of resinus or oily wood 
were tied together and burned. We may regard 
this as a lamp which is all wick. This invention 
resulted in a fuller and clearer light, and one that 
would burn longer than the single stick. A fur- 
ther improvement came when a long piece of wax 
or fatty substance was wrapped about with leaves. 
This was something like a candle, only the wick 
(the leaves) was outside, and the oily substance 



Artificial Light 
Torch; Candle; Lamp 


which fed the wick was in the center. In the 
course of time it was discovered that it was better 
to smear the grease on the outside of the stick, or 
on the outside of whatever was to be burned ; that 
is, that it was better to have the wick inside. 
Torches were then made of rope coated with 
resin or fat, or of sticks or splinters smeared with 
grease; here the stick resembled the wick of the 
candle as we know it to-day, and the coating of 
fat corresponding to the tallow or paraffin. Rude 
candles made of oiled rope or of sticks smeared 
with fat were invented in primitive times, and 
they continued to be u.sed for thousands of years 
after men were civilized. In the dark ages . . . 

soon as men discovered that the melted fat of ani- 
mals would burn easily — and that was certainly 
very long ago— they invented in a rude form the' 
lamp from which the lamp of to-day has been 
evolved. The cavity of a shell or of a stone, or 
of the skull of an animal, was tilled with melted 
fat or oil, and a wick of ffa.x or other fibrous ma- 
terial was laid upon the edge of the vessel. The 
oil or grease passed up the wick by capillary action, 
and when the end of the wick was lighted it con- 
tinued to burn as long as there were both oil and 
wick. This was the earliest lamp. ,As man became 
more civilized, instead of a hollow stone or a 
skull, an earthen saucer or bowl was used. Around 


I, Shell lamp. 2. Early Greek lamp. 3, Early Hebrew lamp. 4, Etruscan bronze lamp. 5, Tin Betty, 1632. 
6, Cast iron fai lamp, 1700. 7, Fat lamp, brass dish, iron upright, 1680. 8, Tin upriglu Franklin burner, whale- 
oil, 1750. 9, Tin lard-oil lamp with reifector, 1830. 10, Tin lard-oil lamp, 1S40. 11, Glass camphene lamp, 1848. 
12, Glass whale-oil lamp, 1760. 

torch-makers began to wrap the central stick, first 
flax or hemp, and then place around this a thick 
layer of fat. This torch gave a very good light, 
but about the time of Alfred the Great (qoo A.D.) 
another step was taken: the central stick was left 
out altogether, and the thick layer of fat or wax 
was placed directly around the wick of twisted 
cotton. . . . The torch had developed into the 
candle. The candles of to-day are made of bet- 
ter material than those of the olden time, and they 
are much cheaper; yet in principle they do not 
differ from the candles of a thousand years ago. 
"I have given the development of the candle first 
because its forerunner, the torch, was first used 
for lighting. But it must not be forgotten that 
along with the torch there was used, almost from 
the beginning, another kind of lamp. Almost as 

the edge of the bowl a gutter or spout was made 
for holding the wick. In the lamp of the ancient 
Greeks and Romans the reservoir which held the 
oil was closed, although in the center there was a 
hole through which the oil might be poured. Some- 
times one of these lamps would have several 
spouts or nozzles. The more wicks a lamp had, of 
course, the more light it would give. There is in 
the museum at Cortona, in Italy, an ancient lamp 
which has sixteen nozzles. This interesting relic 
was used in a pagan temple in Etruria more than 
twenty-five hundred years ago. Lamps . . . were 
used among the civilized peoples of the ancient 
world and continued to be used through the 
Middle Ages far into modern times. . . . The candle 
was in every way better than the ancient lamps, 
and after the invention of wax tapers — candles 



Early Intluslrial Procemes 
Wind Instruments 


made of wax— in the thirU'cnth century, lamps 
were no longer used by those who could afford to 
buy tapers. For ordinary purposes and ordinary 
people, however, the lamp continued to do service, 
but it was not improved." — ^S. E. Forman, Stories 
uj useful inventions, pp. 28-33. 

Use of steam. See Sit.A.\r .\nd v.\9. engines: 
Development of steam en(;ines u|j lo Watt's time. 

Early hand-guns. — Muskets. See Rifles and 
REVOi.VKKs: Origin of small arms. 

Wind instruments. — Organ.— "The organ (ou- 
pab) mentioned in Genesis (chap, iv., v. 21) cer- 
tainly little resembled the modern instrument of 
that name, although it may be regarded as fur- 
nishing the first hint. It was probably a series of 
reeds, of unequal length and thicknes.s joined to- 
gether; being nearly identical with the pipe of 
Pan amonK the Greeks [from which all modern 
wind instruments have originated], or that simple 
ia-trument called a mouth-organ, which is still in 
common use. . . . The Greek and Latin shepherds 
made this primitive instrument of strong reeds, or 
some other suitable material. It originally con- 
sisted of seven or eight reeds of progressive lengths, 
fastened together with wax. The number was 
afterwards e.xtended to ten or twelve. The syrinx, 
or pipe of Pan, by its form and arrangement, may 
be regarded as the first kind of organ building ; 
for it consisted of a number of pipes placed to- 
gether in ranks, according to their succession of 
tones, and sounded by wind." — E. J. Hopkins and 
E. F. Rimbault, Or^an, its history and construc- 
tion, pp. 2-3. — ".About B.C. 284 to 246 there lived 
at .■\lexandria, under Ptolemy Euergetes, a . . . 
[barber] named Ctesibius, who . . . observed that 
the counterweight of a movable mirror, . . . pro- 
duced a musical sound by the force with which it 
drove the air out of the tube in which it moved. 
Experimenting with the principle thus noticed, he 
succeeded in making a machine consisting of a 
hollow vase inverted, with an opening on the top, 
to which was attached a trumpet, and, on water 
being pumped into the vase the air was driven 
forcibly through the trumpet, producing a very 
powerful sound. . . . The idea of supplying a 
forced current of air to a single trumpet was en- 
larged by Ctesibius's pupil, Hero. . . . [He] de- 
veloped from Ctesibius's trumpet, [an instrument] 
in which the air was conveyed from the vase to a 
row of pipes, arranged in the order of a musical 
scale, any one of which could be caused to sound at 
will. Since the water was the motivei power, Hero 
or others named the instrument the Hydraulos, or 
. . . Hydraulus, and this was the predecessor of our 
organ. Hero describes perforated metal sliders 
under each pipe, which must be kept well oiled, 
and which, on being pushed in by the finger, admit 
the air to the respective pipes. Tha slider is re- 
turned to its place by a horn spring on the removal 
of the finger. .\ century and a half later Vi- 
truvius, a famous Roman engineer, gave a further 
description of this instrument, showing that by 
this time it had a keyboard, and that the horn 
springs were replaced by metal ones; that it had 
several rows of pipes answering to the modern 
'stops'; that each row stood over a separate channel, 
to which wind was admitted by a valve wfjich 
could be opened or closed at the will of the per- 
former. . . . The popularity of the hydraulus con- 
tinued for many centuries. Claudian, a poet of 
Alexandria, who flourished about A.D. 370, praises 
the or^nist, who. . . . 'by his wandering fingers, 
causes the innumerable voices which spring from 
the multitude of broirze pipes to sound ; and who, 
with a beam like lever, can rouse the struggling 
waters to song.' The reference to the multitude of 

pipes and the lever, or biellows handle, as large as 
a beam, points to a very elaborate instrument. . . . 
The compass of the hydraulus must have embraced 
about three octaves in the first century of our era, 
if we accept the view adopted by Gevaert, that one 
instrument was capable of 'performing all the modes 
mentioned by .•\nonymous.' [The introduction of 
harmony brought about a new improvement in 
the organ] If it was possible to play two melo- 
dies at once with the two hands, always at an 
interval of a fourth or fifth, it was equally possible 
to give two pipes to each key, one at a fourth or 
fifth above the other; or three pipes, one at a fifth, 
the other at an octave above the first ; and the 
numlicr could be increased ad libitum. The new 
invention was called locatio. or mixture, from the 
mixing of sounds. . . . The organ required two 
organists, each of whom managed his own 'alpha- 
bet.' [There were no stops, and the "full organ" 
had to be used] — C. F. \. Williams, Story of the 
organ, pp. 2-3, 7-8. — "The close of the eleventh 
century forms an era in the history of organ-build- 
ing, when an organ is said to have been erected 
in the cathedral at Magdeburg, with a key-board 
consisting of sixteen keys. ... In the course of the 
fourteenth century they set about improving the 
clumsy clavier or key-board. In particular, they 
made neater keys, increased their number ... to 
the extent of nearly three octaves, and so reduced 
their fall and breadth that they no longer required 
to be struck down by the list [or elbows]. ... In 
1330 or 1361 Nicholas Faber, a priest, built the 
great organ in the cathedral at Halberstadt. It 
had fourteen diatonic and eight chromatic keys. 
. . . This is the earliest authentic account of an 
organ provided with the semitones of the scale " — 
E. J. Hopkins and E. F. Rimbault, Organ, its his- 
tory and construction, pp. 33, 45. — "The organ ap- 
pears to have been at first placed in the neighbor- 
hood of the choir, but when increased in size, it was 
removed to the west end of the church. But when 
the main organ . . . was enlarged, a new inven- 
tion came into use, called in Italian Ninfale, in 
other languages Portative [or Regal]. This was 
a small organ, of which representations are found 
in many ancient manuscripts; it was hung round 
the player's neck, who worked the bellows with 
one hand and played on the keys with the fingers of 
the other — for the keys were small enough to be 
played with the fingers. . . . .Another form of or- 
gan [larger than the portative] which became uni- 
versal in the Middle Ages was the Positive, so 
called because [although movable] it was 'placed' in 
a certain position to be played. ... In course of 
time it became incorporated into the organ proper, 
and provided with its own keyboard; in England 
it took the name of Choir organ, while retaining 
its name Positiv and Positif in Germany and 
France respectively. . . . The organ proper, u.sed to 
accompany the congregation, continued for many 
centuries in a very primitive condition. . . . Stops 
were not introduced till the end of the fifteenth 
century, and the organs were increased in size by 
adding innumerable pipes behind the chief row, 
which was in front and answered to our Open 
Diapason. . . . During the early years of the fif- 
teenth century the 'Spring box' was invented in 
the Netherlands. . . . Shortly afterwards the slider 
action was invented, or rather rediscovered, for it 
had been used in the hydraulic organs. ... In 
addition to the invention of registers, the series of 
pipes called Principal, or Prestant, or . . . Open 
diapason, was given a separate keyboard, the 
locatio or mixture being acted on by a second 
clavier ... [the pedal clavier was also added]. 
... By 1499 Heinrich Crantz had erected an or- 



Early Industrial Processes 
Stringed Instruments 


gan in Brunswick with keys so reduced in size that 
an octave was only larger by one key than the 
present octave; and the semitones, . . . were 
placed between the naturals, and coloured black. 
We may take it, then, that our organ keyboard 
took its present dimensions and form, after many 
experiments, about the beginning of the sixteenth; 
while the keyboards of positives had for centuries 
been assimilated to those of the clavichord and 
spinet."— C. F. A. Williams, Story of the organ, pp. 
38, 40-41, 45-47, 53— See also Music: Primitive: 
First music; Peru; Mexico; Ancient: B.C. 2852- 
478; also Folk music and nationalism: Celtic: 

Stringed instruments, forerunners of the 
piano. — "Several instruments of the ancients have 
been mentioned to which the pianoforte owes its 
origin. . . . One — an Egyptian harp — was found in 
an ancient tomb at Thebes, and when the catgut 
strings upon it were touched the harp still emitted 
sounds. . . . Amongst ancient stringed instruments, 
the harp, lute, and lyre are probably of the great- 
est antiquity, but which of these can claim priority 
of invention it is impossible to discover with cer- 
tainty. The harps, which were much used in an- 
cient Egypt and Assyria, varied greatly in size and 
shape. . . . One of these harps has thirteen strings, 
but wants the fore-piece of the frame opposite to 
the longest string. The back part is the sounding- 
board, composeci of four thin pieces of wood 
joined together in form of a cone — that is, grow- 
ing wider towards the bottom; so that as the 
length of the siring increases, the square of the 
corresponding space in the sounding-board, in 
which the sound was to undulate, always increases 
in proportion. . . . The lute or cithara, which is 
perhaps even more than the harp the immediate 
ancestor of the pianoforte, was much used in Hin- 
dustan, China, Egypt, and Assyria. . . . Perhaps 
the dulcimer, even more than the harp and lyre, 
was the immediate ancestor of the pianoforte. It 
was played with the plectrum for striking, both by 
the Egyptians and Assyrians, and, later, by the 
Hebrews and Persians. The strings in this instru- 
ment passed completely over the sounding-board, 
and were of varying lengths." — E. Brinsmead, 
History of the pianoforte, pp. 68-70, 73, 77. — 
See also Music: Ancient: B.C. 4000-525; B.C. 3000- 
7th century; B.C. 2000-.\.D. 1200. — "The clavi- 
chord, especially in the earlier models, shows its 
descent from the monochord, or pitch carrier with 
one string. Virdung, as long ago as 1511, said he 
never could learn who, by putting keys to a mono- 
chord, had invented the clavichord, or who, on 
account of those keys, first gave the name 'clavi- 
cordium.' ... It has been supposed Pythagoras 
found the monochord in Egypt, where the principle 
of the stopped string upon a finger-board had 
been known, as the monuments testify, ages before 
his time, and it may have been also known in 
Babylonia, After Pythagoras the monochord be- 
came in Greece, where polychord instruments had 
prevailed, and in Europe generally, the canon or 
rule for the measurement of intervals, and con- 
tinued to be so employed up to the eleventh cen- 
tury and later of our era. It became subsequently 
transformed into a polychord with four strings, 
to facilitate the melodic division of the Gregorian 
tones, the Plain-song of the Church as used in the 
Ritual, Such an instrument would be a set of 
monochords, and in course of time, by adding more 
strings and a keyboard, the clavichord was invented. 
We do not know within a hundred years or more 
when this change happened, but the clavichord, 
being a development of the monochord, long bore 
the same name — indeed, up to the end of the 

sixteenth century." — A. J. Hipkins, Description and 
history of the pianoforte and of the older keyboard 
stringed instruments, pp. 57-58. — "The Cithara of 
the Middle Ages was a poor thing enough, in the 
form of a large P, with ten strings in the oval part; 
but it had movable pegs, and could be easily tuned. 
. . . But the Psaltery was a great stride forward. 
This instrument was an arrangement of strings 
on a box. Here we have the principle of the 
sounding-board, — a thing of vital moment to the 
piano, and one upon which the utmost care is be- 
stowed by all the great makers. Whoever first 
thought of stretching strings on a box may also be" 
said to have half invented the guitar and the violin. 
No single subsequent thought has been so fruitful 
of consequences as this in the improvement of 
stringed instruments. . . . [About the year 1200 
the psaltery or dulcimer was a harp-shaped box, 
eighteen to thirty-six feet long, on which were 
stretched a large number of strings], which the 
player struck with a stick or a long-handled ham- 
mer. This instrument was a signal advance toward 
the grand piano. It was a piano, without its ma- 
chinery. The next thing, obviously, must have 
been to contrive a method of striking the strings 
with certainty and evenness; and, accordingly, we 
find indications of a keyed instrument after thi 
year 1300, called the Clavicytherium, or keyed 
cithara. The . . . [use] of keys permitted the 
strings to be covered over, and therefore the strings 
of the clavicytherium were enclosed in a box, in- 
stead of being stretched on a box. The first keys 
were merely long levers with a nub at the end of 
them, mounted on a pivot, which the player canted 
up at the strings on the see-saw principle." — J, 
Parton, Triumphs of enterprise, ingenuity and pub- 
lic spirit, pp. 325-327, — The clavicytherium was in- 
troduced "by the Italians, and soon imitated in 
Belgium ajid Germany, The introduction of this 
mstrument was probably due to the want felt by 
composers of some instrument which would give, 
however imperfectly, the effect of an orchestra, 
... It was at first in an upright position, and Sir 
John Hawkins says that it was brought out as a' 
new invention long afterwards under the name of 
the 'upright harpsichord.' Subsequently this clavi- 
cytherium, or keyed cithara, was placed upon sup- 
ports in a horizontal position. Another instrument, 
deriving its name from employing the key Ulavis), 
was the clavichord, which was in use before, or at 
the same time as the clavicytherium, from which it 
differed, howaver, both in construction and in the 
manner of producing the tone, the strings being of 
wire, and set in motion by striking and pressing 
instead of the twanging of the leather plectrum." 
— E. Brinsmead, History of the pianoforte, p. 85. 

Drum in ancient Mexico. See Music: Primi- 
tive: Mexico, 

Compass. — "It is perhaps impossible to ascer- 
tain the epoch when the polarity of the magnet 
was first known in Europe, The common opinion 
which ascribes its discovery to a citizen of Amalfi 
in the 14th century, is undoubtedly erroneous. 
Guiot de Provins, a French poet who lived about 
the year 1200, or, at the latest, under St, Louis, 
describes it in the most unequivocal language, 
James de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine, before the 
middle of the 13th century, and Guido Guinizzelli, 
an Italian poet of the same time, are equally ex- 
plicit. The French, as well as Italians, claim the 
discovery as their own; but whether it were due to 
either of these nations, or rather learned from their 
intercourse with the Saracens, is not easily to be 
ascertained, ... It is a singular circumstance, and 
only to be explained by the obstinacy with which 
men are apt to reject improvements, that the mag- 



16th-/7th Centuries 
Iron and Glass 


netic needle was not generally adopted in navipa- 
tion till very lonp alter the discovery of its prop- 
erties, and even after their peculiar importance had 
been perceived. The writers of the i.Uh century, 
who mention the polarity of the needle, mention 
also its use in navigation; yet Capmany h.^5 found 
no distinct proof of its employment till 1403, and 
docs not believe that it was frequently on board 
Mediterranean ships at the latter part of the pre- 
ccdini; age." — H. Hallam, Middle Ages, cli. 9, pi. 2, 
with note. — "Both Chaucer, the English, and Bar- 
bour, the Scottish, poet, allude familiarly to the 
compass in the latter part of the 14th century." — 
G. L. Craik, History of British commerce, v. i, p. 
138. — "We have no certain information of the 
directive tendency of the natural magnet being 
known earlier than the middle or end of the nth 
century (in Europe, of course). . . . That it was 
known at this date and its practical value recog- 
nized, is shown by a pas.sage from an Icelandic 
historian, quoted by Hanstien in his treatise of 
Terrestrial Magnetism. In this extract an expedi- 
tion from Norway to Iceland in the year 868 is 
described; and it is stated that three ravens were 
taken as guides, for, adds the historian, 'in those 
times seamen had no loadstone in the northern 
countries.' This history was written about the 
year .^.D. 106S, and the allusion I have quoted 
obviously shows that the author was aware of 
natural magnets having been employed as a com- 
pass. At the same time it fixes a limit of the dis- 
covery in northern countries. We find no mention 
of artificial magnets being so employed till about 
a century later." — W. Thompson (R. F. Burton, 
Ultima Thule, v. i, p. 312). 


Industry: Manufacture of iron. — Glass. — 
"After the decline in the iron maker's art [in Eu- 
rope], which accompanied the general lapse of 
knowledge during the mediaeval period, the iron 
industry first revived in the lower Rhine \alley, 
where, in the latter part of the media;val period, the 
(icrmans had an improved form of the Catalan 
furnace, which they had built to a height of ten 
to sixteen feet, and called the stikkojen. It was 
sometimes called the wolf oven, so named because 
the metal resulting from its operation was called 
a wolf. This furnace had an output in its best 
form of 100 or 150 tons in the year, and repre- 
sents the final form of the Catalan forge in 
Europe. [The melting point of pure iron (1600° 
C) could not be attained by any of these primitive 
furnaces, consequently the product was removed in 
a pasty state and worked to remove impurity ] 
The next stage was merely the enlargement of this 
German stiickofen to a greater height. It was re- 
rhristened the blow oven, and the greater heat of 
its flame succeeded in melting the iron and making 
it flow so that it could be cast. This improvement 
may properly be said to have resulted in the blast 

furnace, first used in Belgium, about 1340 

T'his device was improved and perfected during the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by the Germans, 
Belgians, and the French. Strange to say, it was 
nearly two centuries before it was widely intro- 
duced into Europe, not being known in Saxony 
until 1550, although it was used in England a 
century earlier. By 1550 in central Germany its 
bellows were worked by cams upon the axles of 
water wheels, which also operated heavy hammers 
for the purification of the metal. By 1680 a blast 
furnace in the Forest of Dean, England, was 
described as being thirty feet in height, operating 
continuously (or months, and making cast iron. 

which was described under the names of sows and 
pigs. Pig iron is the crude product of the blast 
furnace, and bears its bucolic name because the 
molten iron is allowed to run from the furnace, 
over a floor of sand, in which are impressions into 
which the iron is permitted to run and cool in any 
shape desired. The most convenient shape is the 
one by which little side depressions lead off from 
a main trench in the same way that cross streets 
leave a main avenue. depressions on the 
casting floor arc separated by very narrow sand 
banks, causing the main channel and the side 
channel when cast into iron to considerably re- 
semble a family of infant swine feeding; hence 
the name pig iron." — R. J. Smith, Beginnitig of 
modern iron, pp. 24-26. 

"The art of glass-cutting in Europe dates back 
to the middle of the sixteenth century, when it was 
extensively practised on the Continent, particularly 
in Bohemia. The earliest examples were probably 
imitated from the rock-crystal cups of ancient 
Greece and Rome. There is no doubt that in both 
these countries the art was practised for the orna- 
mentation of the famous crystallinum, whilst 
some vessels were undoubtedly cut out of the solid 
block. ... In the seventeenth century the whole 
process (of glass making) w;is revolutionised by 
the introduction of a large proportion of oxide of 
lead, making what is technically known as 'flint' 
glass — a glass much more brilliant than any other, 
a quality due partly to its transparency and partly 
to its increased refractive power, which renders it 
specially fitted for 'cutting' — a process which en- 
hances its beauty by increasing the number of ways 
in which the light rays falling on the glass are dis- 
persed. . . . All this time the art of glass-making 
on the Continent had been developing. In par- 
ticular, the Venetian workers at Murano had per- 
fected the art of colouring and enamelling glass. 
. . . Flint glass derives its name from the fact that 
in England the silica, which is the main constituent 
of all glass, was procured from flints which were 
calcined and pulverised. Being highly refractive it 
is extensively employed in the manufacture of 
optical instruments — telescopes, microscopes, etc. 
Quartz and fine sand are now tised in the place of 
flints. The glass is soft, and hence easily scratched 
and dulled. . . . Flint glass was known in quite 
early times." — J. S. Lewis, Old glass and how to 
collect it, pp. iq, 7, 14. 

Diving bell. — "It is certain . . . that men 
began very early to contrive means for supply- 
ing divers with air under the water, and of 
thereby enabling them to remain under it much 
longer. For this purpose the diving-bell, campana 
urinatoria, was invented. Those who had no idea 
of this machine, miirht have easily have been led 
to it by the following experiment. If a drinking- 
glass inverted be immersed in water, in such a 
manner that the surface of the water may rise 
equally around the edge of the glass, it will be 
found that the glass does not become filled with 
water, even when pressed down to the greatest 
depth; for where there is air no other body can 
enter, and by the above precaution the air cannot 
be expelled by the water. In like manner, if a bell 
of metal be constructed under which the diver can 
stand on a stool suspended from it so that the 
edge of the bell may reach to about his knee, the 
upper part of his body will be secured from 
water, and he can, even at the bottom ot the 
sea, breathe the air enclosed in the bell. The 
invention of this bell is generally assigned to the 
sixteenth century. . . . We read, however, that 
even in the time of .Xristotle divers u.^ed a kind of 
kettle to enable them to continue longer under 



16th-17th Centuries 
Diving Bell; Pendulum Clock 


water; but the manner in which it was employed is 
not clearly described. The oldest information we 
have respecting the use of the diving-bell in 
Europe is that of John Taisnier, quoted by Schott. 
The former, who was born at Hainault in iSog, had 
a place at court under Charles V, whom he at- 
tended on his voyage to Africa. He relates in what 
manner he saw at Toledo, in the presence of the 
emperor and several thousand spectators, two 
Greeks let themselves down under water, in a large 
inverted kettle, with a burning light, and rise up 
again without being wet. It appears that this art 
was then new to the emperor and the Spaniards, 
and that the Greeks were induced to make the 
experiment in order to prove the possibility of it. 
After this period the use of the diving-bell seems 
to have become still better known. It is described 
more than once in the works of Lord Bacon, who 
explains its effects, and remarks that it was in- 
vented to facilitate labour under the water. In the 
latter part of the seventeenth century the diving- 
bell was sometimes employed in great undertakings. 
When the English, in the year 1588, dispersed the 
Spanish fleet called the Invincible Armada, part 
of the ships went to the bottom near the Isle of 
Mull, on the western coast of Scotland; and some 
of these, according to the account of the Spanish 
prisoners, contained great riches. This informa- 
tion excited, from time to time, the avarice of 
speculators, and gave rise to several attempts to 
procure part of the lost treasure. In the year 
1665, a person was so fortunate as to bring up some 
cannon, which, however, were not sufficient to 
defray the expenses. ... In the year 161 7, Fran- 
cis Kessler gave a description of his water-armour, 
intended also for diving, but which cannot really 
be used foi that purpose. In the year 1671, Wit- 
sen taught, in a better manner than any of his 
predecessors, the construction and use of the div- 
ing-bell; but he is much mistaken when he says 
that it was invented at Amsterdam. In i67q ap- 
peared, for the first time, Borelli's well-known 
work De Motu Animalium, in which he not only 
described the diving-bell but also proposed another, 
the impracticability of which was shown by James 
Bernoulli. When S'lurm published his Collegium 
Curiosura, in 1678, he proposed some hints for the 
improvement of this machine, on which remarks 
were made in the Journal des Scavans (Jan. 
1678)." — J. Beckman and W. Johnston, History 
of inventions, pp. 113-115, 118. 

Time measurement: Pendulum clock. — "The 
last important step in the development of the clock 
was taken wheri the pendulum was brought into 
use. The history of the pendulum will always 
include a story told by Galileo. This great as- 
tronomer, the story runs, while worshiping in the 
cathedral at Pisa one day, found the service dull, 
and began to observe the swinging of the lamps 
which were suspended from the ceiling. Using his 
pulse as a timekeeper he learned that where the 
chains were of the same length the lamp swayed to 
and fro in equal length of time, whether they 
traveled through a short space or a long space. 
This observation set the philosopher to experiment- 
ing with pendulums of different lengths. .'Kmong the 
many things he learned one of the most important 
was this: a pendulum thirty-nine inches in length 
will make one vibration in just one second of 
time. Now, if the pendulum could only be kept 
swinging and its vibrations counted it would serve 
as a clock. Galileo, of course, saw this, and he 
caused to be made a machine for keeping the 
pendulum in motion but he did not make a clock; 
he did not connect his pendulum with the works 
of a clock. This, however, was done about the 


middle of the seventeenth century, although it is 
somewhat difficult to tell who was the first to do 
it. The honor is claimed by an Englishman, a 
Frenchman, and a Dutchman. The truth is, clock- 
makers throughout Europe were trying at the same 
time to make the best of the discoveries of Galileo, 
and several of them about the same time con- 
structed clocks with pendulums. The one who 
seems to have succeeded first was Christian Huy- 
gens, a Dutch astronomer, who, in 1656, con- 
structed a clock, the motions of which were regu- 
lated by the swinging of a pendulum. The weight 
was attached to a cord passing over a pulley and 
gave motion to all the wheels, as in De Vick's 
clock. [See above: Ancient and medieval: meas- 
urements.] Like De Vick's clock also Huygen's 
clock had its escapement wheel acting upon two 
pallets. In the Dutchman's clock, however, the 
escapement, instead of turning a balance beam to 
and fro, acted upon the pendulum, giving it 
enough motion to keep it from stopping." — S. E. 
Forman, Stories of useful inventions, pp. 200-202. 
Instruments : Telescope. — Microscope. — Ba- 
rometer. — "There is no other instrument or ma- 
chine of human invention so recondite in its the- 
ory and so startling in its results as the telescope. 
. . . The invention of the telescope is a matter open 
to much controversy. Many lay it at the door, of 
Roger Bacon, for in his 'Opus Majus,' he gives a 
rather interesting description of the phenomena de- 
pending on the refraction of light by lenses. How- 
ever, the invention was doubtless accomplished in 
Holland, for in April or May ibog a rumor spread 
through Europe, and finally reached Venice where 
Galileo happened to be visiting a friend, that a 
Dutchman named Hans or John Lippershey had 
presented to Prince Maurice of Nassau, an optical 
instrument which possessed the property of causing 
distant objects to appear nearer to the observer. 
This telescope, made by himself, Lippershey had 
had in his possession since October 160S. Galileo, 
upon hearing the confirmation of the rumor set' 
himself to work on the subject, and on the first 
night after his return to Padua, found, in the 
doctrines of refraction, the principle for which he 
sought. He then procured two spectacle-glasses, 
both plane on one side, while the other side of 
the first was convex, and the other side of the 
second was concave. After placing one lens at 
either side of a leaden tube a few inches long, he 
found upon applying his eye to the concave lens, 
that objects appeared larger and closer to him. 
The magnification power of this telescope was only 
three diameters. After the completion of his first 
instrument, Galileo set to work to increase its 
magnifying power, with the result that he made 
one with a power of eight diameters which was 
succeeded by another with thirty, by means of 
which he succeeded in discovering the satellites of 
Jupiter, the mountains of the moon, and other 
celestial objects. The astronomical telescope with 
its two convex lenses was first explained by Kep- 
ler in his Catoptrics in 161 1. Christopher Scheiner, 
however, was the first to construct this form of 
telescope, which he describes in his Rosa Ursina 
(1630). Kepler's telescope came into general use 
in the middle of the 17th century due to the fact 
that its field of view was far greater than that of 
the Galilean telescope. Huygens constructed the 
first powerful telescope of this type, with a focal 
length of twelve feet. From this point onward, 
telescopes of greater and greater focal length were 
made, until they became so long, as to be difficult 
to use and unwieldy to handle. [These were all 
refracting telescopes.] The greatest advance came 
with the invention of the reflecting telescope. An 


J6tb-nth Centuries 
Microscope; Barometer 


Italian Jesuit, Father Zucchi (1616-1652) is re- 
ported to be the first to make use of an eye lens 
with which to view the iniajje produced by a con- 
cave mirror, but the lirst reflecting telescope is 
attributed to James Grepory (166,?). In i66g Sir 
Isaac Newton announced his rcflectini; telescope, 
in which the lipht travelled the entire length of the 
tube, at the end of which it struck a concave 
rcficctor which sent it back as a cone of rays to 
the focus, where it was magnilicd by the eyepiece. 
"It was Huygens, together with Malvasia and 
Auzout, who first applied the micrometer to the 
telescope, although the inventor of the first mi- 
crometer was William Gascoigne, of Yorkshire, 
about 1636." — H. S. Williams, History oj science, 
V. 2, p. 254. — See also Science: Middle Ages 
and the Renaissance: i6th century. — ''Just as the 
telescope reveals the infinity of the great world 
above and around us, so does the microscope reveal 
the infinity of the little world around, about, and 
within us. Its origin, like the telescope, is hidden 
in the dim distance of the past, but it is believed 
to antedate the telescope. Probably the dcwdrop 
on a leaf constituted the first microscoi)C. The 
magnifying power of glass balls was known to 
the Chinese, Japanese, As'^yrians and Egyptians, 
and a lens made of rock crystal was found among 
the ruins of Nineveh. The microscope is either 
single or compound. In the single the object is 
viewed directly. In the compound two or more 
lenses are so arranged that the image formed by 
one is magnilied by the others, and viewed as if it 
were the object itself. The single microscope can- 
not be claimed by any inventor. The double or 
compound microscoi>e was invented by Farntelli in 
1624, and it was in that century that the first im- 
portant applications were made for scientific in- 
vestigation. Most of the investigations were made, 
however, by the single microscope, and the names 
of Borelli, Malpighi, Lieberkuhn, Hooke, Leeuwen- 
hoek, Swammerden, Lyonnet, Hewson and Ellis 
were conspicuous as the fathers of microscopy " — 
E. W. Byhi, Progress of invention in the nineteenth 
century, pp. 200-291. — See also Medical scienxe: 
Modern: I7th-i8th centuries: Introduction of the 
microscope in medicine. — The inability of the engi- 
neers of Cosimo de' Medici to raise water higher 
than thirty-two feet by means of a suction pump 
is considered the fundamental cause which led to 
the discovery of the barometer. Golibo was ap- 
plied to and he explained it by saying that the 
"abhorrence of Nature" was limited to 32 feet 
and asked his disciple Evangelista Torricelli to in- 
vestigate the subject. He experimented with mer- 
cury and found that the mercury would not rise 
to a height greater than thirty inches. From 
this he drew the conclusion that a column of water 
thirty-one feet hich and one of mercury thirty 
inches high exerted the same pressure upon the same 
base, and that the force which counterbalanced 
them musif in both cases be the same. In 1645 
he published his conclusion that the weight of the 
air was the cause of the rise of the water to a 
height of 31 feet, and of mercury to 30 inches. 
To establish his conclusion he filled a tube more 
than three feet long, and open at one end only, 
with mercury, and then placed it in an open 
vessel of mercury, with the open end of the tube 
dippinc below the surface of the mercury. Upon 
removine the fincer which had been placed to 
close the open mouth of the lube, the mercury in 
the tube was found to sink until it stood at about 
twenty-eight inches above the mercury in the 
vessel. This constituted the first constructed ba- 
rometer. In 1646, unaware of Torricelli's explana- 
tion Pascal made a series of experiments similar to 

those made by Torricelli the previous year and 
obtained precisely the same results. The following 
year, when he became acquainted with the Tor- 
ricellian explanation, he assumed that the mercury 
in the tubes was suspended by the weight or the 
pressure of the air, and suggested that the column 
of mercury would fall, if taken to the summit of a 
high mountain. The experiment was tried, readings 
being taken at the summit and base of the mountain 
of Puy de Dome, in Auvcrgnc. The result was 
found to be as predicted by Pascal ; at the base the 
mercury stood twenty-six and a quarter inches 
(French) while at the summit it was only twenty- 
three and a sixth inches. Following this, Pascal 
inferred that changes in weather would occasion 
differences in barometer reading, according as to 
whether it was cold, hot, dry, or moist. From 
164Q to 1651 observations were made at Stockholm, 
Paris, and Clermont to test the veracity of this 
opinion. From these observations it generally ap- 
peared that the mercury rose in cold, cloudy and 
damp weather, and fell when the weather was hot 
and dry, and during periods of rain and snow. The 
modern barometer is not unlike that, first con- 
structed by Torricelli, consisting of a small cup 
filled with mercury into which there dips a large 
tube closed at one end. A scale is arranged on 
an outer metal tube which encloses the 

Camera obscura invented in the middle of the 
16th century. See below: i8th century: Pho- 

Evolution of violin. See Music: Modern: 

Vehicle brakes. — "Knowing that the ancient? 
traveled extensively, and that the great empires of 
history moved large armies over the then known 
world, accompanied by trains of baggage wagons 
and war machines, it is natural to suppose that 
the necessity for retarding those vehicles must have 
been plainly manifested. But as a matter of fact. 
the first suggestion of this necessity by the use of a 
practical mechanism designed for the purpose does 
not appear to have been more than 250 to 300 
years ago. . . . [Primitive vehicles] were of such 
construction that the natural resistance to rota- 
tion of their wheels was quite sufficient to bring 
them to a stop upon ordinary roads; and in cases 
of steep grades it was always easy to chain a log 
or stone to the back of the wagon [to check its 
speed]. ... A remarkable adherence to one basic 
combination of elemental parts, of the same general 
character and function, is to be observed in even 
the earliest types of brake apparatus. ... It is 
easy to see that the revolving wheels and axles 
offer the convenient and practical opportunity re- 
quired, and, consequently, it is not surprising to find 
that practically all brake devices, no matter how 
widely diversified in details, have one feature in 
common. This consists of a block or brake shoe, 
as it is called, so located that it may be pres-ed 
against the wheel tread with more or less force 
as may be necessary. This develops a frictional 
force or pull between the relatively stationary shoe 
and the revolving wheel which, so long as it does 
not exceed the 'adhesion' of the wheel to the rail 
or roadw.iy on which it rolls, tends to retard and 
finally stop the motion of the wheel and thereby 
of the vehicle itself. . . . .About the year 1630 an 
enterprising mine owner at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 
findinc the roads between his mine and the river 
so bad as to seriously interfere with the hauling 
of roal, conceived the idea of laying wooden rails 
in the roads and runninc his cars thereon. The 
tractive effort of these cars was thereby so much 
increased that the necessity of some contrivance to 
check their speed was at once apparent and 



ISth Century 
Artificial Light; Diving Bell 


out simple forms of brakes. One of these forms 
consisted of a metal-tipped beam which was fas- 
tened to the frame of the car in such a way as to 
scrape along in the ground at the side of the 
track. Another form was a simple lever pivoted to 
the side near the center of the car, and ordinarily 
held up by a chain, which, when desired for use, 
could be liberated and pressed by hand or foot 
against the top of the wheel. Many other simple 
devices of like nature were adopted by such rail 
or tram-roads as then existed, which require men- 
tion only to point out that all made use of a block 
or shoe forced against the tread of the wheel either 
directly, or through the medium of some simple 
combination of rods and levers, whereby the 
strength of the man applying the brake might be 
augmented or multiplied." — W. V. Turner, History 
of a great invention (Scientific American Supple- 
ment, Apr. 8, 1911). 

Iniroduction of flint-lock muskets. See RnxES 
AND revolvers: Origin of small arms. 

Steam engines. — Experiments of Balsco de 
Garay, Solomon de Caus, Brancas, Worcester, 
Morland, Denis Papin, and Savery. See Steam 
AND GAS ENGi.vEs: Development of steam engines 
up to Watt's time. 


Artificial light: Chimney lamps. — Gaslight. — 
Strange as it may seem, no improvement was made 
in lamps until very modern times. Well into the 
eighteenth century a shallow bowl, containing 
vegetable or mineral oil, in which a small piece of 
wick, or even rag, floated and burned was still 
in use. "Late in the eighteenth century the im- 
provement came. In 1783 a man named Argand, a 
Swiss physician residing in London, invented a 
lamp that was far better than any that had ever 
been made before. What did Argand do for the 
lamp? Examine an ordinary lamp in which coal- 
oil is burned. The chimney protects the flame from 
sudden gusts of wind ancl also creates a draft of 
air, just as the fire-chimney creates a draft. Ar- 
gand's lamp [which was originally made to burn 
sperm or colya oil] was the first to have a chimney. 
Look below the chimney and you will see open 
passages through which air may pass upward 
and find its way to the wick. Notice further that 
as this draft of air passes upward it is so directed 
that, when the lamp is burning, an extra quantity 
of air plays directly upon the wick. Before Ar- 
gand, the wick received no supply of air. Now 
notice — and this is very important — that the wick 
of our modern lamp is flat or circular, but thin. 
The air in abundance plays upon both sides of 
the thin wick, and burns it without making smoke. 
Smoke is simply half-burned particles (soot) of a 
burning substance. The particles pass off half- 
burned because enough air has not been supplied. 
Now Argand, by making the wick thin and by 
causing plenty of air to rush into the flame, caused 
all the wick to be burned and thereby caused it to 
burn with a white flame. After the invention of 
Argand, the art of lamp-making improved by 
leaps and by bounds. More progress was made in 
twenty years after 1783 than had been made in 
twenty centuries before. New burners were in- 
vented, new and better oils were used, and better 
wicks made. But all the new kinds of lamps were 
patterned after the Argand. . . . Soon after Ar- 
gand invented his lamp, William Murdock, a 
Scottish inventor, showed the world a new way 
of lighting a house. It had long been known that 
fat or coal, when heated, gives off a vapor or gas 
which bums with a bright light. Indeed, it is 

always a gas that burns, and not a hard sub- 
stance. In the candle or in the lamp the flame 
heats the oil which comes up to it through the 
wick and thus causes the oil to give off a gas. It 
is this gas that burns and gives the light. Now 
Murdock, in 1797, put this principle to a good use. 
He heated coal in a large vessel, and allowed the 
gas which was driven off to pass through mains 
and tubes to different parts of his house. Where- 
ever he wanted a light he let the gas escape at 
the end of the tube in a small jet and lighted it. 
Here was a lamp without a wick. Murdock soon 
extended his gaspipes to his factories, and lighted 
them with gas." — S. E. Forman, Stories of useful 
inventions, pp. 34-36. 

Franklin's identification of electricity with 
lightning. — Discoveries of Galvani and Volta. 
See Electrical discovery: 174S-1747; 1784-1S00. 

First suggestion of electric telegraph. See 
Electrical discovery: Telegraphy and telephony: 
Telegraph: 1 753-1874. 

Improved diving bell. — While many improve- 
ments in the diving bell were suggested, none 
"carried their researches further for this purpose 
than Dr. Halley, and Triewald, a Swede. The bell 
which Edmund Halley, secretary to the Royal 
Society, caused to be made, [and which he described 
in 1 71 7] was three feet broad at the top, five feet 
at the bottom, and eight feet in height; forming a 
cavity of sixty-three cubic feet. It was covered 
with lead; and was so heavy that it sunk to the 
bottom, even when entirely empty. Around the 
lower edge, weights were disposed in such a man- 
ner that it should always sink in a perpendicular 
direction, and never remain in an oblique positjon. 
In the top was fixed a piece of strong glass to 
admit the light from above, and likewise a valve 
to give a passage to the air corrupted by the breath. 
. . . Other improvements were made so that the 
bell could be continually supplied with fresh air 
in such abundance, that Halley, and four other 
persons, remained under water, at the depth of 
ten fathoms, an hour and a half, without* suffering 
the least injury, and could, with equal security, 
have continued longer, or even as long as they 
might have wished. . . . .'\nother improvement of 
the diving-bell was effected by . . . Triewald, a 
Swede, in 1732. His bell, which was much smaller 
and more commodious, was made of copper, tinned 
in the inside. On the top there were panes of 
glass, which, for the greater security, were fixed 
in a frame of the same metal. The stool below was 
placed in such a manner, that the head only of the 
diver, when he stood upon it, rose above the sur- 
face of the water in the bell. . . . Triewald ar- 
ranged his apparatus so that when the diver had 
breathed as long as possible in the upper air, he 
found at the side of the bell a spiral pipe, through 
which he could draw in the lower cool air which 
was over the surface of the water. To the upper 
end of this copper pipe was affixed a pliable leather 
one, with an ivory mouth-piece, . . . [through 
which the diver could] inspire fresh air, in what- 
ever position his body niisht be. In 1776, Mr. 
Spalding of Edinburgh made some improvements 
in Dr. Halley's diving-bell, for which he was 
rewarded by the Society of Arts. His diving-bell 
was made of wood, and was so light, that, with the 
divers and the weights attached to its rim, it 
would not sink; the weight necessary to counteract 
its buoyancy being added in the form of a large 
balance-weight, suspended from its centre by a 
rope, ... By letting the weight down to the 
bottom, the divers could, as it were, anchor the bell 
at any required level, or prevent its further descent. 
. . . Mr. John Farey, junior, made an improve- 



ISlh Century 
Iron and Steel 


mcnt in Spalding's apparatus. The upper cham- 
ber of the divine-bell is very strong and air-tight, 
without r.ny openings for the admLssion of water. 
Two pumps are fixed in the partition, by which 
air may be forced into the upper chamber, when- 
ever, during a pause in the descent, the lower 
chamber of the cavity of the bell is replenished 
with air. By this means, the upper chamber is 
made a reservoir of condensed air, from which the 
bell may be replenished with air, when it is desired 
to increase its buoyancy, by forcing out the water 
from the lower part. . . . Smeaton first employed 
the diving-bell in civil engineering operations in 
repairing the foundations of Hexham bridge in 
:-7Q. The bell was made of wood, and was sup- 
plied with air by means of a forcing-pump; . . . 
the river being shallow, the top of the bell was not 
covered with water. In 1788 he used a cast-iron 
one in repairing Ramsgate harbour; a forcing-pump 
in a boat supplied air through a flexible tube. . . . 
[Afterwards it was] frequently used by Rennie 
and others in submarine operations. ... In addi- 
tion to the various forms of diving-bell, different 
water- and air-tight dresses have been invented to 
enable divers to remain in the water and perform 
various operations. Thus, Dr. Halley invented a 
leaden cap which covered the diver's head; it had 
glass before it, and contained as much air as was 
sufficient for two minutes, and had affi.xed to it a 
thick pliable pipe, with the other end fastened to 
the bell, and which, at the cap, was furnished with 
a valve to convey fresh air to the diver from the 
bell. This pipe, which the diver was obliged to 
wind round his arm, served him also as a guide to 
find his w-ay back to the bell. . . . M. Klingert . . . 
invented a similar . . . apparatus, and described it 
in a pamphlet published at Breslau in 1798. The 
armour was made of tin-plate, in the form of a 
cylinder, with a round end to enclose the head and 
body ; also a leather jacket with short sleeves, and 
a pair of water-tight drawers of the same, buttoned 
on the metal part, where they joined, and were 
made tight by brass hoops. Two distinct flexible 
pipes terminated in the helmet, and rose to the 
surface of the water; one was for inhaling, and 
terminated in an ivory mouthpiece, the other was 
for the escape of foul air. The body was kept 
down by weights. Another method of supply air 
to the apparatus was used by Mr. Tonkin in 1804. 
This consisted in the application of a bellows or 
pump, until the elastic force of the air was equal 
to the pressure of the water, the foul air being 
allowed to escape into the water through a valve, 
or conducted to the surface by a pipe." — J. Beck- 
man and W. Johnston, History of inventions, pp. 

Industry: Iron and steel. — Paper. — Weaving. 
— Loom. — Spinning jenny. — Cotton gin. — The 
Catalan bellows and primitive open hearths proved 
inadequate .as the demand for iron increased, and 
were gradually developed into blast furnaces of 
the German and Walloon type. In 1750 water 
power came into use, for propulsion of the bellows, 
which at this time began to be made of wood. 
Taller stacks permitted greater production, and in 
1788 fifteen and a half tons a week were produced 
as against eight tons a week, the output, in 1645, 
of the Lynn furnace, one of the best in the seven- 
teenth century. "Charcoal was an expensive fuel, 
and, moreover, there was an insufficient supply 
because of the great destruction of forests neces- 
sary for its production. Naturally the thing to 
do was to substitute coal, which was plentiful. But 
the sulphur of the coal spoiled the iron. This 
proved to be a great barrier until 1783 when Henry 
Cort of England succeeded in making wrought iron 

in a new type of furnace wherein the iron was 
refined in one compartment while the fuel was 
made to furnish its heat from another; i.e., the 
fuel and the metal were not in contact and the 
refined metal did not suffer from the sulphur con- 
tent of the coal. ... In the one hundred and 
thirty-three years that have elapsed since it was 
designed, his furnace has been changed only in 
certain details, and but two important changes 
have been made in his process — the use of an iron 
bottom instead of the sand bed by S. B Rogers 
in 1804 and the introduction of 'pig boiling' by 
Joseph Hall in 1830. Cort's process is known as 
'dry puddling' and his trouble was the excessive 
loss of iron, due to his use of the sand bottom 
and the absence of a proper cinder. The loss was 
said to have been from 50''^ to 70% of the iron 
charged; i.e., it took about 2 tons of pig iron to 
make one ton of wrought iron. Because of the 
great demand for iron and the fact that he was 
using such a cheap fuel, coal, his process at that 
time was a success financially. But Cort did not 
stop here. He saw the desirability of a quicker 
and more economical method of reducing the 
'blooms' or balls of iron into bars or other finished 
shapes than the hammering process up to that time 
used. He accomplished this by the use of power 
driven rolls, . . . These two inventions of Cort's 
were epoch making, though of the two the more 
important one was the invention of the rolls from 
which has developed the modern rolling mill" — 
L. W. Spring, Non-technical chats on iron and 
steel, pp. 95-p6. 

Cort's puddling furnace "introduced quite a new 
feature into the refining of iron, for up to that 
time the metal to be refined and the fuel used to 
develop the necessary heat were mi.xed together 
in the same hearth, hence only a pure fuel, such 
as charcoal, could be used. But in Cort's method 
the refining furnace is divided into three parts: 
(1) the grate in which the fuel is burnt; (2) the 
bed or hearth upon which the refining is carried 
on; and (3) the chimney for creating the neces- 
sary draught. In such a furnace, which belongs 
to the well-known reverberatory type, the chimney 
is at one end of the bed and the grate at the other; 
so that the flame and products of combustion 
from the grate must pass over the bed to reach 
the chimney, and by having a low and properly 
formed roof, materials placed on the bed can be 
raised to a high temperature without coming into 
contact with the fuel. . . . .According to Prof 
Gowland, furnaces based upon this principle were 
used for copper smelting as early as 1583, so that 
the form of furnace was well known in Cort's 
time." — J. W. Stansbie, Iron and steel, p. 119. 

"The method of the very ancient steel makers, 
. . . was [generally speaking] essentially the same 
as that commonly in use up to comparatively mod- 
ern times. The bar to be carbonized was heated 
in close contact with . . . [the fuel]. In later 
times this was done in a sort of double muffle 
furnace, and the cementation or carbonization was 
more even and complete. Steels thus made how- 
ever, were found to be only skin deep, so to speak; 
for since the carbon merely soaked in and com- 
bined with the iron nearest to it, evidently the 
central portion was less completely carbonized than 
the exterior. . . . This steel is not dense and uni- 
form enough for fine tools. It was known for 
many centuries, however, that hammering (and 
later rolling) so as to 'work' it thoroughly, greatly 
improved the quality and usefulness for tool mak- 
ing of such 'cementation' steels. .An improvement 
upon this method was that of breaking the bars 
into lengths, bundling them, and then welding to- 



18th Century 
Paper Industry 


gether [into "shear steel." Double shear steel was 
made by repeating the process. But no amount 
of forging could eliminate the inequalities of car- 
bonization until toward the middle of the eighteenth 
century a man named Huntsman (1740) melted 
his steel down again in a crucible, in order to 
make its texture uniform. This "cast," or "cruci- 
ble" steel is still known by the trade name of 
crucible steel.]" — O. M. Becker, Higli speed steel, 
p. 7. — "Rolling iron and steel, in lieu of forging 
with the hammer is a modern process. To ensure 
the production of gold or silver coins of equal 
weights, the blanks from which they are pressed 
must be cut from sheets of metal of very regular 
thickness. To ensure this regularity Brulier, a 
Frenchman, in 1553, passed the sheet of metal 
between a pair of plain rolls. The invention of 
grooved rolls has usually been ascribed to the 
Englishman, Henry Cort, the inventor of the pud- 
dling process, who took out a patent for their 
use in the year 1783, but Mr. W. F. Durfee, in a 
most interesting account of early rolling mills, 

that the output of finished paper was very small. 
. . , The most rapid development of the industry 
appears to have taken place in Holland, . . . land] 
invention of the 'Hollander,' a simple yet ingenious 
(beating] engine which is deservedly known by the 
name of the country in which it first originated, 
gave a tremendous impetus to the art of paper- 
making, as by its means the quantity of material 
which could be treated in twenty-lour hours was 
greatly increased. Unfortunately the date of the 
invention of this important machine has not been 
definitely traced. The earliest mention of it seems 
to occur in Sturm's 'Vollstandige Miihlen Bau- 
kunst,' published in 171S. It was in extensive use 
at Saardam in i6q7, so that the invention is at 
least some years previous to 1690." — R. W. Sindall, 
Manufacture of paper, pp. 15-16. — Up to this time 
paper was made in a hand mould; but in the last 
years of the century an invention was made, by 
Nicholas Louis Robert, a Frenchman, which revo- 
lutionized the paper industry. The machine, how- 
ever, was perfected in the nineteenth century, and 


States that in the Transactions of the Acadimie 
des Sciences for lyoS is described a remarkable 
reversing rolling mill, for rolling lead into sheets. 
. . . Mr. Durfee further quotes from a work by 
Christopher Polhem, who died in 1751, in which 
there is a description of the rolling of sections, as 
commonly practised in Sweden in his days. . . . 
In the early days of iron manufacture, before the 
method of using rolls for the purpose was devised, 
all plates and bars were . . . shaped out by the 
hammer and anvil, hand hammers being first em- 
ployed and then tilt hammers driven by water 
wheels. Indeed to this day, the best Sheffield tool 
steel is all drawn down into bars by steam ham- 
mers."— F. W. Harbord and J. W. Hall, Metal- 
lurgy of steel, V. 2, p. 6co. 

Also in: M. Keir, Manufacturing interests in 
America, pp. 118, 131-132. 

"Improvements in the art [of paper making] 
were slow until 1760, when Whatman, whose name 
has since become famous in connection with paper, 
commenced operations at Maidstone. Meantime 
the methods by which the rags were converted 
into paper were exceedingly slow and clumsy, so 

properly belongs to that period. "Before 1755, 
all papers were made on a laid mould, woven wire 
moulds not being invented until that year, when 
they were introduced by Baskerville, the English 
printer. . . . Later inventions and improvements 
in the making of paper include the discovery of 
chlorine, in 1774, by Scheele, the bleaching action 
of chlorine gas, in 17S5, by Berthellot (a French- 
man), soda-ash, by Leblanc, in 1701, and the intro- 
duction of bleaching powder, by Tennant of Glas- 
gow, in 1800. In 1807, Moritz lUig, the son of a 
German clock-maker, introduced resin for the siz- 
ing of paper pulp." — H. A. Maddox, Paper, p. 
13. — "It is hardly possible to realise that until 
the middle of the eighteenth century wind and 
water were the only means of obtaining power 
from the prodigal forces of Nature. Clothing, tools, 
weapons had been made, houses and ships had 
been built, and international trade had arisen, by 
hand labour and a few relative])' unimportant 
waterfalls. The ruins along the narrow valleys 
east and west of the Pennine Chain indicate the 
birthplaces of the British textile industries, where 
once fitful streams drove the looms that wove the 



ISth Century 
Textile Industry 


fabrics for which Lancashire and Yorkshire have 
become famous." — E, Cressy, Discoveries and in- 
ventions of the fwenlielli century, p. 2\.- — "The 
year 1733 is a mosl important date in the develop- 
ment of the loom for in that year John Kay, a 
practical loommaker of Lancashire, England, in- 
vented the llyin^ shuttle and thus did more for 
the loom than any man whom we can distinguish 
by name. To appreciate the great service of Kay 
we must recall how the shuttle was operated before 
his time. You remember it was thrown through 
the shed by one of the weaver's hands and caught 
and returned by the other hand. Sometimes it 
was cauRht and returned by a boy. This was at 
best a slow process and unless the weaver had an 
assistant to return the shuttle only narrow pieces 
could be woven. The common width of cloth, 
three-fourths of a yard, had its origin in necessity. 
The weaver's arms were not long enough to weave 
a wider piece. 'The essence of Kay's invention 
was that the shuttle was thrown from side to side 
by a mechanical device instead of being passed 
from hand to hand. One hand only was required 
foi the shuttle while the other was left free to 
beat up the cloth (with the batten) after each 
throw, and the shuttle would fly across wide cloth 
as well as narrow.' . . . The profits of Kay's in- 
vention were stolen, his house was destroyed by 
a mob and he himself was driven to a foreign 
country where he died in poverty. Yet he deserves 
high rank among the benefactors of mankind, for 
the flying shuttle doubled the power of the loom 
and improved the quality of the cloth woven. 
Kay's invention was the first step in a great indus- 
trial revolution. The increased power of the loom 
called for more yarn than the old spinning wheel 
could supply." — S. E, Forman, Stories of useful 
inventions, pp. 117-iiq.— As the demand for cotton 
goods grew "the need arose for some method of 
drawing out the carded fleece at a regular rate 
which was independent of human skill. Hence 
was originated the system of drawing by rollers, 
with which the name of Arkwright is ordinarily 
associated, but which undoubtedly, found its orig- 
inator in John Wyatt, of Birmingham, about the 
year 1738. Immediately following this was the 
invention of a method of carding cotton by a 
revolving cylinder, by Lewis Paul, of Birmingham, 
in 1748. ... A few years after the invention by 
Paul, a machine constructed on this principle, was 
introduced into Lancashire, and was adopted by 
Mr. Peel, the grandfather of Sir Robert Peel. He, 
however, employed Hargreaves to construct a ma- 
chine in which more than one cylinder was used, 
and the rotation of these in contact carded the 
cotton." — J. Nasmith, Students' cotton spinning, 
pp. 12, 15. — "In 1770 James Hargreaves patented 
the spinning jenny, a frame with a number of 
spindles side by side, by which many threads 
could be spun at once instead of only one, as in 
the old, one-thread, distaff or spinning wheel. In 

1 771 Arkwright operated successfully in a mill a 
patent spinning machine which, because actuated 
by water power, was known as the 'water-frame.' 
[Later, in 1770, Crompton combined the spinning 
jenny and the water mill in a machine known as 
the spinning "mule."] "— W. J. Sedgwick and H. W. 
Tyler, Short history of science, p. 441. — "The next 
step was the provision of mechanical means for 
[carding 1. . . . The apron feed was invented in 

1772 by one John Lees, of Manchester, and shortly 
after Arkwright devised a method of forming the 
cotton into a lap to feed it, and the doffer to 
remove it. Therefore, at this early date, 1774, we 
have got evidence of the existence of a machine 
which possessed the essentials of to-day — a con- 

tinuous feed, a continuous carding surface, and a 
continuous stripper. ... In 1760 Arkwright''^ spin- 
ning machine saw the light, and, in addition to the 
rollers, it consisted of spindles driven by bands 
and having fl>crs upon their upper ends by which 
the yarn was twisted. The spindles had bobbins 
mounted Upon them — in short, this machine was 
the progenitor and predecessor of the throstle or 
fly spinning frame which was so long in extensive 
employment." — J. .Nasmith, Students' cotton spin- 
ning, p. lb. — "With the inventions just described 
facilities arose for the manufacture of cotton as 
well as woolen, but the supply of raw cotton was 
limited, chiefly because of the difficulty of sep- 
arating the staple (fibres) from the seeds upon 
which they are borne. Cotton had for centuries 
been grown and manufactured in India, the fibres 
being separated from the seeds by a rude hand 
machine known as a churka. used by the Chinese 
and Hindus. By this it was impossible to clean 
cotton rapidly. The invention therefore in 1793 

(Cross section, showing pioccss) 

by Eli Whitney of Connecticut of the saw cotton- 
gin which enormously facilitated this separation 
was one of the most important inventions ever 
made. This consisted in a series of saws revolving 
between the interstices of an iron bed upon which 
the cotton was so placed as to be drawn through 
while the seeds were left behind. The value of 
the saw gin was instantly recognized and the out- 
put of -cotton in America was rapidly and im- 
mensely increased by its use." — W. J. Sedgwick 
and H. W. Tyler, Short history of science, p. 441. — 
See also Industrul REvoLunoN: England: Inven- 
tions in textile industry; U. S. A.: 1793: Whitney's 
cotton gin. 

Instruments: Improved telescope. — Gyro- 
scope.— In 1720 John Hadlcy improved the New- 
tonian reflecting telescope. His instrument had a 
magnifying power of 125. In 1789 Herschel com- 
pleted his forty foot telescope having a diameter 
of four feet. It weighed nearly 2 118 pounds. The 
most celebrated of the reflecting telescopes was 
built by Lord Rosse in 1842. This instrument had 
a mirror which measured six feet, but is famous 
only for its size. The telescope was practically 



18lh Century 
Telescope; Metric System 


useless to astronomers, although it had been the 
means of adding new satellites to the solar system, 
until the discoven.' of the achromatic telescope. 
It is generally regarded that Chester Moor Hall 
discovered this new instrument, although many re- 
gard John Dolland of London as the inventor. 
Hall, in 1733 constructed telescopes whose lenses 
being made of flint and crown glass, corrected the 
chromatic and diminished the spherical aberration. 
The discovery of this telescope Hall did not com- 
municate to the world. In a trial at Westminster 
concerning the patent for making achromatic tele- 
scopes granted to John Dolland; Hall was admitted 
to have been the first inventor, but Lord Mansfield 
ruled that "it was not the person who locked his 
invention in his escritoire that ought to profit 
from such invention, but he who brought it forth 
for the benefit of the public." It was in 1758 
that John Dolland independently discovered the 
achromatic telescope after several years of research. 

"Let it be understood once for all that a gyro- 
scope is merely a body whirling about an axis. 
A top such as every child plays with is a gyro- 
scope ; a hoop such as everj- child rolls is a gyro- 
scope; the wheels of bicycles, carriages, or railway- 
cars ar? gyroscopes; and the earth itself, whirling 
about its axis, is a gyroscope. . . . The idea of 
giving steadiness to such instruments as telescopes 
and compasses on shipboard with the aid of gyro- 
scopes originated half a centun.- ago, and was put 
into fairly successful operation by Professor Piazzi 
Smyth (in 1856). More than a century earlier 
than that (in 1744), an effort was made to aid 
the navigator, by the use of a spinning-top with 
a polished upper surface, to give an artificial hori- 
zon at sea, that observations might be made when 
the actual horizon was hidden by clouds or fog. 
The inventor himself, Serson by name, was sent 
out by the British .Admiralty to test the apparatus, 
and was lost in the wreck of the ship Victory. 
His top seemed not to have commended itself. . . . 
but it has been in use more or less ever since, 
particularly among French navigators." — H. S. 
Williams, Every-day science, v. 7, pp. 196, 217. 

Measurement: Metric system, — In 1791 France 
appointed a committee consisting of "Lagrange, 
Laplace, Borda, Monge, and Condorcet, five illus- 
trious members of the French .\cademy, to choose 
a natural constant from which a unit of measure- 
ment might be derived, that constant to ser\-e for 
comparison or reference at need. They chose the 
world itself to yield the unit sought, and set on 
foot an expedition to ascertain the length of a 
quadrant, or quarter-circle of the earth, from the 
equator to the north pole, taking an arc of the 
meridian from Dunkirk to Barcelona, nearly nine 
and one-half degrees, as part of the required cur\'e. 
WTien the quadrant had been measured, with abso- 
lute precision, as it was believed, its ten-millionth 
the actual horizon was hidden by clouds or fog. 
part, the metre, was adopted as the new standard 
of length. As the science and art of measurement 
have since advanced, it has been found that the 
measured quadrant is about 1472.5 metres longer 
than as reported in 1799 by the commissioners. 
Furthermore, the form of the earth is now known 
to be by no means the same when one quadrant 
is compared with another; and even a specific 
quadrant may vary from age to age both in con- 
tour and length as the planet shrinks in cooling, 
becomes abraded by wind and rain, rises or falls 
with earthquakes, or bends under mountains of 
ice and snow in its polar zones. All this has led 
to the judicious conclusion that there is no advan- 
tage in adopting a quadrant instead of a conven- 
tional unit, such as a particular rod of metal, pre- 

served as a standard for comparison in the cus- 
tody of authorities national or international. What 
gives the metric system pre-eminence is the sim- 
plicity and uniformity of its decimal system of 
notation. . . . The metre is organically related to 
all measures of length, surface, capacity, solidity, 
and weight. A cubic centimetre of water, taken 
as it melts in a vacuum, at 4° C, the temperature 
of maximum density, is the gram from which other 
weights are derived ; this gram of water becomes 
a measure of capacity, the millilitre, duly linked 
with other similar measures. Surfaces are meas- 
ured in square metres, solids in cubic metres. Sim- 
ple prefixes are: deci-, one-tenth; centi-, one- 
hundredth; milli-, one-thousandth; deka-, multi- 
plies a unit by ten; hecto-, by one hundred; 
kilo-, by one thousand; and myria-, by ten 
thousand. .\s long ago as 1660 Mouton, a Jesuit 
teacher of Lyons, proposed a metric system which 
should be unalterable because derived from the 
globe itself. Watt, the great improver of the 
steam engine, in a letter of November 14th, 1783, 
suggested a metric system in all respects such as 
the French commissioners eight years later decided 
to adopt. The nautical mile of 2029 yards has the 
honor of being the first standard based upon the 
dimensions of the globe. It was supposed to 
measure one-sixtieth part of a degree on the equa- 
tor; the supposition was somewhat in error. Lord 
Kelvin, a master in the art of measurement, an 
inventor of electrical measuring instruments of 
the highest precision, as president of the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science in 
1871, said: Accurate and minute measurement 
seems, to the non-scientific imagination, a less lofty 
and dignified work than looking for something 
new. But nearly all the grandest discoveries of 
science have been but the rewards of accurate 
measurement and patient, long-continued labor in 
the minute sifting of numerical results. The popu- 
lar idea of Newton's grand discover)- is that the 
theory of gravitation flashed upon his mind, and 
so the discovery was made. It was by a long 
train of mathematical calculation, founded on re- 
sults accumulated through prodigious toil of prac- 
tical astronomers, that New-ton first demonstrated 
the forces urging the planets towards the sun, de- 
termined the magnitude of those forces, and dis- 
covered that a force following the same law- of 
variation which distance urges the moon towards 
the earth. Then first, we may suppose, came to 
him the idea of the universality of gravitation ; 
but when he attempted to compare the magnitude 
of the force on the moon with the magnitude of 
the force of gravitation of a heavy body of equal 
mass at the earth's surface, he did not find the 
agreement which the law he was discovering re- 
quired. Not for years after would he publish his 
discovery as made. It is recounted that, being 
present at a meeting of the Royal Society, he 
heard a paper read, describing a geodesic measure- 
ment by Picard, which led to a serious correction 
of the previously accepted estimate of the earth's 
radius. This was what Newton required ; he went 
home with the result, and commenced his calcu- 
lations, but felt so much agitated that he handed 
over the arithmetical work to a friend; then [only] 
(and not when sitting in a garden he saw an apple 
fall) did he ascertain that gravitation keeps the 
moon in her orbit. Faraday's discover^' of spe- 
cific inductive capacity, which inaugurated the new 
philosophy, tending to discard action at a dis- 
tance, was the result of minute and accurate meas- 
urement of electric forces. Joule's discoverj- of a 
thermo-dynamic law% through the regions of elec- 
tro-chemistr\-, electro-magnetism, and elasticity of 



IHIh Century 
Organ; Piano 


Eases wiis based on a delicacy of Ihermometry 
which seemed impossible to some of the most dis- 
tinguished chemists of the day. Andrews' dis- 
covery of the continuity between the gaseous and 
the liciuid stales was worlicd out by many years 
of laborious and minute measurement of phenom- 
ena scarcely sensible to the naked eye.' It is with 
these examples before them that investigators take 
the trouble to weigh a mass in a vacuum, to watch 
the index of a balance through a telescope at a 
distance of twelve feet, or use an interferometer 
to space out an inch into a million parts. Their 
one desire Ls to arrive at truth as nearly as they 

Steamboat. — Beginnings of steam navigation 
for ocean transportation. — Robert Fulton's 
steamboat and its influence on national develop- 
ment. See Stkam navigation; Beginnings; Com- 
merce: Commercial .\ge: 1770-1Q21; U. S. A.: 
i7Q,V Whitney's cotton-gin. 

Organ. — "Organs of two manuals were some- 
times called double organs. . . . When there was 
a third manual it acted on the 'Echo' organ. The 
pipes of this organ, which were always small, were 
placed in a closed box, with the result that they 
sounded as if they were at a distance. . . . In 17 12 
Abraham Jordan [in England] fitted the front of 

Metropolitan Museum, New York 

can, to bring grounds of disagreement to the van- 
ishing point, and ensure exactness in all the com- 
putations based on their work." — G. lies. Inventors 
at work, pp. 210-212. 

Automobile: Early experiments in France, 
England and America. See Automobiles: 1678- 
iSo,?; 1780-18:4. 

Submarines of Bushnell and Fulton. — Hand- 
power propulsion. See Sib.marines: 1624-1815. 

Balloons and dirigibles. — Early experiments. 
Sec .Aviation: Development of balloons and dirigi- 
bles: 178,5-17,84. 

Steam engines. — Experiments of Newcomen 
and Cawley. — Watt's improvements. See Stea.m 
AND CAS engines: Development of steam engines 
up to Watt's time; Watt's improvements. 

the echo bo.x with a slidin; shutter, which, being 
opened or closed by a rope attached to a pedal, 
gave a kind of crescendo and diminuendo effect. 
This invention, . . . marks an important epoch in 
the history of the organ. ... In 1787 and 1788 
Green built two organs with horizontal bellows, in 
which a square reservoir rose horizontally when 
wind was pumped in from the feeder. . . . Pre- 
vious to this all organs had been provided with 
diagonal bellows, the upper plate of which was 
hinged on one side." — C. F. A. Williams, Story oj 
the organ, pp. 138, 142. 

Piano. — 'Down to the end of the sixteenth 
century, though the strings were multiplied, the 
name monochord was still used, and though the 
range of the instrument had reached twenty-four 



J8th Century 
Piano; Photography 


notes, the strings were still tuned in unison. Grad- 
ually, however, the strings for the acuter tones 
were shortened by a bridge placed diagonally 
across the sound-board, this contrivance being bor- 
rowed, it is said, from another keyed instrument, 
called the clavicymbal which was, in effect, a tri- 
angular system of strings to which a mechanical 
device had been applied which plucked or snapped 
the strings, somewhat in imitation of a harp 
player. . . . Two hundred years ago [in the early 
eighteenth century] the perfection of instruments 
of the clavier class — that is, instruments with 
strings played upon by manipulation of keys — 
was thought to have been reached. . . . Imperfect 
and weak as it was, the clavichord had yet the 
capacity in some degree to augment and diminish 
the tone at the will of the player. . . . Attempts 
at improvement seem to have been directed to the 
jacks. . . . The principle, however, always re- 
mained the same, and the defect [of the instru- 
ment, which was fundamental] was never reme- 
died: the jacks twanged the strings, and twanged 
them with uniform loudness." — H. E. Krebbiel, 
Pianoforte and its music, pp. 17-22. — "The instru- 
ment which gradually superseded the clavichord in 
England was the virginal. It was an improvement 
upon the clavicythcrium, to which it was very 
similar, brass wire being substituted for the catgut 
strings. . . . The English spinet was similar to the 
virginal except in its shape, which was nearly that 
of the harp laid horizontally, supposing the clavier 
or keyboard to be placed on the outside of the 
trunk or sounding-board. . . . Handel's favourite 
harpsichord-maker was Hans Ruckers, who in 1585 
was the inventor of the third string tuned to the 
octave, and who extended the compass to nearly 
five octaves. Besides Ruckers and his family, the 
principal harpsichord-makers were Geronimo, of 
Florence, Coushetti and Tabel. Merlin changed 
the octave stop to a third unison about the year 
1770, which rendered the instrument equally 
powerful and less likely to get out of tune, the 
octave stop being affected by the least change of 
temperature." — E. Brinsmead, History of the 
pianoforte, pp. 91, 94-95, i03. 109.— The piano 
was actually invented early in the eighteenth cen- 
tury. The invention has been claimed for at least 
three persons; but the honor for having first 
worked it out is generally awarded to Cristofori. 
"In England the invention is claimed for Father 
Wood, an English Monk at Rome, who manu- 
factured a pianoforte in 1711, and sold it to 
Samuel Crisp, Esq., the author of 'Virginia,' from 
whom it was purchased by Fulke Greville, 
Esq. . . . The best authenticated is that of the 
Italians; for, in 1711, Bartolomeo Cristofori, some- 
times called Cristofali, a native of Padua, had 
already manufactured three pianos." — Ibid., p. 109. 
— Other authorities claim independent invention by 
two or more makers. "The three men to whom I 
have left the honor of being independent inventors 
of the pianoforte are the Italian, Bartolommeo 
Cristofori; the Frenchman, Marius, and the Ger- 
man, Christopher Gottlieb Schrijter. . . . Cristo- 
fori's invention takes precedence of the others in 
time. This has been established, after much con- 
troversy, beyond further dispute. In 1709 he ex- 
hibited specimens of harpsichords, with hammer- 
action, capable of producing piano and forte 
effects, to Prince Ferdinando dei Medici, of whose 
instruments of music he was custodian at Flor- 
ence, and two years later — that is, in 1711 — his 
invention was fully described and the description 
printed, not only in Italy, but also in Germany. 
It embraces the essential features of the pianoforte 
action as we have it to-day — a row of hammers. 

controlled by keys, which struck the strings from 
below. ... In February, 1716, the Frenchman, 
Marius, submitted two models for a 'Harpsichord 
with Hammers' {Clavecin a. Mallets) to the 
Academic. . . . [To Sebastien Erard, a French 
manufacturer] perhaps, more than to any other 
individual, the tme interior mechanism of the piano 
is indebted; and the house founded by Sebastien 
Erard. ... He may be said to have created the 
'action' of the piano, though his devices have been 
subsequently improved upon by others. He found 
the piano in 1768 feeble and unknown; he left it, 
at his death in 1831, the most powerful, pleasing, 
and popular stringed instrument in existence." — 
J. Parton, Triumphs of enterprise, ingenuity, and 
public spirit, pp. 33.3, 336. 

Photography. — "Photography is the child of 
optics and chemistry. As neither of these sciences 
attained anything like a full development until the 
. . . [nineteenth] century, it is not surprising that 
the art of taking photographs was unknown to 
our ancestors. And yet there are many facts that 
must have been known, even to the ancients, whose 
meaning, if rightly appreciated, would have led 
to the early discovery of the art of photography. 
For example, lenses are all but absolutely necessary 
to the taking of photographs, and a lens has been 
found among the ruins of Nineveh. . . . This lens 
is now in the British Museum. During the Middle 
Ages the manufacture and properties of simple 
lenses were well understood in Europe. ... In 
1727, J. H. Schulze actually obtained copies of 
writing by placing the written characters upon a 
level surface previously prepared with a mixture 
of chalk and silver-nitrate solution. The rays of 
sunlight passing through the translucent paper 
blackened the silver compound beneath, except 
where it was protected by the ink forming the 
letters, and thus a white copy upon a black ground 
was obtained. . . . [Charles William Scheele of 
Stralsund, in 1777, noted the behavior of silver 
chloride under the influence of differently colored 
lights, and also discovered the decomposing effect 
of light upon the chloride.] It was not till near 
the close of the eighteenth century that any one, 
with the exception, perhaps, of Schulze, seems to 
have thought of applying the changes of color 
produced by the action of light upon silver com- 
pounds to any practical purpose. And yet the 
instrument called the camera obscura had long 
been known, and those who gazed upon the beau- 
tiful pictures produced by its agency must often 
have longed to find some method by which they 
might be fixed and retained. Invented by the 
Italian philosopher Baptista Porta about the mid- 
dle of the sixteenth century, the camera obscura 
at first consisted simply — as its name implies — of 
a darkened room to which light was admitted only 
through a single small hole in the window-shutter. 
In such a room, when the sun is shining brightly, 
a faint inverted image of external objects, as the 
houses, trees, etc., upon which the window looks, 
is seen upon the white surface of the wall or screen 
within the room which faces the window. Porta 
improved this primitive contrivance by placing a 
double convex glass lens in the aperture of the 
shutter, outside which a mirror was placed to 
receive the rays of light and reflect them through 
the lens. The image upon the screen within was 
thus made brighter and more distinct, and was 
moreover shown in a natural or erect position. 
Crowds flocked to Porta's house in Naples to see 
these pictures painted by light, glowing with color, 
and depicted with marvelous accuracy. Soon fur- 
ther improvements were made, and the camera 
obscura became a favorite adjunct to the country 



19lh Century 
Artificial Light and Heat 


houses of the wealthy. . . . The lens was then 
usually plated in the center ol the conical root, 
with a slanting mirror arranged so as to reflect 
the lijjht Ironi surrounding objects downward 
through the lens; the picture thus formed was 
received upon the whitened surface of a table 
placed within the little building. . . . Now the 
photographer's camera is a miniature camera ob- 
scura, being nothing more than a well-made box 
having a lens at one end and a ground glass screen 
at the other." — W. J. Harrison, llislory of pho- 
tography, pp. 7-1 1. 


Artificial light and heat: Gas. — Oil.^Wels- 
bach mantle. — Safety lamp. — Bunsen burner. — 
Oil as fuel. — "As soon as it was learned how to 
make gas cheaply, and conduct it safely from 
house to house, whole cities were rescued from 
darkness by the new illuminant. A considerable 
part of London was lighted by gas in 1815. Balti- 
more was the first city in the United States to be 
lighted by gas. This was in i&ii. The gas-light 
proved to be so much better than even the best 
of lamps, that in towns and cities almost every- 
body who could afford to do so laid aside the old 
wick-lamp and burned gas." — S. E. Forman, Stories 
of useful inventions, p. 36. — Throughout the coun- 
try, away from towns, however, people were still 
dependent chiefly upon candles until the introduc- 
tion of mineral oil lor lighting purpo.-es in the 
middle of the eighteenth century. Owing to iU 
strong gaseous qualities, the new oil could not be 
burned in the old, crude lamps without danger. 
Great improvements were made in lamp making to 
meet the new need, and rural lighting wa.s quickly 
revolutionized. "The discovery by Dr. .\ucr von 
\Velsbach in 1885 of the method of making the 
incandescent gas mantle, and the further discovery 
in i8q2 of the use of the o.xide of thorium with 
a trace of oxide of cerium for its composition, 
gave a method for developing light from coal gas 
which has so far surpassed any other way of 
burning it that the old forms of burner are now 
but little used." — V. B. Lewes, Liquid and gaseous 
furls, p. 180 — In 1815, Humphrey Davy was ap- 
pealed to by a committee of mine pro[)rictors of 
northern England, to provide a method of over- 
coming the -danger of the tire-damp detonations. 
Hitherto the coal-miner had to resort to the use 
of a steel-mill for his light in regions where the 
presence of lire-damp was suspected. In this con- 
trivance the light was produced by the contact of 
a bit of flint with the edge of a wheel kept in 
rapid motion. In 1813, there appeared the 
"safety-lamp" of Dr. W. Reid Clanny based upon 
the principle of forcing in air through v/ater by 
means of bellows. This proved impractical as it 
required a boy to work the bellows, the machine 
as a whole was complicated and ponderous, and 
much light was lost in passing through a glass 
cylinder used in the lower part instead of wire 
gauze. Davy started his investigations by a 
minute chemical examination of lire-damp. He 
ascertained that the carbureted hydrogen gas was 
still explosive although mixed with fourteen times 
its volume of atmospheric air, but that explosions 
of inflammable were incapable of passing 
through long narrow metallic tubes. These ex- 
periments served as a basis for the construction 
of the safety-lamp. Davy tells us in his work on 
the subject, that "the apertures in the gauze should 
not be more than i/2;nd of an inch square. The 
lamp is screwed on to the bottom of the wire 
gauze cylinder, and fitted by a tight ring when 

it is lighted, and gradually introduced into an 
atmosphere mi.xcd with lirc-damp, the size and 
length of the flame are at first increased. When 
the inflammable gas forms as nmch as i/i2th of 
the volume of air, the cylinder becomes tilled with 
a feeble blue flame, within which the flame of 
the wick burns brightly ; its light continues till 
the flre-damp increases i/6th or i/sth when it is 
lost in the flame of the lire-damp, which now Alls 
the cylinder with a pretty strong light; but when 
the foul air constitutes" i/3rd of the atmosphere, 
it is no longer lit for respiration and this ought 
to be a signal for the miner to leave that part of 
the workings." The first communication respect- 
ing this discovery was made in 1815 to the Royal 
Society. On January 11, 1S16, Davy announced 
the principle of the Safety-Lamp. 

".■\s )ears passed by and coal gas asserted its 
position, some attempts were made to utilise it in 
burners for heating purposes. ... It was at this 
epoch that Bunsen, the grcitcst of Heidelberg's 
great men, was planning and fitting . . . [the 
famous] laboratories which have since then 
1-0 rich a h:irvest to the scientilic world, and whilst 
considering the methods of heating which should 
be adopted on the working benches, his attention 
was called by one of his assistants, . . . [after- 
wards] Sir Henry Roscoe, to Davy's experiment 
with the gauze and gas jet. Seeing at a glance 
the enormous convenience of such a source of 
heat, Bunsen brought his marvellous manipulative 
skill to bear upon the subject, and in a few weeks 
gave the worfd its 'bunsen burner,' a burner which 
has done more for the gas industry . . . than 
almost any discovery or invention connected with 
it ; which has made coal gas possible and success- 
ful for fuel purposes (by the application of the 
principle to cooking and other stoves, heated by 
gas and gasoline]. ... In the early form of burner 
made by Bunsen the gas issued from either a flat 
flame or an argand burner head into a metal cyl- 
inder open at the bottom and closed at the top by 
means of a diso of fine wire gauze, so that the 
gas issuing from the burner head passed uinvards 
through the air in the cylinder and mi.xed with it, 
the mixture burning on the top of the gauze. . . . 
Very soon however it was found that a more rigid 
flame and one more easily under control could be 
obtained by utilising the pressure under which the 
gas was delivered at the burner to produce the 
effect of an injector, causing the uprush of the 
gas to drag the air in through side holes arranged 
in the bottom of a vertical burner tube placed 
above the gas nozzle." — \'. B. Lewes, Liquid and 
gaseous fuels, pp. i8q-iqi. — "When the idea of 
using liquid fuel for steam raising first arose, the 
methods which had served before for the genera- 
tion of light and heat would undoubtedly be those 
to which the early investigators would turn first, 
and on a small scale wicks were employed in the 
combustion in order to draw up and gasify the 
oil. These soon proving inadequate, the next step 
was to make the bed of the furnace of porous 
material, and saturate that with the oil which was 
allowed to percolate through it. Such a method 
was introduced in 1864 by using steam to aid the 
action. . . . The next step was to burn the oil 
from a series of open troughs, so arranged that 
the unburnt oil flowed downwards from trough 
to trough. ... As early as 1863 the methods 
which now are most extensively used began to be 
introduced, and consisted of bringing the oil into 
the combustion chamber cither as a gas or in such 
a condition of finely divided spray as to ensure 
its rapid and complete combustion. . . . The idea 
of first .gasifying the oil before burning seems to 



19th Century 


have originated with Colonel Foote, of the United 
States. The United States gunboat Pdos was in 
i!i67 fitted for burning liquid fuel by him, and 
on her trial trip ran over 14 knots, whereas 8 
knots per hour had been her previous best record 
with coal. . . . Soon after, a system of a similar 
character was patented by Simms and Barff, the 
oil being injected and vaporised in a retort placed 
in the furnace. . . . Several systems of this kind 
have been proposed, and also others in which the 
vaporisation of the oil should take place in retorts 
external to the fire-bars. The best known of 
these are those processes patented by C. Eames in 
1875, and by Diirr. In the Eames system the oil 
was fed into an externally heated cylindrical retort 
with round ends, in which it flowed downwards 
over a series of horizontal iron plates whilst super- 
heated steam was passed upwards, and being de- 
composed by the hydrocarbons at the high tem- 
perature, formed a mixture of what was prac- 
tically oil-gas and water-gas, which was burnt as 
it issued from the vaporiser at suitable burn- 
ers. . . . Perhaps the best known and most used 
of the burners [however] are those in which the 
oil is pulverised by steam, a method that was first 
used by Messrs. Aydon, Wise, and Field in 1805-7, 
the general principle being that the oil is led down 
to the injector by gravity, and there meets a 
steam jet, which drives it out from the nozzle of 
the injector with high velocity and in a fine state 
of division, whilst the outrush of the steam and 
oil is usually made to suck in air around the jet 
to aid the combustion in the furnace." — Ibid., pp. 
111-113, 115, 117-118. — See also Electrical discov- 
ery: Electric lighting. 

Davy's electric arc. — Jablochkoff candle. — In- 
candescent light. — Brush arc lamp. See Elec- 
trical discovery; Electric lighting; 1810-1876; 
1841-1021; 1876. 

Storage cell. — Electric furnaces. — Thermo- 
electric industries. See Electrical discovery: 
1803-1Q05; 1815-1Q21. 

Oersted, Ampere, and the discovery of the 
electro-magnet. — Further development. — Dyna- 
mo-electrical machines. — Transformers. — Alter- 
nating current instruments. — Electric welding. 
See Electric.\l discovery; 1820-1825, to 1856- 

Industry: Aluminium, glass, weaving, India 
rubber, paper, rope, iron and steel. — "Baron, a 
professor of chemistry in Paris, is our first re- 
corded experimenter on the isolation of aluminium. 
In 1700 he communicated a memoir to the -Acad- 
emy in which he said: . . . T believe the base 
of alum to be of a metalhc nature' . . . [and] 
then proceeds to say that he had tried all known 
methods of reducing this base, but without re- 
sult. . . . [Baron was followed by .Austrian, Ger- 
man and Italian chemists also without result; but 
early in the nineteenth century Humphrey Davy 
began experiments with electricity and established 
the fact that] alumina can be decomposed while 
fluid in the electric arc, and its metal alloyed with 
iron. Davy next mi.\ed alumina with potassium 
and iron filings. ... On meiling this mixture a 
button resulted which was white and harder than 
iron, and was undoubtedly an alloy of iron and 
aluminium, but Davy could not separate the two 
metals. . . . Prof. Benj. Silliman was in 1813 re- 
peating Hare's experiment of fusing alumina with 
the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe. The alumina was 
supported on charcoal, and he noticed small me- 
tallic globules rolling and darling out from under 
the fused mass and burning with a bright light. 
These globules could have been nothing else than 
aluminium reduced from fluid alumina by char- 

coal. The metal burnt, however, almost instantly, 
and no globules could be obtained. The Swed-sli 
chemist Oersted believed, in 1824, that he had iso- 
lated aluminium. . . . [with the help of potassium, 
which] however, when amalgamated with mer- 
cury is not powerful enough to reduce aluminium 
chloride . . . and so Oersted missed, by a very 
little, the honor of first isolating aluminium. . . . 
[aerzelius claimed in 1825 that he had reduced 
the metal; but it is probable that he was mis- 
taken.] tn 1S27, Frederick Wbhier, Professor of 
Chemistry at the University ol Gottingen, ... by 
using pure potassium as the reducing agent, . . . 
obtained a grey, metallic powder, which was finely- 
divided He was unable to melt this 
powder into a button, . . but he described many 
of its chemical properties, and produced from it 
some aluminium compounds which not been 
before made, such as the sulphide and arsenide. . . . 
In 1S45, on making vapor of aluminium chloride 
pass over potassium placed in platinum boats, 
Wbhier obtained the metal in small malleable 
globules of metallic appearance, from which he 
was able to determine the principal properties 01 
aluminium. But the metal thus obtained was 
scarcely as fusible as cast iron, without doubt 
because of the platinum with which it had alloyed 
during its preparation. . . . Tbe second birth of 
aluminium, the time at which it stepped from the 
rank of a curiosity into the number of the useful 
metals, dates from the labors of [H. St. Clair] 
Deville in 1S54. If Wohler was the discoverer 01 
aluminium, Deville was the founder of the alumin- 
ium industry. In commencing researches on alu- 
minium, Deville, while he applied the method of 
Wohler, was ignorant of the latter's results of 
1S45. . . . [After he had succeeded in isolating 
the metal in almost perfect purity, Deville an- 
nounced his intention of searching for a process 
which would permit of its economical production 
on a large scale. The Academy assisted him in his 
project with the sum of fr. 2000 and shortly after 
he announced that] he had produced aluminium 
without alkaline help, and sent a leaf of the metal 
thus obtained. . . . Towards the middle of 1854 
Deville turned to sodium. ... On August 14, 1854, 
. . . [he] read a paper before the Academy de- 
scribing his electrolytic methods at length, show- 
ing several small bars of the metal, and also stat- 
ing some of the results already achieved by the 
use of sodium. . . . Several days before this. Bun- 
sen published in Poggendorff's .Annalen a process 
for obtaining aluminium by the battery, which 
resembled Deville 's method, but of which the lat- 
ter was ignorant when he read his paper. Thus it 
is evident that the isolation of aluminium by elec- 
trolysis was the simultaneous invention of Deville 
and Bunsen. . . . [Napoleon HI, emperor who 
desired a light metal for use in army equipment, 
authorized further experiments at his own ex- 
pense. These experiments were carried on at Javel 
and on Juno iS, 1855, Deville presented to the 
Academy large bars of pure aluminium.] It was 
the metal made at this time at Javel which was 
exhibited at the Paris Exposition in 1855. . . . [At 
first the expense of reducing the new metal was so 
great that it precluded all possibility of using it 
in the industrial arts and only small amounts were 
produced. The Mining Magazine of 1856 stated 
that Deville had extracted fifty to sixty pounds of 
aluminium within two years, and that it sold at 
$100 a pound. In 1862 the price had been brought 
down by Bell Bros., English manufacturers, to 40 
shillings a troy pound (12 oz.) ; and by 1807 diffi- 
culties in its production had been so far overcome 
that it was made into sheets, wire, manufactured 



19th Century 
Weaving Machinery; Glass Making 


articles, and used as an alloy in making bronze.] 
In 1881 and 1882 James Webster an English manu- 
facturer introduced improvements, organized a 
company and commenced production on a large 
scale, lln 1886 H. Y. Castncr, of New York City] 
conceived the plan of reducing sodium compounds 
in cast-iron pots, from a fused bath of caustic 
soda, by which the reduction is performed at a 
much lower temperature, and the yield of sodium 
is very much more than by the Dcvillc method. 
The application of this process on a large scale, 
with the use of gas furnaces and other modern 
improvements, . . . lowered the cost of sodium 
from $1 per pound to about 20 or 25 cents [writ- 
ten in 1895]. . . . The first small pencils of alu- 
minium made by Deville were obtained by elec- 
trolysis, and ... he turned back to the use of 
the alkahne metals solely because the use of the 
battery to effect the decomposition was far too 
costly to be followed industrially. . . . [Several 
attempts to perfect an electrolytic process were 
made. In October 1888 a company with works 
near Bremen, produced 12,000 kilos a year for 
about two years before its business in aluminium 
declined. In 1889 C. M. Hall of Oberlin, Ohio, 
patented a new] electrolytic method, different in 
principle from both the preceding. . . . The prin- 
ciple involved is the electric decomposition of 
aiumina, dissolved in a fused bath of the fluorides 
of aluminium and other bases, the current reduc- 
ing the dissolved alumina without affecting the 
solvent. This method is essentially different from 
any of the previous electrical processes, which con- 
templated and operated simply the decomposition 
of a molten aluminium salt, such, for instance, as 
the solvent used by Mr. Hall. [.■K company was 
formed to use this patent. It obtained an im- 
mediate success, and in the short space of five 
years the United States sprang to first place as an 
aluminium producing country.]" — J. W. Richards, 
Aluminium, pp. 3, $-11, 13, 22, 24-25. 

Also in: P. Moissonnier, L'Aluminium. 

The nineteenth century saw weaving machinery 
brought to a high pitch of perfection. The spin- 
ning "mule" proved so successful that a power 
loom was soon called for. In response Cart- 
wright's power loom appeared, but though it was 
first brought out in 1783, it was at first so incom- 
plete that it was little used until about 1813, and 
properly belongs to the nineteenth century. After 
the invention of the power loom came "the inven- 
tion of Joseph Jacquard of Lyons, France. This 
very ingenious man in 1801 invented a substitute 
for the heddle. We cannot readily understand the 
workings of Jacquard's wonderful 'attachment,' as 
his substitute for the heddle is called, but we 
ought to know what the great Frenchman did for 
the loom. ... He made it weave into the cloth 
whatever design, color or tint one might desire. 
He made the loom a mechanical artist rivaling 
in e.'Kcellence the work of a human artist. The 
Jacquard loom has brought about a revolution in 
man's, and especially in woman's dress. With the 
old loom, colors and designs could be woven into 
cloth but only very slowly, and goods with fancy 
patterns were made at a cost that was so great 
that only the rich could afford to buy. . . . With 
Jacquard's attachment the most beautiful figures 
can be cheaply woven into the commonest fab- 
rics." — S. E. Forman, Stories of useful inventions, 
pp. 120, 122. — "From 1850 onwards — with the 
exception of the electric Jacquard and certain 
most interesting methods of^ pile weaving — no 
marked advances in the general form of the ma- 
chinery employed in the textile industries are to 
be noted. . . . The development of a pile weaving 

and of pile machinery may briefly be summed up 
as follows: The printed warp pile fabric was 
introduced by Mr. R. Whytock about 1832. This 
was followed by the Chenille .'\xminster — in which 
the colours were woven in — about 1839. From 
1844 to 1850 the power wiring loom was developed 
in the United States and introduced into Great 
Britain. From 1856 to 1867 the power 'tufting' 
or Axminster loom was developed, and finally in 
1878, Lord Masham succeeded in weaving two 
pile fabrics face to face, the pile stretching be- 
tween an under and upper ground texture being 
severed in the loom by a knife which traverses 
from side to side with this object. From 1890 to 
1910 the chief innovations have had reference to 
the cutting of weft-pile fabrics in the loom, the 
introduction of the looping or cutting wires 
through the reed, . . . and certain marked im- 
provements in the mechanism for producing Che- 
nille Axminster fabrics." — A. F. Baker, Textiles, 
pp. 12, 14. — See also Commerce: Commercial .\ge: 

The art of glass making was introduced into 
.'\merica by the colonists in the seventeenth cen- 
tury ; but it is said that the first successful glass 
factory was opened in Boston in 1787. "One of 
the most important inventions of recent times, 
especially in the line of cheapening glassware, been the production of what is generally 
known as pressed glass [a purely .American in- 
vention]. It is undoubtedly true that glass was 
pressed before the invention of the .American lever- 
press, and one of the earliest specimens, bearing 
an inscription from which its date may be ascer- 
tained, is the lion's head, now in the Slade col- 
lection in the British museum, which was found 
many years ago at Thebes. This is evidently a 
piece of pressed glass, or glass pressed in a mold. 
. . . There is no doubt that the Venetians were 
acquainted with pressed glass ; but, notwithstand- 
ing this, the invention of what is now known as 
pressed glass is undoubtedly American. . . . The 
invention of the .American press is ascribed to a 
Massachusetts carpenter in the town of Sandwich, 
about 1827, who, wanting an article of glassware 
made for some purpose, went to Mr. Deming 
Jarves and asked him if he could make the article 
desired Mr. Jarves told him that it would be 
impossible for the glass-blowers to make such an 
article. The carpenter . . . asked if a machine 
could not be made to press glass into any shape. 
This idea was scouted at first, but upon second 
thought Mr. Jarves and the carpenter fashioned a 
rude press and made their first experiment. This 
machine was intended to make tumblers, and when 
the hot molten glass was poured into the mold, 
which was to determine whether glass could be 
pre.ssed, the experiment was witnessed by many 
glass-makers of that time. . . . From that time 
the manufacture of articles of glass by the use of 
pressing machines gradually developed, until . . . 
the bulk of the glassware produced in this coun- 
try . . . [was] made with presses." — J. D. W'eeks, 
Report on the manufactwe of glass, p. s8. — Wire 
glass, an invention of the last decade of the nine- 
teenth century, was first patented by Frank Shu- 
man in 1802. It is made by rolling red-hot. woven 
screen wire into molten glass, which has been 
poured over a long table made of cast iron or steel. 
The machincpi- devised for carrying the wire runs 
on tracks laid on each side of the table. It is 
equipped with four roller;, the first to spread out 
the glass and smooth it ; the second to press the 
wire into the glass body, and the other two to 
smooth and harden the coolinc plate. "The indus- 
trial application of Indian-rubber is entirely 



19lh Century 
India Rubber 


modern. The substance itself appears, however, 
to have been known to the natives of Peru from 
time immemorial, and to have been used for the 
preparation of some kind of garments. Although 
the first specimens were sent to Europe so long 
ago as I7J0, and the substance was from that time 
submitted to many investigations, no other use 
was found for it up to the year 1820 than to 
efface from paper the marks made by pencils. 
From this it derives the name by which it is 
commonly known. It has also been called 'gum 
elastic,' and caoutchouc from the Indian name. 
Crude caoutchouc is the product obtained by the 
spontaneous solidifying of the milky juice of cer- 
tain tropical plants — such as the Haevea elastica, 
Fatroplia elastica, and the Siphonia cautihu. The 
first grows chiefly in South America, and in the 
basin of the Amazon forms immense forests. . . . 
The extreme elasticity and extensibility of this 
singular substance . . . [attracted] the attention 
of practical men in England, Scotland, and France. 
One of the earliest patents obtained in . . . [Eng- 
land] for applications of caoutchouc was taken out 
by Mr. Thomas Hancock, of Newington, in 1820. 
. . . His first patent was for the use of Indian- 
rubber for the wrists of gloves, for braces, for 
garters, for boots and shoes instead of laces, and 
(or other similar purposes. ... He soon noticed 
and utilized the fact that two clean freshly-cut 
surfaces of caoutchouc, when pressed together, 
cohere and unite perfectly. This further led him 
to devising a machine by which all the waste cut- 
tings and parings might be worked up. . . . While 
Hancock was thus successful in mechanically work- 
ing Indian-rubber, Macintosh, of Glasgow, found 
means of effecting its solution by coal-naphtha, 
and he obtained, in 1823, a patent for the appli- 
cation of his discovery to the fabrication of water- 
proof garments. Waterproof cloth, or 'Mackin- 
tosh,' is prepared by varnishing one side of a suit- 
able fabric with a solution of caoutchouc, or by 
covering one side of a cloth with a thin film, and 
then bringing it into contact with a second piece 
similarly prepared — the two caoutchouc layers be- 
coming incorporated when the double cloth is 
passed between rollers. Other solvents for Indian- 
rubber have been discovered in ether, chloroform, 
sulphide of carbon, and rectified turpentine. . . . 
Mr. Hancock relates that when the manufacturers 
had overcome all obstacles, and had succeeded in 
producing thin, light, pliable, and perfectly water- 
proof fabrics, they had to encounter another quite 
unexpected difficulty — the tailors set their faces 
against the new material, and could not be induced 
to make it up ! The manufacturers were, there- 
fore, obliged themselves to fashion waterproof 
garments, and retail them to the public. This, 
however, turned out to be a benefit, for the seams 
were made waterproof, so as to exclude even the 
little water which would otherwise pass in by 
capillary attraction at the stitches. ... A modifi- 
cation of caoutchouc, possessing very valuable 
qualities for many purposes, was discovered by 
Mr. Charles Goodyear, and largely applied by him 
in the United States to the fabrication of water- 
proof boots. In 1842 these boots were imported 
into Europe, and it was seen that th's form of 
the material had the advantages of not sticking to 
other bodies at any ordinary temperatures, and of 
preserving its elasticity even in the coldest weather, 
whereas ordinary Indian-rubber becomes rigid by 
cold. The cut edges of this variety of caoutchouc 
do not cohere by pressure. Mr. Goodyear at- 
tempted to keep his process a secret ; but Mr. 
Hancock, having soon detected the presence of 
sulphur in the American preparations, set to work 

to discover how that substance was made to com- 
bine with the caoutchouc. He succeeded, and he 
obtained a patent for sulphurizing Indian-rubber 
before the original inventor had applied for 
one. . . . This transformation effected by sulphur 
Mr. Hancock called vulcanization; and vulcanized 
Indian-rubber is now employed in nearly all the 
innumerable applications of caoutchouc, provided 
the presence of sulphur is not absolutely objec- 
tionable. Goodyear's process [however] . . . gives 
better results than Hancock's process, because the 
sulphurization is more uniform, and this method 
is therefore more largely employed. When the 
various articles have been fabricated in the ordi- 
nary manner from the mixture of caoutchouc and 
sulphur, they are enclosed in vessels, where they 
are submitted fortwo or three hours to the action 
of steam under a pressure. ... A still easier 
method, due to Mr. Parkes, consists in steepmg 
the articles (which in this case should be thm) 
in a solution of one part of chloride of sulphur 
in sixty of bisulphide of carbon. The object be- 
comes vulcanized by simple exposure to the air, 
without the aid of heat. But this process is said 
to be liable to cause the article afterwards to 
become brittle. The addition of oxide of zinc, 
carbonate of lead, and other substances, is found 
to yield a product better adapted for certain pur- 
poses than one in which only sulphur is used. 
The list of applications of vulcanized Indian-rub- 
ber would be a very long one ; but as a great 
number of these apphcations must be known to 
everybody, it will be unnecessary to specify 
them. . . . When the proportion of sulphur mixed 
with the caoutchouc is increased to 25 or 35 per 
cent., another product having qualities entirely 
different from those of vulcanized Indian-rubber 
is obtained when the mixture is heated. This is 
the jet-black substance termed ebonite or vul- 
canite, which is made into such articles as combs, 
paper-knives, buttons, canes, portions of orna- 
mental furniture, and plates of electrical machines. 
It is in many cases an excellent substitute for 
horn and for whalebone, while for insulating sup- 
ports, &c., in electric apparatus, it is unrivalled. 
It has a full black colour and takes a bright 
polish; and it may be cut, or filed, or moulded," — 
R. Routlcdge, Discoveries and inventions of the 
nineteenth century, pp. 594-507. 

"In the year 1708, Nicolas Louis Robert, for- 
merly a printer's reader in the employ of F'rancois 
Didot, and afterwards a clerk inspector m the 
Essonnes Paper Mills, belonging to St. Leger Didot, 
invented a machine for making paper in lengths of 
12 to 15 metres. A year later, the first effort to 
turn out paper on the new model was made at 
the Essonnes Paper Mill. ... In 1709, Didot pro- 
posed to his brother-in-law, John Gamble, an Eng- 
lishman, to take up the capitalisation of the patent 
in England. With this object in view, Didot, in 
1800, crossed the Channel (although at this period 
France and England were at enmity) and came 
into touch with Henry and Scaley Fourdrinier, 
two prosperous London stationers, whose sym- 
pathy in the idea of the paper-machine had been 
enlisted by Gamble . . . Gamble, in 1S08, turned 
over the whole of his interest in the machine, and 
the Fourdriniers were left to continue the develop- 
ment of the patent. . . . [They] expended the 
whole of their private fortune (some £60,000, it 
is supposed) in the improvement of the machine; 
. [but] became bankrupt, went out of business, 
and ultimately died almost without means, a small 
allowance being gf-anted to Henry from a fund 
raised by The Times. In iSog, Mr. J. Dickinson 
. . . invented the Cylinder paper-machine, and in 



79//1 Century 
Paper and Rope 


182 1 drying cylinders wtrc added to the Four- 
drinier machine. Bciorc this date, the Fourdrinicr 
contained no suction apparatus or drying arrange- 
ment, hence the paper was reeled in a wet state, 
necessitating cutting in sheets for loft-drying." — 
H. A. Maddo.x, Faper, pp. 8-g. — "Mattias Koops, 
... in 1801, 'succeeded in making the most per- 
fect paper from straw, wood and other vegetables, 
without the addition of any other known paper 
stuff.' He printed a book upon the fabric from 
these materials, and concerning Lhem, from which 
Munseli gathered many facts for his Chronology. 
During a rag famine in Germany, in 1756, an at- 
tempt had been made to use straw in the paper 
manufacture, and a book was published giving a 
plan for reducing all vegetables to pulp. ... In 
1S24, Louis Lambert, a Frenchman, took out a 
patent for an improved method of reducing straw 
to pulp and extracting the coloring and other 
deleterious matter, so that it could be used in 
the ordinary rag engine. In 1827, Wm. Magaw 
of Mcadville, Pa., patented a mode of preparing 
hay, straw, and similar substances for making 
paper. . . . Louis Bomeisler of Philadelphia, in 
iS2Q. obtained a patent for making straw writing 
paper, white and handsome. ... In 1854 a prac- 
tical chemist exhibited in New York a superior 
quality of paper made entirely from straw and 
other grasses, claiming to have discovered a process 
of freeing them from their sile.x and other detri- 
mental substances. In 1855 the Saratoga Whig 
was printed upon paper made three-fourths of 
straw." — J. E. A. Smith, History of paper, pp. 97- 
og. loi. 

The manufacture of paper had begun in the 
United States long before this time. Some author- 
ities say the first mill was erected in 1690 to pro- 
vide paper for an enterprising Boston printer; 
others state that manufacture of rag paper by 
hand was started in Troy, New York, in 1794, and 
that the first steam-mill commenced operations at 
Pittsburgh in 1817. "By 1842 there were some 
50,000 persons employed in the paper-mill indus- 
try in the country, producing paper annually of 
the value of $15,000,000. Pulp-straw made its 
appearance in 1857, being manufactured at Fort 
Edward, New York. By the time the Civil War 
broke out newspapers were using this straw-paper 
very largely, the price of rye straw increasing 
from $6 to S20 a ton. Poor and brittle as this 
paper was, and hard on printers' type, yet the 
new.^papers were glad to get it at from twelve to 
twenty-six cents a pound during the war. News- 
paper circulations were largely stimulated by the 
political excitement culminating in 1861, and as 
a result the product oi our paper-mills began to 
e.xceed that of Great Britain and France. A boom 
in paper-making came with the introduction of 
wood-paper about 1870-75. At first wood-paper 
was regarded ai a cheap article comparable with 
straw-paper; but, as its merits were better under- 
stood and as the makers learned improved ways 
of strengthening and finishing, its popularity began 
to grow, and to-day ninet/-nine one-hundredths 
of the world's paper made is of wood, fine papers 
designed for the higher grade of artistic printing 
being manufactured from wood-pulp and depend- 
ing upon sizing and calendering for their beauty." 
— C. H. Cochrane, Modern industrial progress, pp. 

Also in: R. W. Sidall, Manufacture of paper, 
pp. 16-19. — L. H. Weeks, History of paper manu- 
facturing in the United States. 

Up to very recent times little change was made 
in the primitive mode of manufacturing rope and 
cordage. As time went on heavier and heavier 

ropes were made, but they were laid by hand, in' 
rope walks such as that described by Loncfellow, 
until quite late in the nineteenth century. The 
spinning wheel and hackle were no doubt intro- 
duced almost as early as they were used for the 
textile manufacture, and later spindles (whirls) 
with hooks were attached to the framework in 
such a manner that they gave a twist to the yarn 
as the spinner walked backward down the lone 
walk, paying out the fibre as he went. Cords 
made by this primitive process were again twisted 
with a reverse motion into small rope with the 
help of the whirls, and at some time horse power 
was introduced to "lay " and "close" heavy rope. 
"It was only towards the end of the i8th century 
that this useful branch of manufacture engaged 
the attention of the scientific men, and began to 
be conducted on scientific principles. . . . Between 
the years 1783 and 1807, no fewer than twenty- 
two patents were taken out for improvements in 
the art, and for machines of various descrip- 
tions. ... It may be sufficient to state, that the 
one invented by Captain Huddart of London, con- 
structed on highly scientific principles, was greatly 
approved of, and obtained the highest celebrity. 
This plan was introduced into Greenock in 
1802 . , . but was in some measure superseded a 
few yeirs after by [a method of simpler con- 
struction]. . . . For this improvement on Captain 
Huddart '5 plan we believe we are indebted to Mr. 
\V. Chapman of Newcastle. . . . The usual process 
of hand-spinning was considered very defec- 
tive. . . . Endeavours were accordingly made to 
obviate this defect also. . . . Mr. [James] Lane, 
who had for many years directed his attention to 
the subject . . . got a set of machines constructed 
under his own direction, which, on repeated trial, 
were found completely to accomplish the object. 
By this invention, the regular spinning of the 
yarns, which had hitherto been prepared in a 
tedious and clumsy manner by hand-labour, is 
one object which has been effected ; but this, 
although in itself important, is one of the least 
advantages. By the same plan, the hemp, to what- 
ever purpose applied, being drawn over a succes- 
sion of gills, or small hackles, is dressed [written 
in 1835] in the highest degree." — Macnab and 
Co., F.xpo.nlion of principles of Mr. James Lang's 
invention for spinning hemp into rope-yarns by 
machinery, pp. 3-4, 5. — "A spinning and twisting 
mill for making cordage was patented in the 
United States in 1804. ... In 1827 rope factories 
run by steam were started in Wheeling, Virginia, 
and at Cincinnati, Louisville, and St. Louis. At 
the same time there was in use in . . . [the United 
States] a machine in which the threads on revolv- 
ing spools passed through perforated iron plates, 
and then through an iron tube, of different diam- 
eters for various sized ropes. In 1834 a new 
machine was introduced in New York which spun 
rope-yain from hemp without the preliminary 
hatcheling. . . . This was the process of rope- 
making up to fifty years ago [written in 1872], 
and horse-power was employed to twist the strands 
into ropes. The first machines for twisting the 
hand-spun yarns into strands and ropes were im- 
ported from England; but, in 1834, .American in- 
genuity devised a machine for spinning the yarns, 
and numerous other inventions, greatly facilitating 
all the processes which are now wholly conducted 
by machinery, soon followed." — H. Greeley, Great 
industries of the United States, pp. 286, 287. — 
Steam driven spinning machines were introduced 
as early as 1838 into the United States. "A way 
was found to adapt the machines to the spinning 
of Russian and American hemps which could not 



19th Century 
Iron and Steel 


at first be handled as successfully as Manila be- 
cause of their somewhat softer texture. About 
1848 the self-feeding device came into use. As 
the years passed, still other improvements were 
invented and utilized, giving us the highly per- 
fected machine of today. Under favorable work- 
ing conditions the only interruption in the spin- 
ning process, as now carried on, is the removal of 
the full bobbin and the substitution of a fresh 
one. A bobbin will hold as much as half a mile 
of yarn which will weigh in the neighborhood of 
ten pounds — the length and weight of the load 
varying with different sizes of yarn." — Plymouth 
Products, no. 11, Feb., 1913, pp. 4-5. — Cables are 
still laid in tope walks [by machinery]; but un- 
hke the. old method of laying, "there are two 
methods to the modern system: that in which the 
strands are formed on one type of machine and 
twisted, into a rope on another; and that in which 
both operations are performed on a single ma- 
chine." — Plymouth Products, no. 14, -May, 1913, 
p. i- — "The application of wires in the form of 
ropes for engineering purposes was first introduced 
in 1813 for use as supporting ropes on the Geneva 
suspension bridge. They were, however, not con- 
structed in what today would be strictly classed 
as wire rope, but were formed of a series of wires 
laid parallel with one another and bound together 
by means of smaller wires which in turn were 
covered with tarred yarn. ... At a later date, 
183s, some ropes of this type were produced for 
the Freiburg suspension bridge which has a span 
of over 800 ft. in the clear. The supporting ropes 
for this bridge were composed of about 20 bundles 
of iron wires laid parallel, each wire being 0.125 
in. in diameter and the combined total making a 
rope about sYz in. in diameter. . . . Ropes of this 
class, while not extensively manufactured, have 
been applied in America ... on the Niagara sus- 
pension bridge and the Ohio River bridge and 
have been used for the large main supporting cables 
on the Brooklyn suspension bridge ; also more 
recently on the new East River or WiUiamsburg 
bridge. ... In 1834 a mining engineer named 
Albert, of Clausthal, Germany . . . succeeded in 
fabricating ... a 'stranded' wire rope composed 
of iron wires. He put this rope in operation for 
hoisting ore in the shafts of the Harz mines. . . . 
In 1837 Albert, before an engineering society in 
Berlin, read a paper on the construction and manu- 
facture of stranded-wire ropes. This paper advo- 
cated the production of wire ropes along the same 
lines of construction as were previously applied 
to the manufacture of hemp and fiber ropes, then 
employed exclusively in the mining industry. . . . 
It must thus be conceded that as a direct result 
of Albert's experiments the commercial world was 
given a mechanical appliance to which can be 
traced the establishment of many of the foremost 
industrial activities of modern times. ... In the 
Museo Borbonico at Naples is to be found on 
exhibition a short length of bronze-wire rope, 
about I in. in diameter, which was excavated from 
the ruins of Pompeii, but beyond the fact that it 
was made of wires twisted into strands, and the 
strands in turn laid into rope, there is no other 
information except that it proves to us that wire 
ropes made of bronze wires were in existence be- 
fore the destruction of Pompeii in the year 79 
A.D. Beyond this period there is no trace of any 
stranded ropes, but it is an established fact that 
the ancients, many centuries before the process of 
drawing wire through dies was invented, made 
wire from precious metals by hammering. ... [In 
1840 R. S. Newell, of Dundee, Scotland, designed] 
some rather crude machinery for the purpose of 

manufacturing wire ropes with four strands, each 
strand containing four wires. . . . 1840, he was 
granted his first letters patent in England for 
improvements in the manufacture of wire ropes 
and the machinery designed for the process. . . . 
In the United States wire rope was first manufac- 
tured in the early 40's and has been improved 
upon year by year until the present time, when it 
represents the very highest development of this 
means of hoisting and haulage. In the last fifty 
years there has been a gradual change from the 
use of one kind of rope material to another, and 
this was brought about by the demand for an 
increased production by speed and efficiency." — 
History of wire hoisting ropes with notes on fac- 
tors of safety (.Engineering and Mining Journal, 
Nov. 10, 1917). 

"The 'Manufacture of Malleable Iron and 
Steel without Fuel' was the startling title of 
a scientific paper read in 1856 before the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science. This 
was the announcement to the w'orld of Henry 
Bessemer's invention of the process for making 
iron and steel which led to the greatest commercial 
development the world has seen. ... In the old 
Catalan furnace and the types that preceded it, in 
the Finerj' Fire, the Walloon and the several other 
refining furnaces fuel had to be provided without 
stint. The lowest proportion that seventy years 
of experiment and practice had brought about in 
Cort's puddling process was one ton of coal per 
ton of iron, while the blast furnace required at 
the least four-fifths of a ton of coke for each ton 
of pig iron produced. Whether [Henry] Bessemer, 
an Englishman ... or William Kelly, an Amer- 
ican . . . first conceived the idea of the 'pneumatic' 
process is a moot question. . . . One day while 
watching the operation of his Finery Fire he 
[Kelly] noticed that the blast of air from the 
tuyere made the molten iron where it impinged 
very much whiter and apparently hotter than the 
rest. ... In a few days he had rigged up a crude 
apparatus and made soft iron from which a horse- 
shoe and a horseshoe nail were fashioned by a 
blacksmith. . . . Upon learning that Bessemer of 
England had been granted a United States patent 
(1856) [for the making of steel], Kelly came be- 
fore the patent office and proved that he had 
several years before used the same process. The 
priority of his invention was acknowledged, and 
a patent was granted to him also (1S57). Finan- 
cial troubles and finally bankruptcy handicapped 
him. However, the Cambria Steel Co., of Johns- 
town, Pa., became interested and let him experi- 
ment with his process at the company's plant. 
Here in 1857 he built his first 'tilting' converter. 
His first public demonstration resulted in failure 
and ridicule, but a few days later he was success- 
ful. . . . While apparently not the originator of 
the process, Bessemer is without any doubt en- 
titled to most of the credit he received. There is 
no proof that he had heard of Kelly's experiments 
when he began his own or that he was aided by 
Kelly's discoveries. He worked out the details of 
the process independently, as had Kelly, and it 
was Bessemer who put it on a commercial basis. 
... [By the Bessemer process molten pig iron is 
poured into a movable, pear-shaped retort, and 
through this hot air is forced, by a blast, for a 
stated period. During this process, the air com- 
bines with the carbon in the iron, and is passed 
out of the retort leaving a mass of fluid steel 
behind] Practically no type of converter has 
since been brought out that . . . [Bessemer] did 
not think of and try, and the process has been 
modified in but one or two important particulars 



19th Century 
Iron and Steel 


in the years that have passed. The essential part 
of the Bessemer process is the blowinn oi air 
through molten cast iron to remove the metalloids 
by which cast iron differs from steel and wrought 
iron, as has been explained before." — L. W. Spring, 
Kon-technical chats on iron and steel, pp. 123-128. 
— Unfortunately the process made the steel exceed- 
ingly brittle, a fault which was overcome in 
Sweden by the use of pig iron which was rich in 
mans;anese, and in Great Britain by the Mushct 
process. The Mushct process, (the invention 
of Robert Mushet) included the addition of a 
certain quantity of carbon to the contents of the 
crucible. The patents which covered this process 
were controlled in the United States by the hold- 
ers of the Kelly patents. Thus matters stood at 
a draw until the Kelly and Bessemer interests 
united, and in 1866 America began a belated use 
of the much-needed steel. 

"Smelting for pig iron is now almost entirely 
carried out with hot blast, which was introduced 
by Neilson in 1828, and it is only high grade pig 
iron for special purposes that is now smelted .with 
cold blast. The method of heating the blast has 
undergone many changes since Neilson's time, when 
an expanded portion of the blast main was sur- 
rounded by a furnace in which solid fuel was 
burnt, and the blast driven through it before 
entering the furnace. Various forms of iron pipe 
stoves heated with solid fuel or waste gas have 
been used, but have now almost entirely given 
place to stoves of the regenerative principle. . . . 
One of the earliest stoves of this pattern was 
designed and constructed by Cowper in :86o to 
burn solid fuel; but shortly after he proposed to 
use 'waste' gas, and the later ones are all modifi- 
rations or extensions of Cowper 's original stove. 
The principle of regeneration demands at least 
two stoves, and each stove consists of a huge 
chamber, the interior of which is built in with 
firebrick intersected by flues, in which combustible 
gas is burnt to develop heat, which is absorbed 
by the brickwork and re-absorbed by the air when 
the chamber is put in the path of the blast on 
its passage from the blowing engine to the furnace. 
Thus the chambers are alternately heating the blast 
and being re-heated by the burning gas." — J. W. 
Stansbie, Iron and steel, pp. 79-80. — "The process 
of manufacturing steel in the open hearth regen- 
erative furnace, which we owe chiefly to the 
genius of Sir William Siemens, is the only process 
which has in any way proved a serious rival to 
'hat of Bessemer. The difficulty of obtaining a 
sufficiently high temperature to maintain a large 
quantity of decarburised iron in a fluid condition 
was the chief obstacle to the solution of the prob- 
lem, and it was only after many experiments . . . 
that the efforts of Sir \Vm. Siemens and his brother 
were crowned with success. They first gasified the 
fuel in a separate furnace called a producer, and 
then raised this and the air necessary for its com- 
bustion to a high temperature by means of the 
waste heat derived from the previous combustion 
stored up in fire-brick checkered chambers, which 
they called regenerators. They then conducted 
the superheated gas and air by separate flues to 
the hearth of the furnace, where combustion took 
place with the production of an extremely high 
temperature. ... In 1867 to 1868 the success of 
the process was demonstrated at an experimental 
works at Birmingham, large quantities of steel 
being made from old rails and similar material. 
Gradually the problem of desiliconisine and de- 
carburising pig-iron, with and without steel scrap, 
by means of iron ore as the oxidising agent, was 
worked out. ... In France, Messrs. P. & E. Mar- 

tin also attacked the problem; but, instead of 
using ore. they worked with steel scrap and pig- 
iron alone, dissolving the scrap in a bath of 
molten pig. . . . This process was known as the 
Siemens-Martin, as distinguished from the Siemens 
process. ... In America, of late years, furnaces 
built on rollers, or on rockers, have been used to 
some extent, so that the hearth section of the 
furnace can be tilted to enable the charge of fin- 
ished steel to be poured into the ladle, thus avoid- 
ing the trouble of tapping." — F. W. Harbord and 
J. VV. Hall, Metailurgy of steel, v. i, pp. 140a. 
147. — "The only important change in manufactur- 
ing crucible steel was made by . . . [Robert F. 
Mushet] about the beginning of the last century 
[19th centurj']. Instead of melting blister steel 
in the crucible, he used refined iron (scrap or 
bar) mixed with some carbonaceous compound. 
. . . Steel produced in this way, however, had 
not the excellence of that made in India; nor even 
of the blister-crucible steel of Huntsman. [Mushet, 
therefore, continued his experiments.] . . . Ordi- 
nary carbon steel has been hardened from time 
immemorial by sudden quenching of the red hot 
metal in water. During the course of his experi- 
ments, sometime in 1868, Mushet found that one 


of his bars seemed to have the property of becom- 
ing hard after heating, without the usual quench- 
ing. . . . .Analysis of the bar behaving so singu- 
larly showed that it contained a percentage of 
tungsten. . . . Not only did the bar containing 
tungsten harden without the customar>' quenching, 
but it was actually harder than ordinary steel 
which had been quenched. It occurred to Mushet 
that this extraordinan,- circumstance might be 
turned to advantage in the production of superior 
tool steel, and he accordingly set himself to devel- 
oping tungsten steel with this end in view." — 
O. M. Becker, High-speed steel, pp. 8, g. — This was 
the origin of the steels which are commonly now 
known as "high speed steels." Some time later 
Henry Gladwin of Sheffield, discovered the value 
of re-heating tool steel, and cooling it in an air 
blast. Later in the century (1894) F. W. Taylor, 
of the Bethlehem works, with Maunsel White and 
others began a series of experiments in high speed 
steel which resulted in the production of steel 
which allows of their use at an astonishing rate 
of speed. "If ingots are lifted from the casting 
pit too soon the outer crust gives way, and some 
of the fluid centre flows out, these "bleeding ingots' 
showing conclusively what a large amount of heat 
is stored in the inside. . . . The difficultv was 
surmounted in 1882 by Mr. Gjers, who dropped 
the ingots, as they were removed from the casting 



19th Ceniury 


pit, into small holes in the ground, lined with 
firebrick, thus retarding the loss of heat from the 
exterior long enough to permit the excess of heat 
in the fluid interior to soak through to the out- 
side. . . . The first suggestion for increasing the 
soundness of metals by compression while in a 
fluid condition, would seem to have emanated 
from Mr. James Hollingrake, [iSig]. . . . Ac- 
cording to Mr. Reynolds, the process had been 
used regularly at the works of the Broughton 
Copper Company, Manchester, for twenty years 
before Sir Joseph Whitworth took out his patent 
in 1865, while Bessemer had obtained a patent in 

i8Q6-igi4; Development of airplanes and air serv- 
ice: 1800-1874; 188Q-1Q00. 

Automobiles. — Motor patents. — Origin and 
development of motor transport. — Steam wagon. 
— Electric trucks. — Traction enterprise in 
America. — Benz and Daimler gasoline motors. 
— Steam and electric cars. See .AtiTOMOBiLEs: 
1826-18Q5; 1858-iqig; 1885-1804; 1880-1005. 

Ammeters. — Galvanometers. — Electrometers. 
— Dynamometers. See Electrical discovery: 
Measuring instruments: 1833-1921. 

Early history of telegraphy. — Perfected tele- 
graph. — Submarine cables. — Laying of Atlantic 


1856 for compressing the ingot while in a plastic 
state. Sir Joseph states in his patent that he 
knew fluid compression had been proposed, but 
the moulds employed were too weak to withstand 
such pressures as he considered were necessary, 
and to him the credit is due." — F. W. Harbord 
and J. W. Hall, Metallurgy of steel, v. 2, pp. 548, 
883.— See also Industrial revolution: England: 
Mining inventions. 

Development of balloons. — Kite-balloons and 
parachutes. — Dirigibles. — Beginnings of the air- 
plane. — Achievements of Zeppelin, Langley, 
Maxim and Chanute. — German and English 
gliding machines. See Aviation: Development 
of balloons and dirigibles: 1870-1913; 1884-1897; 

cable. — Printer system. See Electrical discov- 
ery: Telegraphy and telephony: Telegraph: 1753- 
1874; 1754-1860; 1855-1Q17. 

Invention and early use of the telephone. See 
Electrical discovery; Telegraphy and telephony: 
Telephone: 1875-1893. 

Wireless, or radio. — Observations of Max- 
well, Hertz and Marconi. Sec Electricai. dis- 
covery: Wireless, or radio: 1S64-IQ03. 

Needle gun. — Winchester repeating or maga- 
zine rifle. — Dahlgren gun. See Rifles and re- 
volvers: From Waterloo to the eve of the World 
War; Ordnance: loth century. 

Hot air and gas engines. See Steam,and gas 
engines: Hot air and gas engines. 



t9th Century 
Compass; Microscope 


Steamboats. — Experiments for transportation. 
See Steaai namgation: BeBinniiiKS 

Submarines of Bauer, Brun, Hoxsey, Ash, 
Campbell, De Ldme, etc.— Holland boats. — 
Goubet boats. — Submersible torpedo boats. Sie 
SvB.MAKiNKs; to iSgg. 

Instruments: Compass. — Microscope. — Spec- 
troscope. — Interferometer. — "The mariners' com- 
pass in use up to the middle of the last century 
was very im|ifr(ett. It consisted ot a card at- 
tached to which were the mattnets, the card hav- 
ini; the points of the compass marked upon it, 
and a line showinf; the central line of the ship, 
or 'lubber line,' marked upon the case. . . . The 
use of iron in the building of ships introduced 
new errors, which rendered the compass of very 
little value, until after the mathematical investi- 
Ration of the magnetic field on iron ships was 
made by Poisson and .Mry in 1838. .'Xfter this, 
the field due to permanent magnetization of the 
ship was corrected by small permanent magnets 
placed in the binnacle, and the effect of temporary 
magnetization of the soft iron in the ship was 
corrected by means of two soft iron spheres, one 
on either side of the compass. . . . The imperfec- 
tions in the compass itself were not removed until 
Lord Kelvin . . . made improvements in two par- 
ticular directions. First, the card was made very 
light, being a thin wire ring with a paper disc, 
cut out in the centre, the points of the compass 
being marked on the paper. . . . Secondly, the 
magnets were short steel needles, four, six, or 
eight in number, slung by threads in the central 
space cut from the card disc." — S. G. Starling, 
'Electricity, p. 10. — The makers of the early micro- 
scopes were confronted by "two great optical bar- 
riers, known technically as spherical and chromatic 
aberration — the one due to a failure of the rays of 
light to fall all in one plane when focalized 
through a lens, the other due to the dispersive 
action of the lens in breaking the white light into 
prismatic colors [both of which seemed insuper- 
able]. ... In the attempt to overcome these diffi- 
culties, the foremost physical philosophers of the 
time came to the aid of the best opticians. \'ery 
early in the ftothl century. Dr. (afterwards Sir 
David) Brewster, the renowned Scotch physicist, 
suggested that certain advantages might accrue 
from the use of such gems as have high refractive 
and low dispersive indices, in place of lenses made 
of glass. .Accordingly lenses were made of dia- 
mond, of sapphire, and so on, and with some 
measure of success. But in r8i2 a much more 
important innovation was introduced by Dr. Wil- 
liam Hyde Wollaston. . . . This was the sugges- 
tion to use two plano-convex lenses, placed at a 
prescribed distance apart, in lieu of the single 
double-convex lens generally used. This combina- 
tion largely overcame the spherical aberration, and 
it gained immediate fame as the 'Wollaston 
doublet.' To obviate loss of light in such a 
doublet from of reflecting surfaces. Dr. 
Brewster suggested filling the interspace between 
the two lenses with a cement having the same 
index of refraction as the lenses themselves — an 
improvement of manifest advantage. An im- 
provement yet more important was made by Dr. 
VVollaston himself in the introduction of the dia- 
phragm to limit the field of vision between the 
lenses, instead of in front of the anterior lens. .\ 
pair of lenses thus equipped Dr. Wollaston called 
the periscopic microscope. Dr. Brewster suggested 
that in such a lens the same object might be 
attained with greater ease by grinding an equa- 
torial groove about a thick or globular lens and 
filling the groove with an opaque cement. This 

arrangement found much favor, and came subse- 
quently to be known as a Coddington lens, though 
Mr. Coddington laid no claim to being its m- 
ventor. Sir John Herschel . . . also gave atten- 
tion to the problem of improving the microscope, 
and in 182 1 he introduced what was called an 
aplanatic combination of lenses, in which, as the 
name implies, the spherical aberration was largely 
done away with. It was thought that the use 01 
this Herschel aplanatic combination as an eye- 
piece, combined with the Wollaston doublet for 
the objective, came as near perfection as the com- 
pound microscope was likely soon to come. But 
in reality the instrument . . . was so defective 
that for practical purposes the simple microscope, 
such as the doublet or the Coddington, was prefer- 
able to the more complicated one. . . . Professor 
Giovanni Battista Amici, a very famous mathe- 
matician and practical optician of Modena, suc- 
ceeded in constructing a reflecting microscope 
which was said to be superior to any compound 
microscope of the time. . . . [But, the] man to 
whom chief credit is due for directing those final 
steps that made the compound microscope a prac- 
tical implement instead of a scientific toy was the 
English amateur optician Joseph Jackson LLster. 
Combining mathematical knowledge with mechan- 
ical ingenuity, and having the practical aid of the 
celebrated optician Tulley, he devised formulae 
for the combination of of crown glass with 
others of flint glass, so adjusted that the refractive 
errors of one were corrected or compensated by 
the other, with the result of producing lenses of 
hitherto unequalled powers of definition ; lenses 
capable of showing an image highly magnified, 
yet relatively free from those distortions to true 
interpretation of magnified structures. Lister had 
begun his studies of the lens in 18^4, but it was 
not until 1830 that he contributed to the Royal 
Society the famous paper detailing his theories 
and experiments." — H. S. Williams, History of 
science, iK 4, pp. loq-ii,^. 

Although the spectroscope is a nineteenth-cen- 
tury invention, its history goes back to 1675. 
"The white light of the sun is composed of the 
seven colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, in- 
digo, and violet. When a sunbeam falls upon a 
triangular prism of glass the beam is bent from 
its course at an angle, and the different colors of 
its light are deflected at different angles or degrees, 
and consequently, instead of appearing as white 
light, the beam is spread out into a divergent 
wedge shape, that separates _ the colors and pro- 
duces what is called the spectrum. This discovery 
was made by Sir Isaac Newton, in 1675. In 1802 
Dr. Wollaston, in repeating Newton's experiments, 
admitted the l)cam of light through a very narrow 
slit, instead of a round hole, and noticed that the 
spectrum, as spread out in its colors, was not a 
continuous shading from one color into another, 
but he found black lines crossing the spectrum. 
These black lines were, in 1814, carefully mapped 
by a German optician, named Fraunhofer, and 
w-ere found by him to be 576 in number. The 
next step toward the spectroscope was made by 
Simms, an optician, in 1830, who placed a lens 
in front of the prism so that the slit was in the 
focus of the lens, and the light passing through 
the slit first pa.ssed through the lens, and then 
through the prism. This lens was called the 'Col- 
limating' lens. With these preliminary steps of 
development. Prof. Kirchhoff began in 1850 his 
great work of mapping the solar spectrum, and 
he, in connection with Prof. Bimsen, found several 
thousand of the dark lines in the siiectrum, and 
laid the foundation of spectrum-analysis, or the 



19th Century 


determination of the nature of substances from 
the spectra cast by them when in an incandescent 
state. ... By rendering any substance incandes- 
cent in the flame of a liunsen burner, and directing 
the light of its incandescence through the spectro- 
scope, its spectrum gives the basis of intelligent 
chemical identification. So delicate is its test that 
it has been calculated by Profs. Kirchhoff and Bun- 
sen that the eighteen-millionth part of a grain of 
sodium may be detected." — E. W. Byrn, Progress 
of invention in the nineteenth century, pp. 2qz-2C)4. 
— "In the measurement of length or motion a most 
refined instrument is the interferometer, devised 
by Professor A. A. Michelson, of the University 
of Chicago. It enables an observer to detect a 
movement through one five-millionth of an inch. 
The principle involved is illustrated in a simple ex- 
periment. If by dropping a pebble at each of 
two centres, say a yard apart, in a still pond, we 
send out two systems of waves, each system will 
ripple out in a series of concentric circles. If, when 
the waves meet, the crests from one set of waves 
coincide with the depressions from the other set, 
the water in that particular spot becomes smooth 
because one set of waves destroys the other. In 
this case we may say that the waves interfere. 
If, on the other hand, the crests of waves from two 
sources should coincide, they would rise to twice 
their original height. Light-waves sent out in a 
similar mode from two points may in like manner 
either interfere, and produce darkness, or unite 
to produce light of double brilliancy. These al- 
ternate dark and bright bands are called inter- 
ference fringes. When one of the two sources of 
light is moved through a very small space, the 
interference fringes at a distance move through 
a space so much larger as to be easily observed 
and measured, enabling an observer to compute 
the short path through which a light-source has 
moved. . . . Many diverse appHcations of the 'in- 
terferometer have been developed, as, for example, 
in thermometry. The warmth of a hand held near 
a pencil of light is enough to cause a wavering 
of the fringes. A lighted match shows contortions. 
. . . When the air is heated its density and re- 
fractive power diminish: it follows that if this 
experiment is tried under conditions which show a 
regular and measurable displacement of the fringes, 
their movement will indicate the temperature of 
the air. This method has been applied to ascer- 
tain very high temperatures, such as those of the 
blast furnace. Most metals expand one or two 
parts in for .a rise in temperature of one 
degree centigrade. When a small specimen is ex- 
amined the whole change to be measured may be 
only about Moooo inch, a space requiring a good 
microscope to perceive, but readily measured by 
an interferometer. It means a displacement 
amounting to several fringes, and this may be 
measured to within %„ of a fringe or less ; so that 
the whole displacement may be measured to within 
a fraction of one per cent. Of course, with long 
bars the accuracy attainable is much greater. 

"The interferometer has much refined the indi- 
cations of the balance. In a noteworthy experi- 
ment Professor Michelson found the amount of 
attraction which a sphere of lead exerted on a 
small sphere hung on an arm of a delicate balance. 
The amount of this attraction when two such 
spheres touch is proportional to the diameter of 
the large sphere, which in this case was about eight 
inches. The attraction on the small ball on the 
end of the balance was thus the same fraction of 
its weight as the diameter of the large ball was of 
the diameter of the earth, — something like one 
twenty-millionth. So the force to be measured 


was one twenty-millionth of the weight of this 
small ball. In the interferometer the approach of 
the small ball to the large one produced a displace- 
ment of seven whole fringes." — G. lies. Inventors 
at work, pp. 214-218. — See also Astronomy: Meas- 
uring the size of stars. 

Measurement. — "As art advances from plane to 
plane it demands new niceties of measurement, 
discovers sources of error unsuspected before, and 
avoids these errors by ingenious precautions. To- 
day observers earnestly wish for means of measure- 
ment surpassing those at hand. Take the astrono- 
mer for ex.".;nple. One would suppose that the two 
points of the earth's orbit which are farthest apart, 
divided as they are by about 185,000,000 miles, 
would afford sufficient room between them for a 
base-line wherewith to measure celestial spaces. 
But the fact is otherwise. So remote are the fixed 
stars that nearly all of them seem unchanged in 
place whether we observe them on January 3 or 
July 3, although meanwhile w'e have changed our 
point of view by the whole length of the ellipse 
described by the earth in its motion. Then, too, 
the chemist is now concerned with analyses of a 
delicacy out of the question a century ago. His 
reward is in discovering the great influence wrought 
by admixtures so slight in amount as almost to 
defy quantitative recognition. In the experiments 
by M. Guillaume ... his unit throughout every 
research was one thousandth of a millimetre, or 
1/25,400 inch. Argon, a gas about one fourth 
heavier than oxygen, forms nearly one hundredth 
part of the atmosphere, and yet its discovery by 
Lord Rayleigh dates only from i8g4. His feat 
depended not only upon refined modes of measure-* 
ment, but also upon his challenging the tradi- 
tional analysis of common air. ... As measure- 
ments become more and more precise they afford 
an important means of discovery." — G. lies. In- 
ventors at work, pp. 212-213. 

Liquefaction of Gases. — Sulphur dioxide, 
chlorine. — "The first recorded reference to the 
liquefaction of a commonly recognised gas occurs 
in Fourcroy's Chemistry, vol. ii. p. 74, where it is 
stated, without any description of the process, 
that Citizens Monge and Clouet have liquefied sul- 
phurous acid (sulphur dioxide). The next ex- 
periment of the same kind was made by Northmore, 
who, in 1S05, reduced chlorine and probably also 
sulphurous acid to the liquid state. From this 
time till the subject was taken up by Fara- 
day no gases were reduced to liquid. . . . The 
researches which ultimately led to the liquefaction 
of all known gases were begun by Faraday and 
Davy in 1S23. . . . Faraday had been previously 
occupied with chlorine, and had discovered two 
chlorides of carbon in 1820. . . . Immediately 
after this [1823] muriatic acid was liquefied by a 
similar method, in which the materials used were 
salammoniac and sulphuric acid, and Faraday, there 
can be no doubt, was the operator. Faraday also 
liquefied in glass tubes sulphur dioxide, sulphureted 
hydrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, euchlorine, 
cyanogen, and ammonia. . . . There then remained 
only the gases of the atmosphere . . . which re- 
sisted all attempts by this method to change their 
state, and arsenetted hydrogen, hydriodic and hy- 
drobromic acids, which were easily overcome by 
Faraday when some twenty years later he re- 
sumed his experiments upon the subject. In the 
meantime Thilorier in Paris, acting upon the same 
principle, with the substitution of metallic cylinders 
for glass tubes, prepared large quantities of liquid 
carbon dioxide, and was the first to obtain this 
substance in a solid state. . . . Here, then, the 
resources of the physical laboratory seemed to have 


]9th Century 
Organ; Piano 


been exhausted, and it is probable that, . . . prog- 
ress would have been still further delayed but for 
the important experiments of [Thomas] Andrews, 
which, though carried on during many years, were 
not published in exlenso till 1869. . . . (About 
1877] Cailletet employed an apparatus, ever since 
familiarly known as a laboratory appliance under 
the name of the Cailletet pump, whereby a gas 
can be submitted to considerable pressure, and 
when greatly reduced in volume the pressure can 
be suddenly relieved. . . . With this apparatus . . . 
(he] reduced to the liquid state oxygen and car- 
bonic oxide, beside ethylene and acetylene, raarsh 
g<is and nitric oxide. Two now remained of the 
original six uncondensable gases, namely, nitrogen 
and hydrogen. Xitrogen yielded in 1883, in the 
hands of the Polish Professors Wroblewski and 
Olszewski; but hydrogen resisted for many years 
the almost continuous efforts which were made 
to collect it in the liquid form. . . . The ap- 
plication of external cold to the vessel containing 
the highly compressed gas was also associated with 
the cooling effect produced by expansion as in 
Cailletet's method, and it was in this way that 
nitrogen was first liquefied by Wroblewski and 
Olszewski in 1883. ... By a similar process 
Olszewski got evidence of the Mquefaction of hydro- 
gen, and was able a lew years later to determine 
its critical temperature and boiling point with 
some considerable approach to accuracy. About 
this time, namely, in 1884, the production of low 
temperatures and the liquefaction of gases became 
a subject of research in the laboratory of the Royal 
Institution, under Professor Dewar [who] . . . 
employed liquid nitrous oxide and ethylene as 
cooling agents. . . . W. Siemens, in 1857, seems to 
have had the idea of 'regenerating' cold by apply- 
ing the same principle which is used in his well- 
known regenerative furnace for the storage of 
heat, but this idea was never carried into prac- 
tice. Later, in 1885, Solvay patented a process 
based upon the same principle, which involved the 
use of an expansion cylinder. . . . [Later.] a 
method [was] devised by which such coolinc effect 
can be made practically cumulative, the gas while 
still under pressure being cooled by another por- 
tion of the same immediately after release. A 
description of . . . apparatus by which practical 
results upon a large scale were obtainable was given 
for the first time by Herr Linde, an engineer, of 
Munich; but a patent for an application of the 
same principle had been obtained previously [May 
23, 1895] in England by Dr. W. Hampson." — W. 
A. Alden, Progress of scientific chemistry, pp. 303- 
321. — Sec also Chemistry: Physical: Laws of 

Organ. — "The horizontal bellows gave a steadier 
supply of wind than the older kind. . . . Experi- 
ments were, however, made to improve the pcdab. 
. . . These experiments turned chiefly on making 
, the pedal-board more convenient for the player; 
from being straight and of equal length the pedals 
became radiating, concave, etc.. each builder mak- 
ing them slightly different, until their form and 
measurements were settled by conference at the 
Royal Collece of Organists in 1880, and the de- 
cisions arrived at have been cenerally adopted. . . . 
[In the nineteenth century small hydraulic organ 
cneines were used to supply larce organs with 
wind. In 1841 Barker invented the pneumatic 
action and later the tubular pneumatic action was 
devised] The pneumatic action h,TS also been 
applied to the sliders with great advantace. In 
addition to the composition pedals, large organs 
now have pneumatic composition knobs or pistons, 
placed under each row of keys, and acted on by 

the thumb of the player. These were first used in 
the or^an at the Royal .Albert Hall, built by Willis, 
in which each of the four manuals has eight such 
pistons, which control the whole of its stops. 
. . , The wonderful powers of the electric telegraph 
suggested to Barker a means of carrying the com- 
munications between key and pipe to a distance, 
and round corners. It had been tried by others, 
but had failed, owing to their inability to over- 
come the force of the wind on the pallets; but 
with the pneumatic action this difficulty no longer 
existed. He applied electricity first to a large 
organ at St. Augustine's Church in Paris, and after- 
wards to others. . . . The principle of Barker's 
electric action is that the valve of the pneumatic 
bellows is opened by the electric current, instead 
of by mechanical connection with the key. Elec- 
tricity has also been applied to the drawstops; 
and its action has in late years been much im- 
proved by the inventions of Mr. Hope-Jones, 
who [made the console movable] by means of a 
cable."— C. F. A. Williams, Story of the organ, pp. 
144-145, 131-152. — Early in the nineteenth cen- 
tury Bishop in England invented the concussion 
bellows, to regulate the flow of wind, and also 
the composition pedals. 

Piano. — "Pianofortes, up to the year 1820, were, 
like spinets, harpsichords, and clavichords, en- 
tirely wooden structures — always increasing in 
solidity, as time went on, in proportion to an 
ever increasing tension. . . . The iron frame ap- 
plied to a piano by John Isaac Hawkins [was 
patented in England in the year 1800]. . . . [.\n] 
invention by Joseph Smith, patented in London 
in 1799, of iron bracings or struts, . . . [was 
intended] to economise the space occupied by 
wood bracings. The real change from a wooden 
resisting structure to one in which iron should 
play an important part is due to William Allen, 
a tuner, . . . [who] conceived the idea of a metal 
system of framing, intended by him to meet the 
disturbance in tuning caused by the strings being 
of two metals, brass and iron, which were differ- 
ently influenced by change of temperature. With 
the co-operation of Stodart's foreman. Thorn, the 
invention was completed and a patent taken out in 
their joint names. James Thorn and William .Allen, 
on January 15. 1820. It was at once bought of 
them by the Stodart firm [of piano makers]. 
The patent was for a combination of parallel metal 
tubes, with metal plates, iron over the iron 
strings, and brass over the brass and spun strings 
in the bass division of the instrument. . . . The 
next step was towards a fixed string-plate, and 
was due to one of Broadwood's workmen. Samuel 
Her\e. ... [It is an interesting fact that John 
Jacob .Astor owed some of his large fortune to 
the sale of Broadwood pianos which he imported 
to New York ] This was in 1821, when it was 
introduced by that firm in their square pianos. 
In 1822 Sebastian and Pierre Erard patented in 
Paris a complete system of nine iron bars from 
treble to bass, with fastenings piercins the bars, 
and through apertures in the belly to the wooden 
bracings beneath. There was no metal plate in 
this patent, nor was such a plate included in 
the same firm's London patent of 1824. . . . James 
Shudi Broadwood. in 1827. combined the metal 
string-plate with fixed metal bars and took out 
a patent for this important invention, one fea- 
ture of which was the entire control gained over 
the unused lengths of wire behind the belly- 
bridge. The wood and iron pianoforte was now 
brought to its first stage of efficiency. . . . Pierre 
Erard introduced the harmonic bar ... of brass 
or gun-metal or nickel, placed upon the wrest- 



19fh Cenfury 
Piano; Phonograph 


plank near its edge, immediately above the bear- 
ings of the treble strings. . . . [Henry Fowler 
Broadwood] . . . reduced the number ot the sled 
'arches' or struts fixed between the wrcst-plank 
and the belly-bar, a wooden transverse bar against 
which the belly is supported. In 1847-9 he suc- 
ceeded in making a grand piano with an entire 
upper framing of iron, and in this instrument two 
bars sufficed, neither breaking into the scale. . . . 
But in the grand pianos he afterwards made with 
his diagonal bar, he also used a straight bar 
towards the treble, of the ordinary type, to avoid 
any possible sacrifice to durability. This was the 
Broadwood Iron Grand Model of 1S51 — the f:rst 
to be made in England in a complete iron fram- 
ing, but not soUd; it was in wrought and cast- 
iron, wedged up with gun-metal at the points of 
juncture, and not in a single casting as is the 
American plan. Nearly simultaneous with Allen's 
invention of tubes and plates was the not less 
important conception of a cast iron frame in 
which to fix a square piano, an invention of the 
American pianoforte maker, Alpheus Babcock. His 
invention comprised a complete metal frame with 
a hitch-pin plate, made in one casting. He pat- 
ented it at Boston, Massachusetts, U. S. A., De- 
cember 17, 1825. k was not as many have 
thought, including at one time myself, a compen- 
sation frame, but one intended from the first for 
resistance. . . . Babcock removed from Boston to 
Philadelphia in December, 1S29, and began manu- 
facturing there. It would appear that he also 
took out a patent at Philadelphia for an almost 
identical iron framing for a square piano. . . . 
The patent, dated May 24, 1830, is described 
as for 'cross-stringing pianofortes.' Unfortunately 
the original record was destroyed by fire in 1836. 
If Babcock intended overstringing by this term, 
he conceived both the principles that in combina- 
tion characterise the modern American piano- 
forte. Another maker in Philadelphia, Conrad 
Meyer, modified this iron framing 1832-3, abolish- 
ing the bars; he did not, possibly could not, patent 
it, but he exhibited his instrument at the Franklin 
Institute in 1S33. . . . Jonas Chickering, of Bos- 
ton, carried this invention much farther: he pat- 
ented, in 1840, a new iron frame for square pianos. 
As well as the frame there was. in this patent, a 
long bar parallel with the bass strings. . . . There 
is also, cast with it, a fixed damper rail. The 
culmination of Jonas Chickering's achievement in 
this direction was his grand piano frame in one 
solid casting, patented in 1843. He could not 
claijn the upward bearing at the wrest-plank by 
means of agraffes (Sebastian Erard's invention — ■ 
little detached bridges for each note, the strings 
passing through holes in them and bearing up- 
wards) ; but Chickering did claim casting this bear- 
ing as a solid ledge, the strings passing through 
openings in it the same as in the agraffes. The 
solid cast plate for a grand piano was, however, 
the principal object of his patent. . . . We now 
come to the grand piano of Steinway & Sons, of 
New 'Vork — an invention patented by Henry En- 
gelhard Steinway in that city, December 20, 1850 
— anticipated in a similarly made square piano, 
exhibited for the first time at the American In- 
stitute in New York in 1855. . . . With respect 
to Steinway's invention — in its broad features the 
combination of a solid metal frame and over- 
stringing — there can be no doubt it represents the 
flood-mark of American pianoforte making; what 
has been done since being to modify and further 
improve it according to the ideas and experience 
of the respective makers of different countries who 
have adopted it. In overstrung grand pianos 

a great display of ironwork is to be seen ; the 
whole of the inside frame, including the agaffe 
ledge, is in a single casting, arid the bars and 
scale are so adjusted as to overstring the bass 
at an angle which opens out in a double curve 
fan shape from the hammer striking-place down 
to the hitch-pins (in square pianos it was the 
reverse) and allow an increased width to the belly 
or sounding-board. One of the most important 
results of complete iron framing is an increase of 
tension, rendered possible by the tenacity of the 
modern cast steel wire." — A. J. Hipkins, Descrip- 
tion and history of the pianoforte, pp. 15-22. 

Phonograph. — "The Phonograph ... is an in- 
strument which not only registers the different vi- 
brations produced by speech on a vibrating plate, 
but reproduces the same words in correspondence 
with the traces registered. The first function of 
this instrument is not the result of a new discov- 
ery. Physicists have long sought to solve the 
problem of registering speech, and in 1S56 Mr. Leo 
Scott invented an instrument well known to physi- 
cists under the name of phonautograph, which 
completely solved the difficulty. . . . [This instru- 
ment was improved upon by various scientists: 
Karl Rudolph Kbnig, William Henry Barlow, Clar- 
ence Blake, Sigmund Theodor Stei;i — but none of 
these men approached the ideal of reproducing 
speech. Charles Cros] in a sealed paper deposited 
at the Academie des Sciences, April 30th, 1877, . . . 
pointed out the principle of an instrument by 
means of which speech might be reproduced in 
accordance with the marks traced on a register 
like that of the phonautograph. . . . [This, how- 
ever, was theory only. Thomas Alva Edison is 
the actual inventor of the phonograph.] Mr. 
Edison's patent, in which the principle of the 
phonograph is first indicated, is dated July 31st, 
1877, and he was still only occupied with the 
repetition of the Morse signals. In this patent 
Mr. Edison described a mode of registering these 
signals by means of indentations traced with a 
stylus on a sheet of paper wound round a cyhn- 
der, and this cylinder had a spiral groove cut 
on its surface. The tracings thus produced were 
to be used for the automatic transmission of the 
same message, by passing it again under a stylus 
which should react on a current breaker. In this 
patent, therefore, nothing is said of the registration 
of speech or of its reproduction; but, . . . the fore- 
going invention gave him the means of solving this 
double problem as soon as it was suggested to him. 
If we may believe the .American journals, this sug- 
gestion soon came, and it was the result of an ac- 
cident. In the course of some experiments Mr. 
Edison was making with the telephone, a stylus 
attached to the diaphragm pierced his finger at 
the moment when the diaphragm began to vibrate 
under the influence of the voice, and the prick 
was enough to draw blood. It then occurred to 
him that if the vibrations of the diaphragm en- 
abled the stylus to pierce the skin, they might 
produce on a flexible surface such distinct out- 
lines as to represent all the undulations produced 
by the voice, and even that the same outlines 
might mechanically reproduce the vibrations which 
had caused them, by reacting on a plate capable 
of vibrating in the same way as that which he 
bad already used for the reproduction of the 
Morse signals. From that moment the phonograph 
was discovered, since there was only a step be- 
tween the idea and its realization, and in less than 
two days the instrument was made and tried. . . . 
When we look at the principle of the invention, 
M. Cros undoubtedly may claim priority ; but it is 
a question whether the system described in his 



79/A Century 
Phonograph; Photographs 


scaled paper, and published in the Semaine du 
Clerge, October 8th, 1S77, would have been capable 
of reproducing speech. Our doubt seems justified 
by the unsuccessful attempts of the Abbe Lcblanc 
to carry out M. Cross idea. ... A distinguished 
member of the Societc de Physique . . . said that 
Mr. Edison's whole invention consisted in the thin 
metallic sheet on the vibrations are in- 
scribed; this sheet permits the movements of the 
vibrating plate to be directly stereotyjjed, and 
thereby the problem is solved. It was necessar>' 
to fmd such an expedient, and it was done by 
Mr. Edison, who is therefore the inventor of the 
phonograph. -After M. Cros, and before Mr. Edi- 
son, MM. Napoli and Marcel Dcprez attempted 
to make a phonograph, but with so little success 
that they believed at one time the problem to be 
insoluble, and threw doubts on Mr. Edison's in- 
vention when it was announced to the Societe de 
Physique. . . . Mr. Edison presented his phono- 
graph to the Academic des Sciences . . . March 
nth, 1878, and when his agent, M. Puskas, caused 
the wonderful instrument to speak, a murmur of 
admiration was heard from all parts of the hall — 
a murmur succeeded by repeated applause." — 
Count Du Moncel, Telephone, microphone, and 
the phonographs, pp. 235-239, 244. — The grapho- 
phone, a phonograph designed to use either a disk 
or a cylinder, was invented by Bell and Taintor 
in 1885. In 1887 Emil Berliner patented the 
gramophone, which employs a rotating disk. This, 
in the original patent was coated with lampblack. 
"The complication of names is unnecessarily con- 
fusing, as there is also the telegraphone, applied 
to those forms of the instrument wherein the sound 
is transmited to or from the diaphragm through 
a wire, water-tube, etc., connecting with the 
stylus. The substitution of paper for metal in the 
speaking-horn and parts leading to it have re- 
sulted in reducing the brassy sound, which is ob- 
jectionable in many instruments. M. Burguet, a 
French inventor, . . . devised a new diaphragm 
calculated to render a more perfect imitation of 
the natural tones of the voice. He uses a mica 
diaphragm, which has a series of little rods con- 
necting with the central stylus in such a manner 
that the vibrations of the voice alone affect the 
stylus, the vibrations incidental to the diaphragm 
itself not affecting the little rods. This prevents 
distorting metallic sounds. A phonograph that 
will reproduce its records photographically has 
been constructed by Emanuel Cervenka, a Bohe- 
mian. The vibrations of the diaphragm are used 
to vibrate a Httle mirror, which reflects a pencil 
of light on a cylinder covered with a sensitive 
gelatin film, thus producing a photographic sinuous 
line on the cylinder, the equivalent of the usual 
curved line of a record. By treating the gelatin 
after the manner well known to photo-engravers, 
the line can be made either a groove, as in an 
ordinary record cylinder, or can be made elevated. 
. . . While the phonograph is principally known 
as a means of reproducing for amusement, it has 
an important and growing use as a medium of 
dictation." — C H. Cochrane, Modern industrial 
progress, p. 407. — When used for dictation the in- 
strument is supplied with wax cylinders, such as 
those used in the Edbon phonograph, and is 
called a dictaphone. The original Edison cylinders 
were coaled with tin foil, which proved unsatis- 
factory, and militated against the success of the 
cylinders. In 1888 Edison took out a patent 
for wax cylinders, and later he invented a device 
by which cither a cylinder or a disk can be used 
on his reproducing machines. Wax is used in all 
the instruments for the purpose of recording. The 

record is electrotyped, and for the familiar re- 
productions a material formed of wood charcoal, 
barium sulphate and shellac, is used. 

Photography. — Late in the (i8th] century 
Thomas Wtdgcwood, a son of Josiah Wedgewood, 
began to make experiments on the effects of light 
and succeeded so far that Humphrey Davy com- 
municated the results to the Royal Society in 
1802. "He records that the sensitive material used 
by Wedgwood was white paper or white leather 
moistened with solution of silver nitrate. He de- 
scribes how it darkens intensely in direct sun- 
light in two or three minutes, or in several hours 
in the shade ; also how red rays have little action 
on it. . . . [By this means] copies were obtained 
not only of paintings and flat subjects, such as 
leaves or wings of insects, but trial was made by 
Wedgwood to produce the images of the camera 
obscura. These were found too faint for the sen- 
sitiveness of his material, but he did succeed in 
recording the images in the solar microscope. 
Davy also describes the use of silver chloride in- 
stead of silver nitrate. . . . [Probably WcdKcwood, 
who died in 1805, did nothing further in the mat- 
ter, and it is doubtful if his work was known 
to Joseph Nicephore Niepce of Chalon-sur-Saone 
in France, who commenced investigations in 1814, 
and curiously enough set himself to] discover some 
means of drawing or copying upon the lithographic 
stone by the agency of light. . . . Niepce, in 
short, was the inventor of a process of photo- 
engraving, or photo-etching — that is to say, he de- 
vised a method by which the subject drew itself 
upon the" metal plate. This image he w'as then 
able to etch with an acid, and from the plate, so 
engraved, to take any number of impressions. In 
1814 we find him trying all sorts of substances to 
this end. He tried perchloridc of iron, silver 
chloride, and then appears to have turned to 
asphaltum. ... By the year 1S2Q he had devised 
a practical method. He coated a metal plate with 
bitumen and exposed it to light under one of 
his transparent engravings. Where the light passed 
through and acted upon the bitumen the latter be- 
came changed in its solubility. It no longer dis- 
solved readily in oil of lavender, and the result 
was that on treating the printed metal plate with 
this solvent the unaltered bitumen dissolved, leav- 
ing the design of the engraving in unaltered resin. 
The next step was to treat the plate with an 
acid v.hxh bit into the metal where it was un- 
protected by the bitumen, and by this process 
Niepce obtained plates etched to an extent suf- 
ficient to enable him to take off quite passable 
impressions. . . . [In December, i82g, Niepce en-' 
tered into partnership with Louis Jacques Mande 
Daguerre and, possibly at Daeuerrc's succestion] 
we find him turning away from his engraving 
process and seeking to use the properties of his 
bitumen in making one single picture, but that 
of better quality in the way of gradations of 
light and shade. To this end he appears to have 
used glass as the support of his sensitive bitumen 
coating. . . . Niepce secured a somewhat similar 
result upon a silver plate, but in this case, after 
having obtained his bitumen image, he exposed 
the whole plate to the vapour of iodine. The 
iodine formed a thin film of pale yellow silver 
iodide on the bared parts, which thus formed the 
high-lights of the picture, whilst the shadows 
or darker portions were represented by the bitu- 
men deposit. . . . 

"It was doubtless as the result of using the 
camera obscura for making sketches for his d-o- 
ramic pictures that Daguerre was led to experi- 
ment with methods of recording the image on th? 



19th Century 


screen by the agency of light. . . . [Be that as 
it may, in 1S39 he appealed for assistance to the 
astronomer Arago, who in August presented the 
particulars of his discoveries to the Academy of 
Sciences.] Daguerre used silver iodide as his sen- 
sitive material. . . . His notable achievement, and 
that for which he deserves all the honour which 
attaches to his name as an inventor, is that he 
originated the development of a latent or invisible 
image." — British Journal of Photography, Sup- 
plement, June iq, 1914, pp. ii-vi. — It is said that 
the first attempts at portraiture by Daguerre's 
process was made in 1S39 in the United States by 
J. B. Morse. "In 1840, Beard and Claudet opened 
photographic studios in London ; Davidson fol- 
lowed suit in Edinburgh, and Shaw in Birmingham, 
and soon daguerreotypy became a trade. For 
landscapes, etc., the daguerreotype process was 
but seldom employed, though we read of a fine 
instantaneous picture of New York Harbor being 
secured by its aid. . . . The daguerreotype held 
sway for about ten years only, from 1839 to 1851. 
It was more popular in America than in England; 
indeed, in the latter country, specimens of the 
art are now quite rare. With all its faults it was 
an immense advance on anything previously 
known, and entitles Daguerre to rank with the 
leading inventors of the nineteenth century." — W. 
J. Harrison, History of photography, pp. 26-27. — 
News of Daguerre's achievement stimulated the 
work of William Henry Fox Talbot, a fellow of 
the Royal Society, who had already succeeded "in 
treating paper first with a solution of salt and 
then with one of silver nitrate. Talbot discov- 
ered the fact of great importance that the paper 
acquired its sensitiveness when it contained an 
excess of the silver nitrate. ... As a fixing agent 
he used a substance which removed the excess of 
silver nitrate. The best for this purpose he found 
to be potassium iodide, or a solution of ordinary 
salt. ... [It was Talbot who discovered how to 
produce a negative, from which could be printed 
a number of positives. He did not stop there, but 
went on to produce the calotype process by which 
the image was developed] by flowing over the 
paper a mixture of silver nitrate and acetic and 
gallic acids such as was used for imparting the sen- 
sitiveness to it. As a fixing agent Talbot used 
for this paper a solution of bromide of potas- 
sium. . . . From the negatives . . . made on the 
calotype paper prints could be prepared also upon 
the paper or by the pfint-out method. . . . One 
last and most important discovery of his must be 
recorded before we leave Talbot. In a patent of 
his of the year 1852 is first mentioned the fact that 
a mixture of bichromate and gelatine on exposure 
to light becomes insoluble in water. Talbot's patent 
was concerned with the application of this prop- 
erty of bichromated gelatine to the making of 
photo-engraved plates. The process was, in fact, 
photogravure, not very different from the method 
which is still in vogue. . . . [Developments fol- 
lowed rapidly. In France Hippolyte Bayard used 
paper in the Daguerrotype process instead of a 
silver plate. In England, Sir John Herschel in- 
troduced the use of hyposulphate of soda as a 
fixing agent, and the use of glass plates, and 
other useful and important ideas. Niepce de 
St. Victor described in 1847 his process of making 
a sensitive albumen plate by hardening on the 
glass by heat a mixture of white of egg, potas- 
sium of iodide and of bromide, and common salt, 
and afterwards sensitizing it in silver nitrate.] 
We have seen the glass negative reach a practical 
stage in the albumen process of Niepce de St. Vic- 
tor. The next step forward was undoubtedly 

the most epoch-making in the history of pho- 
tography, with the exception of the invention of 
the gelatine emulsion. It was the discovery of a 
new medium for the silver salts, namely collo- 
dion." — British Journal of Photography, Supple- 
ment, June 19, 1914, pp. ii-x. — As early as 1849 
the use of collodion was suggested by Le Gray, a 
French worker. It was, however, Scott Archer, an 
English sculptor who invented the wet collodion 
process. "In September, 1S50, .Archer's new proc- 
ess was so far advanced that he communicated it 
to his friends . . . [but probably he] did not 
realize the importance of his discovery, for he 
did not attempt to patent it. . . . So good and 
complete was .Archer's method that in three or 
four years it practically displaced both calotype 
and daguerreotype, and reigned supreme from 
1855 to 1880. . . . [By this process] when a sin- 
gle picture only was desired, a short exposure was 
given, and the deposit of metallic silver which 
forms the image was whitened by soaking the 
developed plate in mercury bichloride. When a 
black surface was then placed behind the photo- 
graph it stood out on the glass in correct black 
and white as a positive image. ... An .American 
improvement consisted in the use of thin plates 
of black or' chocolate enameled iron — ferrotypes, 
irreverently called tintypes— or sheets of black 
japanned leather, instead of glass. . . . Up to about 
1853 a photograph was considered a curiosity ; but 
the introduction and perfection of the collodion 
process made photography, for the first time, a 
really popular pursuit. ... In 1841, Towson, of 
Liverpool, pointed out that since in an ordinary 
or 'uncorrected' lens the focus of the chemical 
rays (as we may call those which produce the 
principal effect upon the salts of silver) is not 
the same as the focus of the visual rays, i.e., those 
by which the image is seen, it is necessary to 
adjust the distance of the lens from the ground 
glass, after the picture has been focused, in order 
to allow for this. Here Professor J. Petzval, an 
eminent mathematician of X'ienna, came to the 
rescue, and devised a portrait lens which brought 
all the rays practically to the same focus." — W. J. 
Harrison, History of photography, pp. 39, 41, 42. 
• — The next important invention that stands out is 
the collodion emulsion process published in 1864. 
"In 1872 a formula was published by Colonel 
Stuart-Wortley, in which nitrate of uranium was 
a constituent. . . . Wortley pursued his experi- 
ments in the direction of adding other compounds 
of yellow colour to the emulsion, among these 
being certain yellow dyes. Samples of the plates 
prepared in this way were sent to Professor H. W. 
Vogel in Berlin for examination, and the outcome 
was the discovery by Vogel of the colour- 
sensitiveness conferred upon plates by the pres- 
ence of certain dyes. The discovery and develop- 
ment of orthochromatic photography, with its far- 
reaching effects upon processes of colour repro- 
duction, thus had their unconscious beginning in 
Wortley's emulsion experiments. . . . [Later Bol- 
ton prepared collodion emulsion in such a way that 
it] needed only to be flowed over the plates in 
order to provide the material for practical work. 
. . . Even in the field of collodion emulsion itself 
Bolton's discovery has been of immense commer- 
cial value, for in photo-mechanical work, particu- 
larly upon the Continent and in the United States, 
collodion emulsion forms a staple material in regu- 
lar daily use for three-colour work." — British Jour- 
nal of Photography, Supplement, June 19, 19141 
p. xiii. — While Le Gray's suggestion as to the use 
of gelatine seemed to have fallen to the ground, 
actually a number of experimenters worked on it, 



19lh Century 
Moving Pictures 


But it was not until 1870 that Dr. R. L. Maddox 
described a barely workable process for its use. 
He was lollowcd by other experimenters, and in 
1874 R. Kennett of London, patented a dried emul- 
sion, which was satisfactory ; but in spite of this 
and other improvements dry plate photography 
did not attain popularity until Charles Bennett 
an amateur photographer of London exhibited a 
number ol Kelatine negatives in 1878, and U[)on 
request gave out his method of preparing them. 
"When the process was studied, the essential point 
was seen to be the use of heat. The different solu- 
tions were to be made at a tem|)crature of go de- 
grees (Fahrenheit), and, after mixing, the tempera- 
ture of the emulsion was to be maintained at 
po deg. (by placing the bottle containing it in a 
vessel of hot water) 'for two, four or seven days, 
according to rapidity required.' During this slow 
and long-continued heating, the silver bromide 
gradually assumed the 'granular' state of Stas, and 
became exquisitely sensitive to light." — W. J. Har- 
rison, History of photography, p. 73. — Better meth- 
ods and improved developers were soon worked 
out and the gelatine dry plate rapidly took the 
place of collodion. 'In these days of the universal 
use of roll-film, with its advantages for negative- 
making of lightness and 'unbreakability,' we are 
liable to forget that photographers in the forties 
of the last century did their work also on a flex- 
ible material. . . . With Scott Archer's discovery 
of the collodion process glass began its career 
as the material for negative, yet during all the 
sixty years and more which have elapsed since 
then inventors were striving at intervals to perfect 
a means of avoiding its weight and liability to 
break. . . . When gelatine emulsion came into use 
inventors of flexible tilm came thicli and fast, and 
a whole chapter might be written of the various 
devices which were introduced or suggested. . . . 
In 1887 the process which, as the American Courts 
have . . . decided, formed the starting point for 
the manufacture of a flexible photographic film 
was patented by the late Rev. Hannibal Goodwin. 
It was followed by a patent of the Eastman Com- 
pany's chemist, H. M. Reichenbach, and for over 
twenty years a dispute as to the Goodwin patent 
went on, eventually to be decided in favour of 
the owners of Goodwin's invention. Meanwhile 
the Eastman Company had themselves brought film 
manufacture to a high state of perfection, and 
by the construction of many ingenious patterns 
of camera had popularised the use of flexible film, 
chiefly among amateur photographers." — Briliih 
Journal of Photography, Suppiement, June IQ, 
1014. p. XV. 

Moving pictures. — "The photography of a suc- 
cession of movements was taken as long ago as 
1872. In that year Mr. Muybridgc, a Califomian, 
obtained twenty-four successive photographs of a 
trotting horse. His plan was to arrange twenty- 
four cameras in a line opposite a white screen. 
Stretched between each camera and the screen was 
a thread, and as the horse passed it tightened and 
broke the thread; and in so doing operated the 
shutter of the corresponding camera. In 1882 Dr. 
Marey of Paris constructed the beautiful apparatus 
known as Marey's pistol. It was. indeed, very 
like a revolver, but the drum which in the fire- 
arm carries the cartridges, in this case carried 
a circular glass plate coated \vith sensitive emul- 
sion and wholly enclosed. The only direction from 
which light could reach it was down the barrel. 
When this pistol, charged with its sensitive plate, 
was pointed at any object, and the trigger pulled, 
the plate rotated about its centre in a succession 
of jerks, and as it paused for a moment after each 

step a photographic impression of the object was 
made near the rim. No real advance in the pho- 
tography and reproduction of motion was possible 
until improvements in the manufacture of celluloid 
provided a long thin strip of sensitised material 
upon which a succession of many pictures could 
be obtained. The stimulus which led to this was 
the need for a film to replace glass plates in a 
magazine camera, thus reducing the weight and 
permitting a larger number of snapshots to be 
taken. And when success was attained there was 
one man at any rate — Thomas Alva Edison — who 
was ready to take advantage of it. At the World's 
Fair at Chicago in 1893 machines were ex- 
hibited which worked upon the penny-in-the-slot 
principle. A nickel was dropped into a machine, 
and with eyes glued to a small opening the ob- 
server saw for about half a minute a complete 
set of movements illuminated by a small electric 
lamp. The principle of this and all later machines 
is that an image thrown upon the retina — the won- 
derful screen at the back of the eye — persists for 
about a tenth of a second after the stimulus which 
produced it has passed away. A picture can be 
formed on a photographic plate far more rapidly 
than this, and the number of pictures that can be 
taken in a second is only limited by the speed 
at which a shutter can be made to flash the light 
upon successive portions of the film as it is 
wound rapidly from one roller on to another. For 
all ordinary it is sufficient to take six- 
teen photographs a second and submit them to 
the observer at the same rate. It does not seem 
to have occurred to Edison to project the pic- 
tures on a screen, and the subsequent development 
of moving pictures as we know them to-day is 
mainly due to Mr. R. VV. Paul, the scientific in- 
strument maker, of London. .According to Mr. 
F. .\. Talbot, Edison did not patent his inven- 
tion in England, and Mr. Paul's attention was 
drawn to the matter by a man who asked him 
to make films for him. The possibility of pro- 
jecting them by means of a lantern soon appeared, 
and one night in 1805 the attention of the police 
was called to loud cries proceeding from a build- 
ing in Hatton Garden. On entering, they found 
that what they had suspected to be a grim 
tragedy was a joyful demonstration which attended 
the first successful attempt to show moving pic- 
tures on the screen. The show was repeated for 
their benefit, and they were the first persons, other 
than Mr. Paul and his assistants to become fa- 
miliar with the new discovery." — E. Cressy, Dis- 
covery and inventions of the twentieth century, pp. 
Early patents for steam locomotives. See 

R.MLROADS: 175O-1881. 

Early experiments and development of elec- 
tric locomotives. See Ei.fXTRic.xL uiscovxry: 
Electric locomotives: 1847-1899. 

Railroad air brake. — "With the speeds and 
weights of cars . . . [in use on railroads] it 
soon became evident that something better than 
a manually operated brake was needed. In 1833 
Stephenson patented his steam brake; in which 
steam pressure, acting on a hand-operated mecha- 
nism by which the force was applied through a 
system of rods, multiplying levers (and cams in 
this case) to the brake shoe. . . . The first pneu- 
matic brake was a vacuum brake patented by 
James Nasmyth and Charles May in 1844. In 1848 
Samuel C. Lister patented an air brake having 
an axle-driven pump and suitable reservoir to be 
placed on the 'Guard's Carriage,' and suitable 
cylinder, pipe, and connections on the various 
cars to constitute a straight air equipment much 



J9th Century 
Railroad Air Brake 


the same as that which followed many years 
after, except that it was designed to be operated 
by the guard and not by the engineer. ... As more 
and heavier cars came to be handled in the same 
train, the necessity for a continuous brake or 
one capable of being put in action on the various 
cars comprising the train, at the will of the en- 
gineer himself, became more and more evident. 
Some of the various systems originating in . . . 
[the United States] were extensively tried and 
seemed to meet the conditions for which they were 
designed with various degrees of success. The 
'Creamer' brake, which was brought into use in 
1853, consisted of a large spiral spring attached 
to the brake staff, at the end of the car, and 
which was wound up by the brakeman immediately 
after leaving a station. Attached to the mechanism 
was a cord which ran through the train to the 
engineer's cab, and the brake was so designed 
that when the engineer pulled the cord, the coil 
springs on each vehicle were released and these 
at once wound up chains leading to the founda- 
tion brake gear, thereby bringing the brake shoes 
against the wheels. The 'Loughbridge Chain 
Brake,' which came into use in 1855, consisted of 
a system of rods and chains continuously con- 
nected throughout the train. ... In addition to 
the above, various forms of continuous brakes, 
other than air brakes, were tried to a greater or 
less extent fronj time to time. Among these may 
be mentioned the Smith Vacuum Brake, the West- 
inghouse Vacuum Brake, the Eames Vacuum Brake, 
the Fay Mechanical Brake, the Clark & Webb 
Chain Brake, the Barker Hydraulic Brake, the 
American Buffer Brake, the Widdifield & Button 
Friction Buffer Brake, the Rote Buffer Brake, the 
Carpenter Electric Air Brake, and the Card Elec- 
tric Brake. . . . The first steps of the complete 
solution of the [brake] problem were taken, and 
a new line of development opened up, by the 
genius of Mr. George Westinghouse, who, in i86g, 
took out his first patents for the Westinghouse 
Non-Automatic Air Brake, since generally des- 
ignated as the 'Straight Air Brake.' The source 
of power adopted for this system was the ex- 
pansive force or pressure of compressed air, ob- 
tained from a steam actuated air pump placed upon 
the side of the engine, and a reservoir in which 
the compressed air could be stored. A pipe hne 
from the reservoir was carried throughout the 
length of the train, connections between vehicles 
being made by means of flexible hose and couplings. 
Each vehicle was provided with a cast-iron 
cylinder, the piston rod of which was connected 
to the brake rigging in such a way that when 
the air was admitted to the cylinder the piston 
was forced out and the brakes thereby applied. 
A three-way cock or valve [was] located in the 
engineer's cab by means of which compressed 
air could be admitted to the train pipe and thus 
to the cylinders on each car to apply the brakes; 
or the air already in the cylinders and train brake 
pipe could be discharged to the atmosphere, thus 
releasing the brakes. . . . This type of apparatus 
has many good qualities and a very large degree 
of flexibility, . . . [but it] had shortcomings which 
made it unsuitable for use on trains of any con- 
siderable length on account of the time required 
to apply and release the brake . . . the unequal 
braking effort throughout the train . . . [and the 
low safety point. It therefore] gave way to 
the automatic brake, which afterwards came to 
be called the 'plain automatic brake,' to dis- 
tinguish it from a later type that locally reduced 
the brake pipe pressure, thus producing what is 
called 'quick action.' The first form of this 

brake, probably the greatest advance ever made 
in the art, was invented and introduced by Mr. 
George Westinghouse in 1872. The automatic fea- 
ture resulted from the obtaining of an indirect 
application of the brakes through the medium of 
a valve device called a triple valve, and an aux- 
iliary storage reservoir, which were added to the 
brake cylinder on each car. . . The triple valve 
is the essential mechanical element in such a sys- 
tem, possessing the three functions of charging 
the auxiliary reservoir and of applying and re- 
leasing the brakes in accordance with variations 
in the air pressure carried in the brake pipe; the 
medium for producing such operations as de- 
sired, being, for all general operations, a manually 
operated brake valve on the locomotive. By 
means of this valve the engineer could apply the 
brakes either to a part of their capacity, by steps 
or graduations, or fully, by a continuous de- 
crease of the brake pipe pressure, but he had no 
control of the release of the brakes (as with the 
straight air). . . . [Its limitations were] overcome 
by the invention (in 1887) of the 'quick action' 
triple valve and the equipment with which it was 
used came to be known therefore as the Quick 
Action Automatic Brake. The 'quick action' triple 
valve was identical with the plain triple valve as 
far as service operations were concerned, but 
differed from it in emergency in that it auto- 
matically vented air from the brake pipe locally 
on each car." — W. W. Turner, History of great in- 
ventions (Scientific American, Supplement, Apr. 
8, 1911). — "The present improved triple valve 
has the emergency feature, but it also has what 
is known as the quick-service application feature, 
that is, for ordinary purposes, the air is admitted 
to all of the brake cylinders so quickly that the 
longest freight train can be handled with almost 
the precision obtainable in the control of pas- 
senger trains of from six to twelve cars. In the 
matter of the development of the brakes for 
operation upon passenger trains, nothing that skill 
and perseverance could suggest has been omitted 
in securing the highest degree of perfection. The 
requirements during the past few years, by reason 
of the greater weight of cars and locomotives and 
of the higher speeds at which they are run, have 
necessitated the redesigning of all the passenger 
train brake apparatus, including the method of 
attaching the brake shoes to the cars and the 
levers and connections for bringing these shoes 
to bear with the required pressure upon the 
wheels. For the purpose of insuring the highest 
efficiency, every wheel of a passenger train, in- 
cluding those under the locomotive, is now acted 
upon, whereas formerly many of the master me- 
chanics and engineers were apprehensive that it 
would not be possible to make use of all of the 
wheels of a locomotive for braking purposes." — ■ 
G. Westinghouse. Hou- I invented the air-brake 
(Scientific American, Jiily S, iqii, p. 34). 

Swivelling truck and equalizing levers for 
locomotives. See R.mlroads: 1830-18S0. 

Power. — Water wheels. — "A paddle wheel, 
turned by a jet of water, has been known since 
the times of antiquity; 'overshot' wheels have been 
familiar to the Chinese for centuries; and 'current 
wheels' ('undershot,' sometimes on an anchored 
raft) probably revolved on streams in prehistoric 
times. A very early type is the 'breast wheel,' 
a compromise between the overshot and under- 
shot. The use of curved buckets was first proposed 
by Euler, the great Swiss mathematician, in i7.';4. 
Various forms of curved bucket turbines were 
developed, especially in France, in the next sev- 
enty years. One marked type, the 'inflow turbine,' 


51 R 




19lh Century 
Sewing Machine 


was put forth by Poncclct in 1826 and developed 
in 1849 in this country by J. H. Francis An- 
other, the 'outflow turbine,' by Fourneyron in 
1827, was brought out here by Morris in 1843. 
A still later type, where the flow is in, down, 
and out. has been named the 'American.' These 
were intended for low head. Going back to 
the flat paddle wheel, we find that the early Cali- 
fornia miners, having numerous water jets at 


hand, used their crude 'hurdy-gurdys' for sawing 
lumber, etc. The first suggestion for an impulse 
water wheel came from Professor Hesse of the 
University of California in 1867, and he had a 
small wheel built and tested then, but did not 
patent it. The first patent was that of Pelton 
in 1880. An improvement in the shape of the 
bucket (ellipsoidal, with a recess in the lower 
part) was patented by Doble, the patents being 
recently acquired by the Pelton Company. The 
Pelton and Doble wheels, developed on the Pacific 
Coast, are in use in most of the high head water 
power plants of the world. One other kind, the 
reaction wheel (original form being Hero's en- 
pine) was adapted to water power by Barker 
(America) in 1740. This wheel is rarely used 
now, but finds an application in the common lawn 
sprinkler." — A. L. Jordan, Short stories of great 
inventions (School of Science and Mathematics, 
Feb., igi7). — ^See also Steam and g.\s enxines: 
Steam turbine encines. 

Sewing machine. — "The earliest attempt at 
sewing by machinery of which there is any au- 
thentic record was in 1775, in which year a 
machine was patented in England by Charles F. 
Weisenthal, in which machine the stitch was 
formed by a needle having two points with an 
eye at mid-length, which passed completely through 
the goods in imitation of hand sewing. Follow- 
ing this came an English patent dated July 17th. 
i7go, granted to Thomas Saint, for a machine 
that embodied several features employed in the 
modem sewing machine, namely, an overhangmg 

arm, a horizontal cloth plate, a vertically recipro- 
catmg needle, and a feeding device. The needle, 
notched at its lower end, pushed a loop of 
thread through a hole previously made by an awl. 
The loop thus formed was held beneath the goods, 
and the next loop was passed through it, thus 
making what is known as the 'chain stitch,' An 
Englishman named Duncan in 1804 made a chain- 
stitch machine that employed two hooked needles, 
and in 1830 a Frenchman named Bartheleray 
Thimonnier invented a machine which embodied 
the same principles with the e.xception that the 
loop of thread was pulled through the fabric. The 
first .American patent for a sewing machine was 
issued to a man named Lye in 1836. A fire, 
which occurred that year, destroyed all the Patent 
Oflice records, so that the construction of this 
machine is not known. It is said that in the 
years 1832 to 1834 Walter Hunt of New York 
city built what was probably the first lock-stitch 
machine. This was provided with a curved needle 
(with an eye near the point) mounted on a 
vibrating arm. A loop was formed beneath the 
cloth by this thread-carrying needle, and a shuttle 
carrying an additional thread was passed through 
the loop thus formed, making a lock stitch. Hunt, 
however, did not apply for a patent until after 
the granting of the Howe patent, and his ap- 
plication was refused. On February 21st, 1842, 
patent No. 2466 was granted to John Greenough, 
which was the first United States patent for a 
sewing machine of which there is any existing 
record. This machine employed two needles, 
pulled entirely through the cloth by pincers, and 
the stitch was formed with two threads, the ma- 
chine being used principally on leather work March 
4th. 1843, patent No. 2,q82 was granted to B. W. 
Bean; December 27th, 1843, patent No. 3^389 was 


issued to G. H. Corliss; and July 22nd. 1844, 
patent No. 3,672 was granted to J. Rodgers. In 
all of these machines a thread-carrying needle was 
pulled entirely through the cloth by pincers or 
clamps, forming what is known as a basting or 
running stitch. Elias Howe patented his ma- 
chine September 10th. 1846. patent No. 4,750." — 
Scientific American, May 3, 1913, p. 419. 

"Howe's original machine had a very clumsy 



19th Century 


feed. The cloth was suspended by pins from the 
edge of a thin steel rib, called a 'baster-plate,' 
which had holes engaged by the teeth of a small, 
intermittently-moving pinion. Later Howe pat- 
ented the curved eye-pointed needle and interlock- 
ing shuttle, which made his machine a commercial 
success. Allen B. Wilson always insisted that up 
to the time he had finished his second machine 
he never had heard of a sewing machine. He 
took out his first patent in 1850. That machine 
formed a lock stitch by means of a curved race 
below the plate. The feed motion was obtained 
by two metal bars intersecting above the metal 
race. The lower bar, called the feed bar, had 
teeth on its upper face, and by means of a trans- 
verse sliding motion it moveci the cloth the de- 
sired distance as each stitch was made. This 
feed did well enough, but two years later Wil- 
son patented his four-motion feed, which, in com- 
bination with the spring presser-foot forms the 
basis of all modern feeding systems. The feed bar 
was first raised, then carried forward, shifting 
the cloth the desired distance, then dropped, and 

vertical needle and shuttle. Also he was the 
first man who introduced foot power in plate of 
the crank-driven wheel." — Scientific American, 
Mar. 16, iqi2, pp. 2J6-257. — Many modern sew- 
ing machines are motor driven, with foot power 
replaced by electrical power. See also Electrical 
discovery; i87g-iQi7. 

Reaper. — "At the beginning of the nineteenth 
century the Royal Agricultural Society of Great 
Britain offered a prize for the introduction of a 
really useful machine which should replace the 
scythe and sickle. Several machines were brought 
out, but they did not prove practical enough to 
attract much attention. Cyrus H. McCormick in- 
vented in 1 83 1 the reaper, which, with very many 
improvements added, is to-day employed in all 
parts of the world. The most noticeable point of 
this machine was the bar furnished with a row 
of triangular blades which passed very rapidly to 
and fro through slots in an equal number of 
sharp steel points, against which they cut the 
grain. The to-and-fro action of the cutter-blade 
was produced by a connecting-rod working on a 

A, Blade. B, Platform. C, 27 Fingers. D, Reel. 

was finally brought back by a spring to its 
original position. It was in iS4q that James E. A. 
Gibbs saw in the Scientific American a picture of 
a sewing machine. The working of the device 
was plain down to the point where the needle 
perforated the cloth. He fell into the habit of 
speculating upon the course of events after the 
needle was lost to view. Finally he . . . worked 
out the ingenious little revolving hook which be- 
came the important feature of the Wilcox & Gibbs 
machine. The hook, which is placed below the 
cloth plate, seizes the loop, and, during the ascent 
of the needle, gives a twist to the thread and 
spreads it out ready to be engaged by needle on 
its next descent, when the hook catches another 
loop and repeats the operation. A patent granted 
in 185 1 introduced one of the most useful ma- 
chines, and, probably, the most picturesque man 
that figured in the development of the sewing 
machine. Isaac M. Singer began his career as a 
strolling player, graduating into a theatrical man- 
.agcr. Then he became a sewing machine inventor, 
not only of devices, but of exploitation. He 
introduced a circular feed wheel below the cloth 
plate, a thread controller, the use of gear wheels 
and shafting to transmit the power from the driv- 
ing wheel to the countershaft for working the 

crank rotated by the wheels carrying the machine. 
The first McCormick reaper did wonders on a 
\'irginian farm; other inventors were stimulated; 
and in 1833 there appeared the Hussey reaper, 
built on somewhat similar lines. For twelve years 
or so these two machines competed against one 
another all over the United States; and then 
McCormick added a raker attachment, which, 
when sufficient grain had accumulated on the plat- 
form, enabled a second man on the machine to 
sweep it off to be tied up into a sheaf. .-M the 
Great Exhibition held in London in 1851, the 
judges awarded a special medal to the inventor, 
reporting that the whole expense of the Exhibi- 
tion would have been well recouped if only the 
reaper were introduced into England. From F'rance 
McCormick received the decoration of the Legion 
of Honour 'for having done more for the cause of 
agriculture than any man then living.' ... In 
185S an attachment was fitted to replace the sec- 
ond passenger on the machine. Four men followed 
behind to tie up the grain as it was shot off the 
machine. Inventors tried to abolish the need for 
these extra hands by means of a self-binding 
device. A practical method, employing wire, ap- 
peared in i860; but so great was the trouble caused 
by stray pieces of the wire getting into thresh- 



19th Century 


inp and other machinery through which the grain 
subsequently passed that farmers went back to 
hand work, unTil the Appleby patent of 1873 re- 
placed wire by twine. Words alone would convey 
little idea of how the corn is collected and en- 
circled with twine; how the knot it tied by an 
ingenious shuttle mechanism; and how it is thrown 
out into a set of arms which collect sufficient 
sheaves to form a 'shock' before it lets them 
fall. . . . 

"In Cahfornia, perhaps more than in any. other 
country, "power' agricultural machinery is seen at 
its best. Great traction-cnRines here take the place 
of human labour to an extraordinary extent. The 
largest, of 50 h.p, and upwards, 'with driving- 
wheels 60 inches in diameter and flanges of gen- 
erous width, travel over the uneven surface of the 
grain fields, crossing ditches and low places, and 
ascending the sides of steep hills, with as much 
apparent ease as a locomotive rolls along its 
steel rails. Such powerful traction-engines . . . 
arc capable of dragging behind them sixteen 10- 
inch ploughs, four 6-foot harrows, and a drill and 
seeder. The land Ls thus ploughed, drilled, and 
seeded all at one time. From fifty to seventy-five 
acres of virgin soil can thus be ploughed and 
planted in a single day. VV'hen the harvest comes 
the engines are again brought into service, and 
the fields that would ordinarily defy the best 
efforts of an army of workmen are garnered quickly 
and easily. The giant harvester is hitched to the 
traction-engine in place of the ploughs and har- 
rows, and cuts, binds, and stacks the golden 
wheat from seventy-five acres in a single day. 
The cutters are 26 feet wide, and they make a 
clear swathe across the field. Some of them 
thresh, clean, and sack the wheat as fast as it 
is cut and bound. Other traction-engines follow 
to gather up the sacked wheat, and whole train- 
loads of it thus move across the field to the 
granaries or railways of the seaboard or interior.' 
. Maize has a very tough stalk, often 10 feet 
high and an inch thick, which cannot be cut 
with the ease of wheat or barley. So a special 
machine has been devised to handle it. The row 
of corn is picked up, if fallen, by chains fur- 
nished with projecting spikes working at an angle 
to the perpendicular, so as to lift and simultane- 
ously pull back the stalks, which pass into a 
horizontal V-shaped frame. This has a broad 
opening in front, but narrows towards its rear 
end, where stationary sickles fixed on either side 
give the stalk a drawing cut before it reaches 
the single knife moving to right and left in the 
angle of the V, which severs the stalk com- 
pletely. The McCormick machine gathers the 
corn in vertical bundles, and ties them up ready 
for the 'shockers.' " — A. Williams, Romance of 
modern mechanism, pp. 322-326. 

Agricultural implements. Sec Acricitlture: 
Modern: United States: i776-:833, to 1860-1888. 

Typewriter.— The typewriter is a machine which 
produces characters resembling those of the ordi- 
nary letter press through the operation of keys 
in a keyboard. .Although the typewriter is es- 
sentially an .American invention the first-recorded 
idea for a writing machine came from England in 
1714 when Henry Mill, a London engineer, ap- 
plied for a patent for his writing machine. In 
1784 there appeared a French invention which made 
raised characters to enable the blind to read. 
This was followed in 1820 by an .American patent 
taken out by W. .A. Burt. The first manual key- 
board is a French device brought out in 1833. 
Between 1840 and i860 Sir Charles Wheatstone 
invented several writing machines the models of 

which are now in the South Kensington Museum. 
In 1843 Charles Thurber, an American, invented 
a machine which consisted of a set of type bars 
in a vertical position around a horizontal brass 
wheel which turned about a central post, the 
letters being brought into proper position by the 
hand. The Alfred E. Beach machine brought out 
in America in 1856 embodied the basket-like ar- 
rangement of letters making impressions on a 
common center, a characteristic of the modern 
typewriter. In 1857 S. W. Francis, also an Ameri- 
can, working along the same lines introduced his 
machine, using an ink ribbon, movable paper 
frame and alarm bell. "But the turning-point in the 
evolution of the typewriter undoubtedly came with 
Pratt's machine, owing to its subsequent influence 
upon Sholes, Soule, and Glidden. Several of these 
were built, one of the improved types being pre- 
served in the South Kensington Museum. In this 
machine, built in 1866, there are thirty-six symbols, 
corresponding to the capital letters and numerals, 
mounted in three rows of twelve each vipon a 

vertical type roller The paper was inserted 

together with a sheet of carbon paper. When the 
key was depressed the corresponding letter upon 
the type-wheel was brought into position, and a 
smart tap imparted by a hammer striking through 
the carbon left an imprint of the letter upon 
the paper. Upon the release of the key the paper 
moved forward automatically a sufficient distance 
to receive the next letter. Instead of spacing be- 
tween words by means of a special space-key, 
the paper movement for this purpose was ob- 
tained by partially depressing any one key. The 
appearance of the Pratt typewriter stimulated the 
inventive activities of Sholes, Soule, and Glidden. 
. . . The trio lost no time in building a machine 
to their ideas, and by September, 1867, the first 
[crude] typewriter according to their designs was 
completed. . . . The types were pivoted in a circle, 
as in the case of preceding models, and rincluded 
the letter spacer. ... It printed only capitals, but 
it worked accurately and with commendable speed. 
The inventors were so delighted with their handi- 
work that they sent letters to several of their 
friends a„ a concrete illustration of what they 
had done. One of these letters happened to be 
sent to a retired printer and editor, Mr. James 
Densmore, who was then living at Meadville, 
Pennsylvania. . . . His receipt of this letter proved 
to be the turning-point in the fortunes of the 
invention, because, without .seeing the machine, 
but merely its work, his enthusiasm and imagina- 
tion were aroused. He offered to purchase an in- 
terest in the invention by reimbursing the three 
men foi all the money they had expended upon 
it up to that time [an offer which was accepted 
with alacrity]. ... It was March, 1868, before 
Densmore saw the actual machine, despite the fact 
that he had already advanced the money for his 
interest some six months previously. When it 
came into his hands he point-blank declared it 
to be of no commercial value whatever as then 
built,, but was useful as showing the idea of being 
able to write letters in type. This was a de- 
cided set-back to the diligent toilers, and their 
faces fell. But Densmore reassured therri, demon- 
strated the defects, and suggested how they might 
be overcome. This emphatic declaration appears 
to have disgusted Soule and Glidden, because they 
retired from the enterprise, and there and then 
declined to have any more to do with it. However, 
Sholes, . . . [who was chiefly responsible for the 
design] recognised the justice of Dcnsmore's criti- 
cisms stuck to the machine, and at Dens- 

more's suggestion built another, incorporating cer- 



19th Century 


tain improvements which his colleague considered 
essential. Then a third machine was taken in 
hand to overcome some other defect. And so 
it went on, model_after model being built, each 
lepresenting a certain improvement upon its pre- 
decessor. . . . (Nevertheless when in 1873 1 the 
Remington experts took the machine in hand they 
found it almost hopeless in its original condition. 
They embarked upon entirely new designs, . . . 
with the result that 1874 was well advanced Ijeiore 
the 'Remington typewriter,' as it was called alter 
the manufacturing firm, and one which to-day 
is known throughout the world, was ready for the 
market. The trrst commercial model was chris- 
tened 'No. I,' and now is colloquially known as 
'the ancestor of writing machines.' But the ap- 
pearance of the typewriter was not hailed with 
such enthusiasm bv the business community as 
had been anticipated. . . . Samples of work car- 
ried out by the machine were scattered like leaves 
far and wide, and an attempt to rivet attention 
upon the new time- and labour-saver for the 
office was made at the Centennial Exhibition held 
at Philadelphia in 1876, where, by the way, Bell 
was striving with might and main to induce the 
public to regard his telephone favourably. The 
public would have nothing to do with the type- 
writer. In the first place, it printed only in 
capital letters. This limitation is somewhat re- 
markable, seeing that Wheatstone's typewriter for 
the rapid printing of telegrams, which had been 
invented ten years previously and which used 
both capital and small letters — upper and lower 
case — was well known. The first improvement was 
effected through the ingenuity of Lucien Crandall, 
who introduced the carriage-shifting device, which 
paved the way for the invention of Byron A. 
Brooks, a professor of higher mathematics, who 
conceived the idea of mounting the upper and 
_ lower case form of each character upon the one 
lever, either of which could be brought into use 
by the manipulation of a shift key. When the 
two characters of each letter were introduced the 
machine began to appeal more strongly to the 
public. However the early days of the typewriter 
were extremely chequered, and the young invention 
experienced many vicissitudes. [At times it seemed 
as if it would inevitably succumb to public apathy. 
At length the Remington machine was obtained 
by a new company, which placed it before the 
public in so attractive a light that in an almost 
unbelievably short space of time it became a 
world-wide success.] . . . 

"[Meanwhile Yost] endeavored to evolve and 
perfect a machine which would become a power- 
ful rival. He was confronted with a superhuman 
task, inasmuch as the patents protecting the Rem- 
ington were so comprehensive as to render it 
difficult to build a machine without infringing the 
pioneer claims somewhere or other. Yost strove 
desperately to consummate his ambition, but was 
foiled. The machine which was built to his de- 
signs was noticeable for having a double key- 
board — capital and small letters respectively — 
thereby dispensing with the shift-key. In reality, 
the double keyboard idea was forced upon him 
because it was impossible to use the two characters 
for each type-bar without infringing the shift-key 
patent. . . . Although the Remington was experi- 
encing such a stern uphill fight against commercial 
conservatism and prejudice, its chequered career 
did not affect the enthusiasm of other inventors 
who aspired to woo fortune with the typewriter. 
Two men, James B. Hammond and Lucien Cran- 
dall, endeavoured to steer clear of the Rernjngton 
patents by introducing typewheels. This precipi- 

tated an unexpected denouement. The machine 
which had been invented by Pratt in iSob, while he 
was resident in London, and which was quaintly 
described as the 'pterotype,' attracted attention. 
The inventor, realising its shortcomings, devoted 
considerable labour and expense upon improve- 
ments. Finally, he applied to the United States 
Government for patent protection. But, to his dis- 
may, he discovered that Hammond and Crandall 
disputed his claims with their respective type-wheel 
principles, and he was threatened with litigation. 
For a time there was a complete deadlock, but at 
last the situation was overcome by Pratt conced- 
ing Hammond's claim to prior invention, while 
Crandall proceeded with his patent, which, he 
maintained, differed from both that of Pratt and 
Hammond. The typewriter of to-day may be 
divided into three broad classes, according to the 
principle of operation. There is the type-bar ma- 
chine, such as the Remington, and this is the 
principle adopted in the greater proportion of 
machines of the times. Then there is the index 
machine, in which there is an index plate and a 
pointer. The letter to be printed is brought into 
position over the printing point, and then pressed 
upon the paper by means of a knob. This type 
of machine is very simple, occupies very little 
space, and is light in weight. But it is slow in 
operation, and has virtually disappeared from the 
commercial world. Finally, there is the type- 
wheel machine founded upon the principles of the 
Pratt and Hammond' typewriters, in which the 
type is mounted, or cut upon the face or rim 
of a wheel, which is revolved by depressing the 
key to bring the required letter to the printing 
point and then smartly depressed upon the paper. 
The Hammond and Blickensderfer machines offer 
probably the most illuminating examples of this 
system. But it is the type-bar machine which 
reigns supreme to-day. It is not only fast in 
working, but being of substantial design and con- 
struction, is able to stand up to the hardest work. 
The typewriter industry underwent a tremendous 
impetus upon the expiry of the Remington master 
patents, which, up to that time, thwarted com- 
petition. . . . Some idea of the arduous task with 
which the pioneers were confronted in the early 
days, and an illuminating impression of the wide- 
spread success and popularity of the typewriter 
at the moment, may be gathered from the fact 
that the total sales of the Remington typewriter 
during the first ten years of its history^i874 
to 1884 — scarcely equalled the sales of a single 
month [in 1016]. ... In order to demonstrate the 
present magnitude of the business, which has 
only been in existence a little more than forty 
years, it may be stated that over 500,000 ste- 
nographers and typists ... [in 1Q16 owed] their 
living to the Remington typewriter. . . . Other 
countries can point to similar results upon a 
corresponding scale. The extent to which the type- 
writer has conquered the world may be gathered 
from the fact that the Remington Company fur- 
nishes 1,100 different keyboards, this total in- 
cluding keyboards for writing in 156 different 
languages and dialects. And this concerns only 
the pioneer and parent company. If the figures 
for the typewriter industry as a whole could be 
marshalled, it would afford an impressive in- 
sight to the manner in which commerce, industry, 
and even private life has been revolutionised by 
an invention of contemporary history." — F. A. 
Talbot, All about inventions and discoveries, pp. 
183-185, 188-105. 

Refrigeration.— "The practice of cooling bodies 
below the temperature of the surrounding atmos- 



19lh Century 


phere has been followed for ages, thus Kivinp us 
the elementary principles of artifical production of 
cold. But the use of natural cold for the preser- 
vation of food is centuries older still. . . . The 
earliest method of cooling practised, still to be met 
with in India, Me.xico and other warm climates, 
was by evaporation, the liquid to be cooled being 
placed in porous vessels and, percolating through 
these, cooling that which remained inside. Xor 
can ice-making be claimed as entirely a modern 
achievement. Ages ago, in India, like China, Mex- 
ico and Peru . . . water was frozen in shallow, 
porous earthen dishes, resting on some non-con- 
(luiting material, such as straw or grass, by being 
expo.'ied to currents of air during the night, when 
a thin film of ice formed on the surface. An- 
other method of abstracting heat and producing 
cold, that has been known and practised for 
many centuries, is by dissolving saltpetre in water, 
or mixing common salt with ice or snow. . . . The 
use of such frigorific mixtures for the abstraction 
of heat . . . was known as far back as the year 
1607, and the most common combination, that of 
ice and salt, is said to have been used by Fahren- 
heit in 1762, when he placed the freezing point 
of water at 32°. ... It was found, in the early 
part of the eighteenth century, that evaporation 
of a liquid would take place if the pressure were 
removed, particularly if the liquid were ether, or 
some other highly volatile fluid. This evapora- 
tion would occur at such a low temperature that 
ice would rapidly form on the surface of the 
vessel containmg the boiling liquid if the vessel 
were placed in water. . . . Dr. Cullen is said 
to have made a machine for evaporating water 
under a vacuum in r755, and Lavoisier experi- 
mented with ether in France shortly after, but 
the more important progress appears to have been 
made about the beginning of the nineteenth cen- 
tury. In 1810 Leslie experimented with a ma- 
chine using sulphuric acid and water. In 1824 Val- 
lance . . . took out a patent under which dry air 
was circulated over shallow trays of water, when 
evaporation took place and heat was abstracted. 
.\i\ improvement on this system was patented in 
New South Wales in 185S by G. B. Sloper, in 
which the water to be frozen was placed in 
canvas bags, so that the whole surfaces of such 
vessels were exposed to the evaporative effect of 
the surrounding air as well as the surface of the 
water itself. ... In 1834 Hagen experimented with 
the volatile spirit of caoutchouc, and in the same 
year Jacob Perkins of London constructed the 
first ice-making machine which worked successfully 
with a volatile liquid ; this machine, which was 
patented in .\ugust, 1S34, was the forerunner of 
all the compression systems of the present day. 
In this machine ether was vaporized and expanded 
under the reduced pressure maintained by the suc- 
tion of a pump, and the heat required for such 
vaporization was abstracted from the substance to 
be cooled. . . . Jacob Perkins's machine ... in- 
cluded the four principal features still in in 
all modern compression systems, viz., the evap- 
orator, the compressor, the condenser, and the 
expansion or regulating valve between the con- 
denser and the evaporator. But the original in- 
ventor does not seem to have had any more 
success in introducing his machine for commercial 
purposes than his predecessor Vallance. In 1845 
Dr. Gorric brought out the first cold air ma- 
chines, in the improvements upon which we meet 
with the s'nce world -renowned names of Wind- 
hauscn. Bell. Coleman. Haslam, Hall, Lightfoot, 
r.itfard and others. The cold air machine was 
the first one successfully employed in bringing 

meat from Australia to Europe. In 1850 Carre 
invented the ammonia absorption process. . . . 
Some excellent machines on the absorption system 
were installed . . . and gave good results in work- 
ing. But the excessive space required was an 
objection. The s>slcm is still largely used in the 
United States with improvements on the original 
Pontifex designs. . . . Between 1850 and i860 
many improvements were effected in England, 
.'\merica and Australia, in the Perkins ether ma- 
chine. Prof. Twining of Ohio, and James Har- 
rison of Gcelong, both experimented freely in such 
improvements. The former is said to have had 
a machine working successfully between 1855 ^nd 
1857, and Harrison in 1855 produced in Victoria, 
t'lsh frozen in the centre of a block. of clear ice. 
The original Harrison machine was made as a 
double-table engine, with four slide valves to the 
ether pump, a separate inlet and outlet valve on 
the top and bottom covers being worked by cams 
and an eccentric. Several of these machines were 
supplied and gave good satisfaction to the pur- 
chasers. ... It is usually admitted that Messrs. 
Siebe installed the first absolutely successful ma- 
chine for manufacturing purposes, which was used 
for the extraction of paraffin from shale oil in 
Scotland in 1861. . . . Siebe machines capable of 
making 10 tons of ice per day had by this year 
(1862) been supplied to the East India Government 
for making ice for the Indian military hospitals. 
. . . Another early experimenter was Charles 
Tellier, whose name is held in respect through- 
out the world, not only as the father of refrigera- 
tion in France, but as the first one, after repeated 
experiments and several failures, to be successful 
in bringing frozen meat across the ocean. Tellier 
employed methyllic ether as his refrigerating 
medium. . . . Prior to 1847 the sole outlet for the 
carcases of the sheep slaughteied in Australia and 
New Zealand for their wool, and the cattle slaugh- 
tered in .Argentina for their hides, was 'boiling 
down' for tallow. . . . Canning was started about 
this time and proved acceptable, and for many 
years large quantities . . . [were sent] to the 
United Kingdom. . . . Meanwhile various in- 
ventors were experimenting with the possibilities 
of freezing meat sufficiently hard to enable the 
carcase to be shipped across without resorting to 
canning. Amongst the pioneers were Carre; . . . 
James Harrison of Geelong; Charles Tellier; . . . 
and Thomas Mort, intimately connected with the 
first successful shipment of frozen meat to . . . 
[Great Britain]. Mr. Mort started the first meat 
freezing works in the world at Darling Harbour, 
Sydney, in 1861. ... In 1876 he prepared a 
trial shipment to England in the sailing ship 
Northam, which was fitted with an ammonia com- 
pression plant similar to those used on land, but 
the machinery broke down before the vessel left 
harbour and the meat had to be discharged. 
In 1876 Tellier installed three machines in Le 
Frigorifiqiie and carried some meat from France 
to Buenos -Aires, which arrived in sufficiently good 
condition to warrant bringing a return cargo of 
frozen meat to Rouen, which was also landed 
in sufficiently good condition, after a prolonged 
voyage of iro days, to prove that the problem 
of carrying meat across the ocean under refrigera- 
tion had been solved. The first successful ship- 
ment of fresh meat to London was in 1880 by the 
Strathleven fitted with a Bell-Coleman cold air 
plant. . . . Since 1880 it has been a constant 
progress in successful shipments from Australia, 
New Zealand, South .America and South .Africa. 
Meanwhile, in igoi, as the' result of long ex- 
periments carried out by the River Plate Fresh 



20th Century 


Meat Co., chilled beef was shipped on a large 
scale and soon developed into a most successful 
business." — B. H. Springett, Cold storage and ice- 
making, pp. i-o, 102-104. 

Invention and introduction of Braille. — Moon 
system of embossed type. See Education: Mod- 
ern developments: 20th century: Education for the 
deaf, blind and feeble-minded: Blind. 


Industry: Glassmaking. — "Today there are 
few branches of the glass industry in which the 
machine has not replaced the skilled workman 
and to a large extent reduced this labor of manipu- 
lation. In some industries, such as window glass 
and bottle manufacture, much product is still 
made by hand. ... It may be said that this 
e.xtensivc employment of machinery has been the 
development of the last score of years [written in 
1921], the latter part of which has been most 
productive of results. The window glass cylinder 
machine, the sheet glass drawing machine, the 
automatic bottle machine, and the mechanical 
manipulation of plate glass are all very recent 
developments. . . . [Up to the year 1900 in the 
making of plate glass seventeen men were required 
to remove a pot of molten glass from the fur- 
nace and convey it by means of a crude ap- 
paratus to the "teeming crane." By means of the 
teeming crane four men teemed or cast the glass 
on the casting table, on which it was rolled into 
a sheet which was then pushed into the an- 
nealing oven.] The present method of casting 
in an up-to-date plant ... is certainly a great 
contrast to the old method. . . . The pot is re- 
moved from the furnace by means of tongs carried 
by an overhead crane, from whence it is de- 
livered to the mechanical teeming crane. Here 
one of the few hand operations takes place, namely, 
that of skimming the pot, which is performed by 
two men who remove impurities from the top of 
the glass. . . . The pot is clamped in the jaws 
of the teeming crane tongs by means of a screw 
operated by a workman. It is then carried to 
the opposite side of the casting table in a posi- 
tion for teeming. The teeming is made by moving 
the crane forward on its overhead runway, and 
at the same time the contents of the pot are 
dumped out on the casting table in front of the 
roller. [After it has been rolled the glass is 
pushed into the first of a series of annealing 
ovens, through which it is moved by means of 
electricity and from which it comes out cool and 
annealed.]" — J. W. Cruikshank, Progress made in 
plate glass manufacture (Glass Industry, v. 2, 
no. I, Jan., 1921). — "Efforts to blow window-glass 
cylinders by machine began in this country in the 
early 'nineties,' and it took eight or nine years 
of costly experimenting to evolve apparatus that 
gave any reasonable promise of commercial suc- 
cess. Since then, the art has moved forward 
with considerable speed. . . . For the lungs of 
the human worker the inventors have substituted 
the tireless cylinders of the air compressor, and 
have thus made certain of an impulsive breath of 
uniform pressure and flow. ... A notable de- 
parture in the manufacture of window glass was 
the perfecting a few years ago of mechanical 
facilities for the drawing directly from the furnace 
of great sheets of that commodity. To-day, there 
are apparatus in service that draw continuously 
from the pool of molten glass sheets five feet wide 
in the form of a never-ending 'ribbon,' operating 
day after day and month after month without 
interruption. . . . Messrs. Prosper Hanrez in 1886, 

and Paul Simon in 1902, tried horizontal draw- 
ing. ... A satisfactory solution was despaired 
of. A Belgian engineer, Mr. Opperman, decided 
to go around the difficulty which could not be 
conquered. He proposed to draw, not a sheet but 
a cyUnder, and to prevent contraction by blow- 
ing sufficiently to retain the circular dimension. 
This process, which is a combination of drawing 
and blowing, has been perfected by the Americans. 
. . . [Emile Fourcault, director of the Dampreray 
glass works in Belgium, continued to experiment, 
and finally succeeded in drawing a flat sheet of 
glass from the furnace. He] devoted fifteen years 
to the development of his invention . . . [and 
finally set up a tank and drawing machines in 
order] to study the construction of the tank and 
apparatus, and also to ascertain the commercial 
value of drawn glass, which was an entirely new 
product. . . . The experiments were continued for 
two years. The machines produced 300,000 square 
meters of glass, which was sold like the glass 
obtained in the old way. The cost was about 40 
per cent, lower. . . . The Glass Works of Dam- 
premy did not hesitate to establish a large tank 
with eight drawing machines. This installation has 
been in operation since 1914." — Glass Industry, v. 
2, no. 8, Aug., 1921, pp. 194, 19s, 190, 191. — "The 
making of bottles and hollow ware by hand with 
the blowpipe and a mold to form the outer con- 
figuration of the ware has been a skilled art 
dating back into antiquity. With mechanical 
replacing the manual operations in industry, it was 
natural that efforts to reproduce the work of 
the skilled artisan in glass should be attempted. 
. . . -i^t a date within the memory of men still 
active in the industry, a very radical step was 
taken in the introduction of the blank system. 
This system divided the process of making a 
bottle into two parts and thereby divided the 
difficulties to be overcome in introducing me- 
chanical apparatus. . . . While the introduction of 
the blank system was the means that made 
solution possible, the real achievement in bottle 
making was the invention and development of 
the Owens bottle machine . . . the greatest for- 
ward step in the industry in four hundred years." 
— G. E. Howard, Automatic bottle manufacture 
(Glass Industry, v. 2, no. 3, Mar., 1921). — M. J. 
Owens of Toledo, who began to experiment in 
1899, first invented a crude device "for gathering 
by suction into a two-part iron mold, a solid 
mass of glass from a pot of melted glass. The 
upper part of the mold completely formed the 
neck and lip of the bottle around a plunger, the 
plunger being inserted through the top of the 
parison or solid mass of glass in the mold. The 
next process was to open the lower mold. This 
permitted the parison suspended by the neck 
in the upper mold to be placed in the finishing 
mold. The finishing mold was similar in shape to 
the bottle to be blown. By reversing the piston 
in the cylinder, air was forced in an opposite 
direction to that used in gathering the glass, and 
the parison was expanded in the mold and blown 
into form. . . . [The Toledo Glass Co. then took 
up the process, and with the aid of W. E. Bock 
an improved machine, with a rotary tank for glass 
was devised. This machine had six arms, with 
three gathering and three finishing molds, and 
was in use by 1903. In 1904 the machine was 
made so that the gathering mold could dip into 
the surface of the glass in the tank, and the proc- 
ess became so perfected that it was exported to 
supply bottle manufacturing plants in Europe.] 
It performs the whole operation of bottle-making 
from the beginning to end, without once calling 



20lh Century 
Railroad Brakes; Gyroscope 


for human intervention. It even dips the molten 
Rlass out of the furnace with one pair of steel 
haiuls, with thcni crams it into the mold.s, which 
may well repruscnl its maw, retreats with it from 
the furnace as mij;ht a dog that has snatched a 
bune; molds it, blows it and tempers it, . . . 
finally delivering the finished bottle. ... 'A bot- 
tle is handed out every few seconds, and the 
machine continues Koinj; around Rracefully doing 
its work.' "— W. S. Walbridgc, American bottles old 
and new, pp. 57, 77. — In igog small bottles were 
made by this process, and in 1012 ca.stint;s rang- 
inw in size from five to thirteen gallons wore made. 

Textile and chemical inventions of Germans. 
— Use of paper cloth. See Germany: igiO-igiS. 

Railroad brakes. — Automatic control. — "The 
sisnals, clear, caution, or stop, are transmitted 
to the target, or semaphore, and are read and 
understood in the usual manner. The connection 
with the locomotive is made through a ramp, a 
single length of light rail beside the track, 150 or 
200 feet in front of the target. The signal is 
seen by the engineer half a mile, in clear weather, 
before the ramp is reached, which gives time to 
slow down. A contact shoe . . . transmits the 
current from the ramp to the speed controller, 
which opens and closes electric circuits, depending 
on the speed of the train. . . . [The centrifugal 
governor, is mechanically connected] to one of the 
front wheels of the locomotive and revolves, there- 
fore, at the same speed. The governor moves a 
pair of electrical contacts, opening them when the 
engine (and governor) speed exceeds a predeter- 
mined ma.ximum. . . . These contacts, in turn, un- 
der certain conditions, control the air-brakes 
through an electro-pneumatic valve. . . . When a 
train passes a signal in the caution position, the 
combined action of the control current received 
from the roadside apparatus and the change of 
electrical connections on the locomotive effected by 
the contact of ramp and shoe, inserts the centrifugal 
governor contacts in the circuit and thereby puts 
the air-brakes under its control. ... It is im- 
portant to note that the initiative remains with 
the engineer, and only when he fails to respond 
to a signal indication does the speed controller, 
obeying orders received through the ramp, do 
the work for him. The engineer cannot increase 
speed while the locomotive is in the low-speed 
area, nor, if brought to a stop by the ramp, ran 
he proceed without descending and releasing the 
valve. . . . The history of automatic train control 
is 20 years old." — J. T. Bramhall, Stop! Lookl 
li'.tent (Scientific Americmt, June, IQ22). 

Improvements of steam engine. — Gasolene 
motor. See STE.^^t and gas engines; Modern im- 
provements; Adoption of the gasolene motor. 

Tantalum lamp. — Incandescent lamps. — 
Miners' safety lamps. See Electrical discovery: 
Electric lighting: 1841-1021. 

Power from Niagara Falls, and other power 
plants. Sec Electrical discovery: Electric power: 
i8q6-i?2i; ig2i. 

Telephones. — Pupin's improvement of long- 
distance telephone. — Amplifiers. — Projecting ap- 
paratus. See Elec-tric.\l discovery; Telegraphy 
and telephony: Telephone; igoo; ig20-ig2i. 

Electric cookers. — Vacuum cleaners. See 
Electric \L discovery: i87g-igi7. 

Wireless or radio. — Tuning devices. — De- 
velopments during World War. — De Forest's 
audion. — Long-distance radio. — Amplifiers. — 
Repeaters and projectors. See Electrical dis- 
covery: Wireless, or radio: 1864-1903; 1903; 1914- 
1918; 101S-1021; IQ19. 

Survey of late inventions. — New vacuum tube. 

See Electrical discovery: Survey of late inven- 

Guns. — Small arms. — Machine guns. — Tanks. 
See Rifles and revolvers: World War; Shot- 
guns in World War; Ordnance: 20th century; 
Tanks: Invention, 

Submarine developments. — Use of periscope 
and Feascndon oscillator. See Submarines: 
1913-1920; 1Q14-1920; 1915. 

Achievements of Count Zeppelin. — Airplanes, 
biplanes and seaplanes. — Achievements of the 
Wright Brothers and B16riot. Sec Aviation: 
Development of balloons and dirigibles: i8g6- 
igi4; Development of airplanes and air service: 
1896-1910; 1910-1920. 

Caterpillar tractors. — Automobile improve- 
ments. — Achievements of Henry Ford. — Start- 
ing devices. — Radiators. — Cooling systems. See 
Automobiles: 1858-1919; 1889-1905; 1892-1916; 
1900-1920; 1902-1915. 

Instruments: Gyroscope. — Its uses. — "Who 
would have thought that in . . . [spinning tops] 
lay concealed the secret of steering a torpedo, of 
steadying ships, of a navigating compass, or of 
travelling with security in a car on a single rail? 
. . . But the most interesting top of all is un- 
doubtedly the ordinary gyroscope . . . capable of 
illustrating the gyroscopic phenomena which have 
been so much made use of in modern mechanical 
invention. . . . [The patent for] the gyroscopic 
mechanism employed for automatically steering a 
torpedo . . . was originally protected by M. Obry, 
an Austrian engineer, and sold to the authorities of 
the Whitehead Torpedo Works at Fiume, by whom 
it was improved and finally patented in its 
present form in 1898. The following is a brief 
outline of the way in which the steering is ef- 
fected. As the torpedo passes through the impulse 
tube, a trigger projecting from its upper surface 
catches against a bolt in the tube and releases 
a spring by which the gyroscope is spun. . . . Thus, 
before the torpedo enters the water, the axle of 
the gyroscope is pointing in the required di- 
rection, from which it never deviates. . . . [Late 
in the nineteenth century. Sir Henry Bessemer, 
the inventor of the Bessemer process of casting 
steel, evolved an idea for stabilizing ships by 
gyroscopes, which was unsuccessful.] Herr Otto 
Schlick has successfully carried out a series of 
valuable experiments in the 'See-Biir,' formerly a torpedo-boat of the German Navy, with 
a view to applying the principle of the gyroscope 
to counteract the rolling of a vessel at sea. ... If 
a large fly-wheel were mounted in the middle of 
a screw steamer on a horizontal axle at right 
angles to the length of the ship, and were made 
to revolve rapidly, it is clear that the steamer 
would become much steadier, but only in so far as 
she was allowed to make dcflertions from her 
course. To obviate this <lifficulty Herr Schlick 
places the fly-wheel v/ith its axis vertical, and 
mounted in a frame . . . which can iUelf turn 
about a horizontal axle directly athwart ship. 
The rolling force of the waves is thus counter- 
acted (in part at any rate) by the gyroscopic 
resistance of the rotating wheel, while the wheel 
itself turns about the horizontal axle of the 
frame, but in no way interferes with the direction 
of the ship's course. . . . The first gyroscopic ap- 
paratus for steadying ships which was constructed 
in England, was made at Newcastle, at the Nep- 
tune Works of Swan, Hunter and Wigham Rich- 
ardson, and was fitted in October, 1008, to the 
R. M. S. 'Lochiel,' owned by Messrs. David Mac 
Brayne of Glasgow. It can be thrown in and 
out of action at will. When it is out of action, 



20th Century 
Gyroscope; Diving Apparatus 


the vessel has been observed to roll, out and 
out, through an arc of 32 degrees, which was 
reduced to a (total) angle of from 2 to 4 de- 
grees by the action of the gyroscope. The ma- 
chinery, which occupies very little space in the 
steamer, is driven electrically and requires very 
little attention. . . . The gyroscope has been em- 
ployed by Mr. Louis Brennan [in 1Q07] with 
striking ingenuity and success to ensure the 
stability of a heavy car travelling on a single line 
of rail with its centre of gravity above the level 
of the rail, as is seen in the accompanying illus- 
trations. The invention, in its simplest form, 
consists in afiixing to the car a heavy-rimmed 
fly-wheel, or gyrostat, . . . revolving in the same 
plane as the road wheels and in the same direc- 
tion, ... on an axle OX perpendicular to the 
plane of the paper. . . . Another ingenious appli- 
cation of the gyroscope to a monorail car has 
lately (Feb., 1914) been made by Monsieur 
Schilowsky, a Russian inventor. In this system. 
a sitigle gyroscope is mounted . . . with its axle 
. . . vertical, while the wheel is also free to turn 
about a horizontal axis ... in the same manner 
as in Schlick's device, but with this essential 
difference: that the wheel and other masses moving 
with it about the horizontal axis are so designed 
that their centre of gravity is above this axis 
of suspension. Thus, immediately the wheel pre- 
cesses, the weight of the whole precessing mass 
calls a couple into play tending to hurry the pre- 
cession and restore equilibrium. A further de- 
vice is introduced for hurrying the precession by the 
action of two pendulums, one on either side of 
the car. ... A clever application has been made 
by Dr. Anschiitz of the principles of precession by 
which the a.xle of a rotating gyroscope takes the 
place of the magnetic needle of an ordinary com- 
pass. The necessity for some such non-magnetic 
contrivance has of late years become increasingly 
important owing to the prevalence of iron and 
electric appUances in modern warships. The gyro- 
compass is in general use in the German Navy, 
and has recently been adopted by the English 
Government. One end of the axle of the gyro-^ 
scope turns to the North. By an ingenious de- 
vice . . . the wheel is mounted in a case which 
floats in a bath of mercury, the whole being so 
arranged that the centre of gravity .... of the 
movable parts of the instrument is below the point 
of support, . . . — that is, the metacentre. If the 
wheel is not spinning, the system is equivalent 
to a pendulum free to swing in any direction ; but 
when the wheel is spinning, the rotation of the 
earth exercises a certain directive power on the 
axle, turning it round so that one end of it points 
to the North." — H. Crabtree, Elementary treatment 
of the theory of spinning tops and gyroscopic 
motion, pp. i, 8, 66, 67, 70, 71, 75, 76. — In igT3, 
Count Zeppelin brought out a gyroscopic control 
for his dirigibles about the same time that E. A. 
Sperry of New York successfully applied his 
gyroscopic equipment to control airplanes. "The 
gyroscopic stabilizer invented by E. A. Sperry of 
New York which was used on a Curtiss aeroplane 
in a safety contest on June i8th was awarded 
the first prize of Jicooo offered by the French 
war department." — Scientific American, July ix, 
iqi4, p. 30 — "Of recent years, the gyroscope has 
been adapted to many useful services. Without 
anything to hold to so to speak, . . . [Mr. E. A. 
Sperry] has been abfe to automatically stabilize 
the flying machine. . . . [In iqi; he] equipped the 
little motor yacht 'Widgeon' with one of his 
stabilizers. The effect of the stabilizer was all 
that was hoped for. ... It may not be generally 

remembered that about three years ago [written 
in 1915] Mr. Sperry installed aboard of the U. S. S. 
Warden, a destroyer ... an experimental gyro- 
scopic stabilizer. . . . The httle craft was virtually 
transformed . . . but the equipment was in some 
respects a makeshift . . . cumbersome and over- 
weighty. [For this and other reasons the ap- 
paratus was not at that time accepted by the 
navy; but in 1915-1916 an experiment was again 
tried with two stabilizing equipments aboard sub- 
marines, and one on a 10,000 ton transport.]". — 
R. G. Skerrett, Active gyroscope as a ship stab- 
ilizer (Scientific American, Dec. 18, 1915). — 
The experiment was eminently successful, and 
gyroscopic equipment was quickly placed on the 
ships of the Allied navies. "The gyroscopic com- 
pass is not only now (1920) the direction finder 
for ships, . . . but it is indispensable in gunfire 
control. . . . Every shot which the British fleet 
fired at Jutland was directed by a Sperry gyro- 
scopic compass."— C. H. Clandy, Romance of in- 
vention {Scientific American, .Apr. 17, 1920). — 
See also Torpedo: Development. — "A problem . . . 
has recently [1922] found its solution in the trial 
trip of the Danish S. S. 'Konig Frederik VHI,' 
equipped with a self-steering Anschiitz gyro com- 
pass. . . . The gyroscopic compass can, of course, 
be placed in any part of the ship, its readings 
being interfered with by no rolling or other 
movement of the latter. Owing to its floating 
suspension in a mercury bath, friction is reduced 
to a minimum and the readings are practically 
instantaneous without any lag. From the master 
compass they are transmitted electrically to as 
many receivers as required." — A. Gradenwitz,5f//- 
steering vessels {Scientific American, Aug., 1922). 

Diving apparatus. — "The modern diver is not 
sent out from a bell, but has his separate and 
independent apparatus. The first practical diving 
helmet was that of Kleingert, a German [179SI. 
This enclosed the diver as far as the waist, 
and constituted a small diving bell, since the 
bottom was open for the escape of vitiated air. 
Twenty years later, or just a century after the 
invention of Halley's bell, Augustus Siebe, the 
founder of the present great London firm of Siebe, 
Gorman, and Company, produced a more con- 
venient 'open' dress, consisting of a copper hel- 
met and shoulder-plate in one piece, attached to 
a waterproof jacket reaching to the hips. The 
disadvantage of the open dress was, that the 
diver had to maintain an almost upright posi- 
tion, or the water would have invaded his helmet. 
Mr. Siebe therefore added a necessary improve- 
ment, and extended the dress to the feet, giving 
his diver a 'close' protection from the water. 

"We may pass over the gradual development of 
the 'close' dress and glance at the most up-to- 
date [twentieth century] equipment in which the 
'toilers of the deep' explore the bed of Old Ocean. 
The dress-legging, body, and sleeves — is all in 
one piece, with a large enough opening at the 
shoulders for the body to pass through. The 
helmet, with front and side windows, is attached 
by a 'bayonet joint' to the shoulder-plate, itself 
made fast to the upper edge of the dress by 
screws which press a metal ring against the lower 
edge of the plate so as to pinch the edge of 
the dress. At the back are an inlet and an outlet 
valve. Between the front and a side window is 
the transmitter of a loud-sounding telephone, and 
in the crown the receiver and the button of an 
electric bell. The telephone wires, and also the 
wires for a powerful electric light, working on 
a ball-and-socket joint in front of the dress, are 
embedded into the hfe-line. The air-tube, of 



Znih Century 
Moving Pictures 


canvas and rubber, has a stiffening of wire to 
prevent its being throttled on cominK into con- 
tact with any object. A pair of weiRhted boots, 
each scaling 17 lbs., two 40-lb. lead weights 
slung over the shoulder, and a knife worn at 
the waist-belt, complete the outfit of the diver, 
which, not including the several layers of under- 
clothing necessary to exclude the cold found at 
great depths, totals nearly 140 lbs. Of thi-s the 
copper helmet accounts for 30 lbs. On the sur- 
face are the air-pumps, which may be of several 
types — single-cylinder, double-acting; double-cyl- 
inder, double-acting; or three or four cylinder, 
single-acting — according to the nature of the work. 
All patterns are so constructed that the valves may 
be easily removed and examined." — A. Williams, 
Romance of modern mechamsm, pp. 244-245. 

Moving pictures. — "The terms cinematograph, 
bioscoi)e, vitagraph, merely indicate different me- 
chanical devices for obtaining the movement of 
the film. This is iK- inches wide, and is pierced 
with holes along both edges. The teeth of wheels 
something like chain wheels, and called sprockets' 
fit into these holes and control the movement. 
At first this was continuous and a rotating shutter 
in front of the lens allowed each picture to fall 
upon the screen for a short time, but the best 
effect is obtained by intermittent motion by which 
each picture is allowed to come to rest before 
it is disclosed by the shutter. . . . During the last 
few years the demand for the picture play has 
enabled each company to maintain in regular em- 
ployment a company of actors and actresses. Huge 
studios in which an appropriate setting can be 
arranged have been built, and all the paraphernalia 
of the stage is recorded by the film. . . . Not the 
least interesting records are those which have been 
obtained of the habits of animals, and the growth 
of plants. To secure the former the haunt? of 
beast and bird have been invaded, and the camera 
has penetrated the dark recesses of the tropical 
forest where formerly a gun would have been 
regarded as the only weapon that could safely be 
used. In registering very slow motions such as the 
transformation from caterpillar to chrysalis, and 
chrysalis to butterfly, the growth of a plant, or 
the unfolding of a flower, photographs are taken 
at long intervals and then thrown on the screen 
in rapid succession. Many of the trick pictures 
in which, for example, a knife cuts up a loaf 
of bread and a sandwich Ls made without visible 
hands, are the result of a large number of separate 
photographs in which the setting is changed be- 
tween each, the film being covered meanwhile 
by the shutter. It was hardly to be expected 
that inventors would be satisfied with pictures 
in black and white, and some of the earlier films 
were coloured by hand. But when longer films 
came into voeue this was too expensive, and in- 
stead of painting in each picture by hand, stencils 
were adopted, and though the same amount of 
delicacy was not possible, there was colour. But 
even this process soon became expensive with a 
film 1000 feet long containing more than 12,000 
pictures. As early as i8qq a method was devised 
by Greene whereby the photographs were taken 
through red. green, and violet screens and flashed 
on the screen successively through screens arranged 
in the shutter. But while sixteen a second is 
sufficient for black and white, a three-colour 
process of this kind requires forty-eight pictures a 
second, and there ware mechanical difficulties in 
securing this. The film must be panchromatic, 
and can only be developed in darkness. The diffi- 
culties of a three-colour process led Albert Smith 
to propose two colours only — red and green. The 

method was patented in 1906, introduced com- 
mercially in iqoS, and improved in igii. This is 
the famous Kinemacolour process. Pictures are 
taken alternately through red and green screens, 
and projected through a rotating disc having two 
opaque .sectors, one transparent red and one trans- 
parent green sector. Blue is not entirely absent 
owing to the green containing a little, but indigo 
and violet are not reproduced, and the reds and 
greens are emphasised. Greene's process is now 
being revived under the name Bicolor, and the 
Ives three-colour is being applied to mov- 
ing pictures by the use of three films." — E. Cressy, 
Discovery and inventions of the twentieth cen- 
tury, pp. 362-363. — See also Electrical discovery: 
Survey of late inventions. 

Player pianos and piano players. — "The his- 
tory of the piano-player, as we understand it 
now, dates back many years: as to its origin it 
would, indeed, be difficult to trace it to any one 
man. Numerous inventors . . . within the hist 
century, evolved many ideas, in all of which, doubt- 
less, some suggestion was conveyed to the minds of 
other workers in the field of mechanical devices 
for operating the notes of the piano, and thus, 
by the process of accretion, the present-day in- 
strument was brought into being. Mechanical means 
of producing music can be traced back centuries." — 
D. M. Wilson, Instruction book on the piano-player 
and player-piano, p. g. — Nevertheless the piano 
player, and the player piano may be claimed as 
twentieth century products, since the popular use 
of the instrument really dates from about igoo. 
"The pneumatic principle in a different form was 
well known for many years before it was applied 
to piano players. Pipe organs had been success- 
fully fitted with pneumatic and tubular-pneumatic 
actions, and thus the fact had been demonstrated 
that a Uttle collapsible bellows could be made 
to express considerable energy when operated by 
compression or exhaustion of atmo!;pheric air. 
. . . Not later than the year 1863, Fourneaux in 
France produced a little device applicable to the 
piano keyboard, using pneumatics for striking, and 
operated by the exhaustion of air through a 
crank-actuated bellows. His invention seems to 
have languished as far as general recognition was 
concerned, and the next forceful idea along the 
same line apears to have been that of Merritt 
Gaily, of New York, who in 1881 patented a 
pneumatic device for use in playing the piano 
which was remarkable in its anticipations of mod- 
ern developments. Shortly afterwards the great 
flood of player patents began in earnest. Bishop 
and Down in England were granted patents during 
the year 1885, and Kuster, of New York, in iS*!- 
exhibited drawings in his application for a patent 
granted to him that year, which were remarkable 
for their close anticipation of the very principle' 
so generally used to-day for obtaining expres- 
sive effects of touch, tempo, etc. The perforated 
controlling sheet, which these inventors used in 
one form or another, had long been known in 
connection with what was called the 'organette,' a 
little reed organ blown by crank-ojierated bellows 
and played by the admLs.iion of air to the reeds 
through a tracker-board under the control of a 
perforated sheet of paper which rolled over the 
tracKer at a given speed. The collapsible pneu- 
matic . . . has also been continually and from the 
first a part of the player idea and is to-day firmly 
established among the fundamental principles of 
the art." — W. B. White. Technical treatise on piano 
player mechanism, pp. 1S-17. — "The most active 
period [in player-piano production] was, undoubt- 
edly, from :8g6 to igob; since when instruments 




have been put on the market by the leading 
manufacturers which are, to all intents and pur- 
poses, perfect. The precursor of the piano-player 
was doubtless the 'Organette' — which as an in- 
strument still does duty, and b the means by 
which many a roadside musician earns a liveli- 
hood. . . . What is termed the 'piano-player' is 
the Cabinet Form, which can be wheeled up to 
or away from the piano. This was probably the 
first successful form used for playing the piano- 
forte other than by the fingers. . . . The player- 
piano ... is a piano with the player mechanism 
placed inside the piano, thus economising space." 
— D. M. Wilson, Instruction book on the piano- 
player and player-piano, pp. lo, 13, 14. 

See also Alphabet; Automobile; Aviation; 
Electrical discovery ; Grenades ; Industrial 
revolution; Ordnance; Poison gas; Printing 
AND the press; Rifles and revolvers; Steam 
AND GAS engines; SUBMARINES; ToRPEDo ; Tanks: 
Invention; Europe: Modern period: Intellectual 

INVERLOCHY, Battle of (1645). See Scot- 
land: 1644-164S. 

INVESTITURE: Defined. See Bishop: In- 

Struggles over. See Papacy: 1056-1122; Ger- 
many: 1056-1122; Italy: 1056-1122. 

INVINCIBLE, British battle cruiser lost at 
the battle of Jutland, May 31, igi6. See World 
War: iqi6: IX. Naval operations: a, 1. 

IODINE, Use of. See Medical science: Mod- 
ern; igth-20th centuries: Modification in use of 

lOLANDE. See Yolande. 
IONA, small island a few miles from the western 
coast of Scotland. "To that beach in ancient days 
came many a train of funeral barges, witli 
muffled banners and with coronach, bringing home 
dead kings of Scotland, for burial in the Holy 
Isle. . . . 'The gracious Duncan' sleeps here, and 
by his side, as some historians believe, lies Mac- 
beth. It is part of the tradition that Macbeth's 
grave is in Luraphanan near Aberdeen, but some 
authorities declare that his remains were con- 
veyed to lona, the imperial sepulchre from at least 
g74. . . . lona's chief interest lies in its ecclesi- 
astical history from 563, 'when Columba came from 
Ireland, bringing Christianity to the Picts of the 
Western Islands, and made lona the fountain- 
head of religion and learning for Northern Europe.' 
. . . The monastic ruins are scant and of a later 
period, but whatever may be the measure of 
the antiquity of the gaunt ecclesiastical relics of 
lona, they are more holy and beautiful than 
words can tell, in their lone magnificence and 
desolate grandeur of ruin." — W. Winter, Over the 
border, pp. 190-191, 207. — See also Christianity: 
5q7-8oo; CoLUMBAN church; Education: Me- 
dieval: sth-6th centuries. 

IONIA, ancient maritime region on the coast of 
Asia Minor. See Asia Minor: B.C. iioo, and 

See Greece: B.C. 478-477; B.C. 477-461; Athens: 
B.C. 477. 

IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.— Under Greek, 
Roman, Byzantine, Venetian, and French rule. 
— The group of numerous islands on the west- 
ern coast of Greece has long borne the name of 
the Ionian Islands, though the ancient inhabitants 
were not supposed to be Ionic. Corfu (the 
Korkyra of the ancients) is the most populous and 
historically the most important. (See Corcyra; 
Greece: B.C. 435-432; 432.) The islands passed 
under the dominion of Rome; were joined in 

time to the Byzantine Empire; were occupied for 
a few years by the Normans of Sicily ; passed into 
the possession of the Venetians, in the thirteenth 
centurj-, and were held by them for nearly five 
hundred years; suffered the ravages of the Turks, 
who were never able to get Corfu into their 
hands (see Turkey: 1714-1718) ; were taken from 
Venice by Napoleon, in 17Q7, and transferred to 
France (see France: 1797 [May-October]); were 
occupied by a Russo-Turkish force, in 1799, and 
established in independence, as the "Republic of 
the Seven Islands" (see France: 1801-1802) ; were 
recovered by the French in 1S07 and finally lost 
to them in 1814. — Based on C. H. Hanson, Land 
of Greece, ch. 4. — See also Ith.^ca. 

1815-1862. — British protectorate established. — 
Relinquishment. — Annexation of islands to 
kingdom of Greece. — In 1S15, by the Treaty of 
Vienna, the Ionian islands were constituted a 
sort of republic, under the protection of Great 
Britain, which had the right to garrison them, 
and to place a Lord High Commissioner at the 
head of their government. They prospered under 
the arrangement, but were not satisfied, and in 
1858 Mr. Gladstone was appointed Lord High 
Commissioner, with a view to having the dis- 
content of the lonians well considered. But "the 
population of the islands persisted in regarding him, 
not as the commissioner of a Conservative English 
Government, but as 'Gladstone the Philhellene.' 
He was received wherever he went with the hon- 
ours due to a liberator. . . . The visit of Mr. 
Gladstone, whatever purpose it may have been 
intended to fulfil, had the effect of making them 
[the lonians] agitate more strenuously than ever 
for annexation to the kingdom of Greece. Their 
wish, however, was not to be granted yet. A 
new Lord High Commissioner was sent out after 
Mr. Gladstone's return. . . . [Still] the idea held 
ground that sooner or later Great Britain would 
give up the charge of the islands. A few years 
after, an opportunity occurred for making the 
cession. The Greeks got rid quietly of their heavy 
German king Otho [see Greece: 1830-1862], and 
on the advice chiefly of England they elected as 
sovereign a brother of the Princess of Wales. . . . 
The second son of the King of Denmark was 
made King of Greece; and Lord John Russell, on 
behalf of the English Government, then [1862] 
handed over to the kingdom of Greece the islands 
of which Great Britain had had so long to bear the 
unwilling charge." — J. McCarthy, History of our 
own times, v. ^, ch. 39. 

IONIAN REVOLT (502-493 B.C.). See Per- 
sia: B.C. 521-403; Greece: B.C. soo-493; B.C. 
479: Persian Wars. 

lONIANS. See Dorians and Ionians; ^oli- 
ans; Asia Minor: B.C. iioo. 

— "There existed at the commencement of his- 
torical Greece, in 776 B.C., besides the lonians 
in Attica and the Cyclades, twelve Ionian cities 
of note on or near the coast of Asia Minor, besides 
a few others less important. Enumerated from 
south to north, they stand — Miletus, Myus, 
Priene, Samos, Ephesus, Kolophon, Lebedus, Teos, 
Erythrje, Chios, Klazomense, Phok^ea. . . . Miletus, 
Myus and Priene were situated on or near the 
productive plain of the river Miander; while 
Ephesus was in like manner planted near the 
mouth of the Kaister. . . . Kolophon is only a 
very few miles north of the same river. Possess- 
ing the best means of communication with the 
interior, these towns seem to have thriven with 
greater rapidity than the rest ; and they, to- 
gether with the neighbouring island of Samos, con- 




stiluted in early times the strength of the Pan- 
Ionic Amphlktyony. The situation of the sacreil 
precinct of Poseidon (where this Icitival was cele- 
brated) on the north side of the promontory of 
Mykale, near Priene, and between liphesus and 
Miletus, seems to show that these towns formed 
the primitive centre to which the other Ionian 
settlements became gradually aggregated. For it 
was by no means a centrical site with reference 
to all the twelve. . . . Moreover, it seems that the 
Pan-Ionic festival (the celebration of which con- 
stituted the Amphiktyony], though still formally 
continued, had lost its importance before the time 
of Thucydides, and had become practically super- 
seded by the more splendid festival of the Ephesia, 
near Ephesus, where the cities of Ionia found a 
more attractive place of meeting." — G. Grote, His- 
tory uj Greece, v. i, pt. 2, ch. 13. 

IONIC ORDER. See Architeciure: Classic: 
Greek, etc. ; Orders of architecture. 

IOWA: Geographic location. — Meaning of 
the name. — Iowa, popularly known as the "Hawk- 
eye State," is a north central state of the United 
States, bounded on the north by Minnesota ; east, 
by Wisconsin and Illinois; south, by Missouri; 
and west, by Nebraska and South Dakota. The 
state has an area of 56,147 square miles, and a 
population, igso, of 2,404,o.!i. "Theodore S. 
Parvin, a high authority, relates an Indian legend 
[relative to the meaning of Iowa] as follows: 'This 
tribe [the .AyouwaysJ separated from the Sacs and 
Foxes, and wandered off westward in search of a 
new home. Crossing the Mississippi River they 
turned southward reaching a high bluff near the 
mouth of the Jowa River. Looking off over the 
beautiful valley spread out before them they halted 
exclaiming 'loway!' or 'This is the place!'" — 
B. F. Gue, History of loma jrom tlie earliest 
times, V. i, p. 67. 

Resotirces. — Iowa is one of the most important 
agricultural states in the Union, nearly the whole 
area being arable and under cultivation. In iq2o, 
it had 213,439 farms with 33,474,896 acres in farm 
lands, about half of this area being given over 
to the growing of cereals. Stock-raising consti- 
tutes an important industry. The principal min- 
ing industries are coal mining and clay working, 
these two contributing about 77 per cent of the 
total mineral value. The productive coal fields 
have an area of square miles which pro- 
duced 8,187,500 tons in 1920. — See also U.S.A.: 
Economic map. 

Aboriginal inhabitants. See Indians, Ameri- 
can: Cultural areas in North .America: Plains area; 
Pawnee fa.milv ; Siouan family. 

1673-1834.— Early history. — Expedition of 
Major Pike. — Territorial government — "So far 
as the history of the discovery and exploration is 
concerned, Iowa first belonged to France, since 
Marquette and JoUet . . . were here May 13, 
1673. Civihzed nations conceded this claim, on 
the right of discoveo', and France held posses- 
sion until 1763, when, by secret treaty, this State, 
with other large portions of territory, known and 
unknown at that time, was ceded to Spain. . . . 
Spanish control and authority prevailed in all this 
vast domain west of the Mississippi river, until 
October i, 1800, when it was ceded by Spain 
to France. . . . April 30, 1803, Napoleon Bona- 
parte, being at war with almost all Europe, sold 
Louisiana to the United States to prevent it 
from falling into the hands of Great Britain, for 
the sum of $15,000,000. The province which thus 
came into the possession of the United States, was 
of vast though ill-defined territorial extent. [See 
Louisiana: 1798-1803.] . . . March 26, 1804, Con- 

gress provided that Upper Louisiana, that p^rt of 
the whole province north of the thirty-third 
parallel, consisting now of Arkansas, Missouri, 
Iowa, and Southern Minnesota, should be organ- 
ized into a court district and attached to the 
territory of Indiana for governmental and judicial 
purposes. From this came the term 'District of 
Louisiana,' that occurs in the early history of 
all this part of the United States. March 3, 
1805, Iowa was included as a part of the Territory 
of Louisiana, with the capital at St. Louis. The 
part of the Louisiana Purchase now known as 
Louisiana became Orleans Territory. ... In the 
autumn of 1805, Major Zcbulon M. Pile, . . . ap- 
pointed to conduct surveys of various parts of 
the newly acquired territory of Louisiana, made 
an authorized official visit to the head waters of 
the Mississippi, and met the different Indian tribes 
in Iowa. He advised the Indians of the fact that 
the United States had acquired sovereignty over 
the country by the purchase of the rights of 
France, and that henceforth their dealings as tribes 
would be with the new government. . . . June 4, 
1812, [Iowa] was embraced in what was then 
organized as the Territory of Missouri. July 19, 
1820, Missouri became a State, and Iowa with 
other territory was detached and forgotten, and 
remained a country without a government, either 
political or judicial, until June 28, 1834, when 
the abuses of outlawry and crime became so 
prominent and so serious that, as a means of re- 
dress and correction, it was included in the Ter- 
ritory of Michigan. During all these years, it 
is probable that the only civil law in force in 
Iowa was the provision of the Missouri .Act, which 
prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude in 
the territories of the United States north of 
thirty-sLx degrees, thirty minutes, north latitude." 
— H. H. Seerley and L. W. Parish, History and 
civil government of Iowa (State Government 
Series, B. .A. Hinsdale, ed., pp. 30-32). — In 1832, 
the Black Hawk War terminated in the cession 
of the Black Hawk Purchase. — See also Oklahoma: 

1830-1860. — Beginning of white settlement. — 
Squatter constitutions. — ".A Constitution is a so- 
cial product. It is the embodiment of popular 
ideals. -And so the real makers of the Constitutions 
of Iowa were not the men who first in 1844, then 
in 1846, and then again in 1857 assembled in the 
Old Stone Capitol on the banks of the Iowa 
River. The true "Fathers' were the people who, 
in those early times from 1830 to 1S60, took pos- 
session of the fields and forests and founded a 
new Commonwealth. They were the pioneers, the 
frontiersmen, the squatters — the pathfinders in our 
political history. . . . They were the real makers 
of our fundamental law. The first of the Iowa 
pioneers crossed the Mississippi in the early thirties. 
They were preceded by the bold explorer and the 
intrepid fur-trader, who in their day dared much, 
endured much, and through the wildernesses lighted 
the way for a westward-moving civilization. 
Scarcely had their camp-fires gone out when the 
pioneer appeared with ax and ox and plow. He 
came to cultivate the soil and establish a home — 
he came to stay. The rapidity with which the 
pioneer population of Iowa increased after the 
Black-Hawk war was phenomenal. It grew lit- 
erally by leaps and bounds. Men came in from 
all parts of the Union — from the North-west, from 
the East, from the South, and from the South- 
east. They came from Maine and Massachusetts, 
from New York and Pennsylvania, from Virginia 
and the Carohnas, from Georgia, Kentucky and 
Tennessee, and from the newer States of Ohio 


IOWA, 1830-1860 

White Settlement 
Squatter Constitutions 

IOWA, 1830-1860 

and Iqdiana. It is said that whole neighborhoods 
came over from Illinois. In 1835 Lieutenant Al- 
bert Lea [who explored central Iowa with a body 
ol United States Dragoons] thought that the popu- 
lation had reached at least sixteen thousand souls. 
But the census reports give a more modest number 
— ten thousand live hundred. When the Territory 
of Iowa was established in 1838 there were within 
its hmits twenty-two thousand eight hundred and 
hlty-nine people. Eight years later, when the 
Commonwealth was admited into the Union, this 
number had increased to one hundred and two 
thousand three hundred and eighty-eight. Thus in 
less than a score of years the pioneers had founded 

a new Empire west of the Mississippi In the 

location of a home the pioneer was usually dis- 
criminating. His was not a chance 'squatting' 
here or there on the prairie or among the trees. 
The necessities — water and fuel — led him as a rule 
to settle near a stream or river, and never far 
from timber. The pioneers settled in groups. One, 
two, three, or more families constituted the origi- 
nal nucleus of such groups. The groups were 
known as 'communities' or 'neighborhoods.' They 
were the original social and political units out of 
the integration of which the Commonwealth was 
later formed. But the vital facts touching the 
pioneers of Iowa are not of migration and set- 
tlement. In political and constitutional evolution 
the emphasis rests rather upon the facts of char- 
acter. . . . Two opinions have been expressed re- 
specting the early settlers of Iowa. Calhoun stated 
on the floor of Congress that he had been informed 
that 'the Iowa country had been seized upon by 
a lawless body of armed men.' Clay had received 
information of the same nature. . . . Nor was the 
view expressed by these statesmen uncommon in 
that day. It was entertained by a very consider- 
able number of men throughout the East and 
South, who looked upon the pioneers in general as 
renegades and vagabonds forming a 'lawless rab- 
ble' on the outskirts of civilization. . . . The men 
who made these harsh charges were doubtless hon- 
est and sincere. But were they mistaken ? All 
testimony based upon direct personal observation 
is overwhelmingly against the opinions they ex- 
pressed. Lieutenant Albert Lea who had spent 
several years in the Iowa District [and who first 
applied to it the name "Iowa"] writes in 1836 
that 'the character of this population is such as 
is rarely to be found in our newly acquired terri- 
tories. With very few exceptions there is not 
a more orderly, industrious, active, painstaking 
population, west of the Alleghanies, than is this of 
the Iowa District. Those who have used the name 
"squatters" with the idea of idleness and reckless- 
ness, would be quite surprised to see the systematic 
manner in which everything is here conducted.' 
. . . They made roads, built bridges and mills, 
cleared the forests, broke the prairies, erected 
houses and barns, and defended the settled coun- 
try against hostile Indians. They were distin- 
guished especially for their general intelligence, 
their hospitality, their independence and bold en^ 
terprise. They had schools and schoolhouses, 
erected churches, and observed the sabbath. A 
law abiding people, the pioneers made laws and 
obeyed them. . . . The strong external factors of 
the West brought into American civilization ele- 
ments distinctively American — liberal ideas and 
democratic ideals. The broad rich prairies of 
Iowa and Illinois seem to have broadened men's 
views and fertilized their ideas. . . . Nowhere did 
the West exert a more marked influence than in 
the domain of Politics. It freed men from tradi- 
tions. It gave them a new and a more progres- 

sive view of political life. Henceforth they turned 
with impatience from historical arguments and 
legal theories to a philosophy of expediency. Gov- 
ernment, they concluded, was after all a relative 
affair. 'Claim Rights' were more important to the 
pioneer ol Iowa than 'Stales Rights. The Na- 
tion was endeared to him ; and he Ireely gave his 
first allegiance to the government that sold him 
land for $1.25 an acre. He was always jor the 
Union, so that in alter years men said of the 
Commonwealth he founded; 'Her affections, hke 
the rivers of her borders, flow to an inseparable 
Union.' " — B. F. Shambaugh, History oj the con- 
stitution Qj Iowa, pp. 13-1S, 20-24, 28. — "Absence 
of legislative statutes and administrative ordinances 
on the frontier did not mean anarchy and dis- 
order. . . . Well and truly did they [the early set- 
tlers] observe the customs relative to the making 
and holding of claims. And as occasion demanded 
they codified these customs and usages into 'Con- 
stitutions,' 'Resolutions,' and 'By-Laws.' Crude, 
fragmentary, and extra-legal as were their codes, 
they nevertheless stand as the first written Con- 
stitutions in the history of the Commonwealth. 
They were the fundamental laws of the pioneers, 
or, better still, they were Squatter Constitutions. 
The Squatter Constitutions of Iowa, since they 
were a distinctive product of frontier life, are 
understood and their significance appreciated only 
when interpreted through the condition of West- 
ern life and character. . . . Title to the land vest- 
ed absolutely in the Government of the United 
States. But the right of the Indians to occupy 
the country was not disputed. ... As early as 
1785 Congress provided that no settlement should 
be made on any part of the public domain until 
the Indian title thereto had been extinguished and 
the land surveyed. Again, in 1807, Congress [made 
more detailed provision against illegal settlement]. 
... In March, 1833, the Act of 1807 was revived 
with special reference to the Iowa country to 
which the Indian title was, in accordance with 
the Black-Hawk treaty of 1832, to be extinguished 
in June, 1833. . . . The early settlers of Iowa 
therefore had no legal right to advance beyond 
the surveyed country, mark off claims, and oc- 
cupy and cultivate lands which had not been sur- 
veyed and to which the United States had not 
issued a warrant, patent, or certificate of pur- 
chase. But the pioneers . . . outran the public 
surveyors. They ignored the Act of 1807. .\nd 
it is doubtful if they ever heard of the Act of 
March 2, 1833. Some were bold enough to cross 
the Mississippi and put in crops even before the 
Indian title had expired ; some squatted on un- 
surveyed lands; and others, late comers, settled on 
surveyed territory. . . . Hundreds and thousands 
of claims were thus located ! ... All without the 
least vestige of legal right or title ! In 1836, 
when the surveys were first begun, over 10,000 of 
these squatters had settled in the Iowa country. 
It was not until 183S that the first of the public 
land sales were held at Dubuque and Burlington. 
These marginal or frontier settlers (squatters, as 
they were called) were beyond the pale of con- 
stitutional government. No statute of Congress 
protected them in their rights to the claims they 
had staked out and the improvements they had 
made. In law they were trespassers; in jact they 
were honest farmers. Now, it was to meet the 
pecuhar conditions of frontier life, and especially 
to secure themselves in what they were pleased to 
call their rights in making and holding claims, that 
the pioneers of Iowa established land clubs or 
claim associations. Nearly every community in 
early Iowa had its local club or association. It 


IOWA, 1830-1860 

Boundary Controversy 

IOWA, 1838-1848 

is impossible to give definite figures, but it is safe 
to say that over one hundred of these extra-legal 
organizations existed in Territorial Iowa. Some, 
like the Claim Club ol Fort Uodge, were or- 
ganized and flourished after the Commonwealth 
had been admitted into the Union. . . , That they 
insisted upon equity rather than U[)on reiined tech- 
nicalities in the administration oi their law is 
seen in the following: 'Resolved that to avoid 
difficulty growing out of the circumstance of 
persons extending their improvements accidentally 
on the claims of others before the Lines were 
run thereby giving the first [settler] an oppor- 
tunity or advantage of Preemption over the right- 
ful owner that any persons who hold such ad- 
vantages shall immediately relinquish all claim 
thereto to the proper owner and any one refusing 
so to do shall forfeit all claim to the right of 
protection of the association.' For the speculator 
who sometimes attended the land sales the sqqat- 
ters had little respect; so they 'Resolved that for 
the purpose of guarding our rights against the 
speculator we hereby pledge ourselves to stand by 
each other and to remain on the ground until all 
sales are over if it becomes necessary, in order 
that each and every settler may be secured in the 
claim or claims to which he is justly entitled by 
the Laws of this association.' . . . The Sqiiatter 
Constitutions stand for the beginnings of local 
political institutions in Iowa. They were the 
fundamental law of the first governments of the 
pioneers. They were the fullest embodiment of 
the theory of 'Squatter Sovereignty.' They were, 
indeed, fountains of that spirit of Western Democ- 
racy which permeated the social and political life 
of America during the igth century. But above 
all they expressed and, in places and under condi- 
tions where temptations to recklessness and law- 
lessness were greatest, they effectively upheld the 
foremost civilizing principle of Anglo-Saxon polity 
— the Rule of Law." — Ibid., pp. 31-33, 36-40, 46- 
47. 63. 

1838. — Organized as territory. — "Since the 
Iowa country was praotically uninhabited prior to 
1830, the earlier Territorial government . . . had 
for Iowa only a nominal political significance." In 
1836 an act was passed by Congress creating the 
territory of Wisconsin (see Wisconsin: 1805-1848). 
of which the Iowa country formed a considerable 
part. Scarcely had the act gone into effect when 
the agitation for the separation of Iowa frorn 
Wisconsin was launched. "The people of Des 
Moines county were among the first to take for- 
mal action on what may be called the first vital 
question in the history of the constitutions of 
Iowa." But it was not until June. 1838, that 
Congress passed an act creating the Territory of 
Iowa, in the face of no small opposition on the 
part of southern members, jealous of the balance 
of power between North and South. "The spirited 
debate, which took place in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, on the question of the establishment 
of the Territorial government of low-a disclosed 
the fact that the creation of a new Territory at 
this time west of the Mississippi and north of 
ML-souri was of more than local interest ; it was, 
indeed, an event in the larger history of America. 
Some few men were beginning to realize that the 
rapid settlement of the Iowa country v/as not an 
isolated provincial episode but the surface mani- 
festation of a current that was of National depth." 
— B. F. Shambaugh, History of the constitution 
of ff.ia. pp. 67-68. 

1838-1848. — Territorial officials appointed. — 
Iowa-Missouri boundary controversy. — Change 
of capital. — "Provision was made for the Presi- 

dent of the United States, by and with the advice 
of the Senate, to appoint a governor, a secretary, 
a chief justice, two associate justices, a United 
States attorney, and a marshal, to take charge of 
this new Territory and see that law and order pre- 
vailed within Its borders. . . . The governor was 
appointed for three years, and the other officers 
for four years. . . . Robert Lucas, formerly Gov- 
ernor of Ohio, was selected by the President to 
be the first chief executive. ... He at once 
caused a census to be taken, apportioned the 
members of the legislature between the counties 
and issued a proclamation for an election of dele- 
gates to Congress and members of the legislature. 
He estabhshed the temporary seat of Territorial 
government at Burlington, and convened there the 
first Legislature of Iowa on the 12th of No- 
vember, 1838. . . . The first Legislature very bit- 
terly disagreed with the governor respecting the 
meaning of the organic act, which denned the 
respective powers of the governor and the legis- 
lature. ... As a consequence of these differences 
of opinion as to the legal prerogatives of the ex- 
ecutive and the legislative departments, the Gov- 
ernor became prejudiced in feeling and was less 
disposed to yield his official opinion as to authority 
and rights than he otherwise would have been, 
and hence very little effective business was pos- 
sible, since controversy absorbed the time and 
attention of the members. The Governor's veto 
being absolute, he used it so effectively as entirely 
to annul all acts of the Legislature that did not 
personally appeal to him as being for the best 
interests or even as not being put in the best 
way as to language. . . . The Legislature claimed 
that he exceeded his authority. . . . When the 
legislature, found that threats, abuse, resolutions, 
and arguments did not move him, the next attempt 
was to remove him from office, and a mernorial 
was sent to the President of the United States 
declaring his unfitness and stubbornness, as well 
as his arbitrariness and usurpations, and praying, 
in the strongest terms for his immediate and un- 
conditional removal from office. President Van 
Buren did not approve of the demand from the 
Legislature, and hence Governor Lucas remained in 
office until there was a change in the adminis- 
tration of the Federal government. The difficulties 
that had arisen between the Governor and the 
Legislature, and the very frequent use of the ab- 
solute veto power by the governor, attracted the 
attention of Congress, and seme amendments were 
made to the organic law permitting the legisla- 
ture to pass a measure over the governor's, veto 
by a two-thirds vote, and also authorizing the 
legislature to pass laws permitting the people to 
elect all their local officers thus far appointed 
by the governor. ... As a consequence of the 
large controversy that had occurred at the ses- 
sion of the first legislature, the issue of the 
next election was the curtailing the power of the 
governor and the increasing the power of the 
people and their representatives, the members of 
the legislature. 'Home rule' was a doctrine on 
these prairies, and tyranny and dictatorships were 
condemned as out of conformity with .American 
institutions. ._ . . During this time the boundary 
line between' Missouri and Iowa became a point 
of contest between the authorities of the State 
of Missouri and of the Territory of Iowa. On 
the i8th of June. 1838, Congress took steps to 
settle the growing controversy by passing a law 
to have the southern boundary of Iowa ascertained 
and marked. This act provided for a boundary 
commissioner from each commonwealth, and one 
from the United States. Missouri declined to be 


IOWA, 1838-1848 

Application for 

IOWA, 1846 

represented upon this commission, and attempted 
lo exercise jurisdiction north of the Indian Boun- 
dary Line, surveyed and marked in iSib by John 
C. Sullivan, by direction of the surveyor-general 
of the United States, and up to this time ac- 
cepted as the regularly authorized boundary hne 
between Iowa and Missouri. The attempt to col- 
lect taxes north of this hne in Van Buren county, 
by the sheriff of Clark county, Missouri, precipi- 
tated the conflict. Immediately the Iowa authori- 
tie.s proposed to leave the adjustment of the 
controversy to Congress, but the Missouri au- 
thorities proposed to assert the rights of the 
State by armed force. . . . Governor Lucas met 
this proposition by a rejoinder that this was not 
a controversy between a State and a Territory, 
but between Missouri and the United States, and, 
as a representative of the latter, he would hold 
possession at all hazards of all territory north of 
the Sullivan boundary line, and see to it that citi- 
zens of the United States were protected in their 
rights, and the laws faithfully and fully executed. 
To this end he called out the militia of the Ter- 
ritory to aid the civil authorities in the enforce- 
ment of law and order. Proclamations were issued 
by both governors, and war seemed to be prom- 
ised in case of an invasion of Iowa by the Missouri 
militia; and anyone acquainted with the char- 
acter of Governor Lucas could understand with 
what kind of a person the Missouri claimants had 
to deal, and that he would have done his very 
best to carry out his proclamation. Seeing the firm 
stand taken by Iowa, and surprised at the po- 
sition of defense assumed, the Missouri authorities 
allowed the whole matter to be referred to the 
United States Supreme Court, by whose decision 
all the territory claimed by Iowa was approved 
December, 1848. ... On the 30th day" of April, 
1841, Governor Lucas issued a proclamation chang- 
ing the capital from Burlington to Iowa City, 
and convening the legislature on the first Monday 
of December, 1841. Governor Chambers accepted 
this conclusion, and moved the seat of government 
to the temporary capitol building provided by 
the citizens of Iowa City, until the permanent 
buildings being erected should be completed. Thus 
Iowa City became the permanent capital of the 
Territory and the temporary capital of the State." 
— H. H. Seerley and L. W. Parish, History and 
civil government of Iowa {State Government 
Series, B. A. Hinsdale, ed., pp. 44-53). 

1839-1844. — Application for statehood. — Dis- 
cussion in Congress over boundaries. — In i83g. 
Governor Lucas launched a movement for the es- 
tablishment of a state government. At the First 
Constitutional Convention held at Iowa City, 1844, 
a constitution was drawn up under Democratic 
leadership which was submitted simultaneously to 
the people and to Congress. In order to pre- 
serve the balance of power between the North and 
South, Florida was paired with Iowa in the act 
for admission. (See U. S. A.: 1845: Preserving the 
equilibrium between slave and free states.) "The 
proposed Constitution of Florida not only sanc- 
tioned the institution of Slavery, but it positively 
guaranteed its perpetuation by restraining the Gen- 
eral Assembly from ever passing laws under which 
slaves might be emancipated. On the other Jiand 
• the Constitution of Iowa, although it did not 
extend the privilege of suffrage to persons of 
color, provided that 'neither slavery nor involun- 
tary servitude, unless for the punishment of 
crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State.' Now 
it so happened that the opposing forces of slave 
labor and free labor, of 'State Rights' and 'Union,' 
came to an issue over the boundaries of the pro- 

posed State of Iowa, . . . [Duncan, of Ohio, pro- 
posed an amendment reducing the size of the state. 
These were the boundaries proposed by U. S. 
Geologist Nicollet m 1845.] . . . Mr. Belser, of 
Alabama, was opposed to the Duncan amendment 
since it 'aimed to admit as a State only a portion 
of Iowa at this time. This he would have no 
objection to, provided Florida was treated in the 
same way. He was for receiving both into the 
Confederacy, with like terms and restrictions.' . . . 
Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, was the most vigorous cham- 
pion of the Duncan amendment. He stood out 
firmly for a reduction of the Lucas boundaries 
proposed by the Iowa Convention because the 
country to the North and West of the new State, 
'from which two other States ought to be formed,' 
would be left in a very inconvenient shape, and 
because the formation of such large States would 
deprive the West of 'its due share of power in the 
Senate of the United States.' Mr. Vinton was 
'particularly anxious that a State of unsuitable 
extent should not be made in that part of the 
Western country, in consequence of the unwise and 
mistaken policy towards that section of the Union 
which has hitherto prevailed in forming Western 
States, by which the great valley of the Mississippi 
has been deprived, and irrevocably so, of its due 
share in the legislation of the country.' As an 
equitable compensation to the West for this in- 
justice he would make 'a series of small States' on 
the West bank of the Mississippi. Furthermore, 
Mr. Vinton did not think it politic to curtail the 
power of the West in the Senate of the United 
States by the establishment ol large States, since 
in his opinion 'the power of controUing this gov- 
ernment in all its departments may be more safely 
intrusted to the West than in any other hands.' 
The commercial interests of the people of the West 
were such as to make them desirous of protecting 
the capital and labor both of the North and the 
South. Again, he declared that if disunion should 
ever be attempted 'the West must and will rally to 
a man under the fiag of the Union.' . . . The ar- 
guments for restriction prevailed, and the Duncan 
amendment, which proposed to substitute the A';- 
collet boundaries for the Lucas boundaries, passed 
the House of Representatives by a vote of ninety- 
one to forty. In the Senate the bill as reported 
from the House was hurried through without much 
debate. . . . The news that Congress had, by the 
act of March 3, 1845, rejected the boundaries pre- 
scribed by the Iowa Convention reached the Ter- 
ritory just in time to determine the fate of the 
Constitution of 1S44. [It was rejected by the 
people, resubmitted, and rejected again.]" — B. F. 
Shambaugh, History of the constitution of Iowa, 
pp. 245-251. 

Ig46. — Second constitutional convention. — Ad- 
mission to union. — Election. — Mormon emigra- 
tion. — The Constitution of 1846, drawn up by the 
Second Constitutional Convention was modeled 
upon that of 1844. Of great significance were 
the reduced boundaries and the increased hostility 
to banking institutions which in the new draft 
were entirely prohibited. Tn spite of bitter Whig 
opposition, the new constitution was adopted by 
the people on August 3, the president signed the 
act of admission on August 4, and on December 
28 the commonwealth of Iowa was declared to be 
one of the United States of America. Throughout 
Iowa, the first free state in the Louisiana Pur- 
chase, "there was a satisfaction with the new po- 
litical status which came with the establishment 
of State government and admission into the LTnion. 
... On the other hand, the people of Iowa did not 
accept their new State Constitution without rescr- 


IOWA, 1846 

Admission lo Union 
Establishment of University 

IOWA, 1848-1860 

vations. . . The people were anxious to pet into 
the Union, and they voted for the Constitution 
as the shortest road to admission. They meant to 
correct its errors afterwards." — B. F. Shambaugh, 
Hiitory of the constitulion of lovia, ppjiio-iii. 
— "After the people ratified the proposed consti- 
tution at a popular election and Congress had ac- 
cepted the change in boundaries, arrangements be- 
gan to be made to provide for a change from the 
Territorial to the State government. To accom- 
plish and have everything ready as soon as Con- 
gri.-.-s .should pass the act of admission as a State, 
(lovernor James Clark Lssucd a proclamation stat- 
ing the facts and appointing October 26, 1846, as 
the lime to elect State officers and members of the 
general assembly. . . . The election returns proved 
that the Democrats were in the majority, notwith- 
standing the party controversies, and had elected 
the governor, Ansel Briggs, and other State officers; 
but there was still much cause for anxiety, because' 
dissensions over local matters had deprived the 
dominant party of certain representatives that were 
essential to the election of United States senators 
and supreme Judges, and had resulted in electing 
other persons, whose position on party questions 
was not ceitainly to be depended upon at the meet- 
ing of the General .\ssembly. . . . On the assem- 
bling of the members of the first State legislative 
body, certain designing politicians, who were not 
directly identified with either of the two great 
parties, became the balance of power between the 
opposing factions, and proposed to dictate the elec- 
tion of United Stales senators and also supreme 
judges. . . . During the electioneering and political 
excitement connected with the proposed election of 
Inited States senators, a member, Nelson King, 
made the charge of an attempt to bribe him to 
secure his vote for the Democratic candidates, .\. C. 
Dodge and J. C. Hall. . . . This charge led to an 
e.xtended investigation, in which nothing was satis- 
factorily proven, but on account of the tie between 
the Democrats and Whigs and the hostilities that 
thus were developed, no election resulted and the 
legislature adjourned, but not without having ac- 
tually transacted business worthy of mention. Iowa 
was not represented in the Senate of the United 
States for the first two years of her statehood. 
.\ftcr the adjournment of the general assembly, the 
governor appointed the judges of the supreme 
court, and started, by so doing, this department of 
the State government. . . . The first General As- 
sembly found the new State government in debt 
for Territorial expenditures by .?26,oco, and with 
no provision for payment. The members of the 
constitutional convention had not been paid, and 
there was no money to pay the salaries of the new 
State officers or the General Assembly. To meet 
these emergencies, a loan of .550,000 was author- 
ized, and at once half the possible constitutional 
indebtedness was contracted." — H. H. Seerley and 
L. W. Parish, History and civil government of 
Iowa (State Government Series, B. .^. Hinsdale, 
cd., pp. 63, 65-67). — See also State government: 
1800- 1850.— "In the summer of 1846, following 
almost in the wake of the departing Sacs and 
Foxes, the Mormons from \auvoo, Illinois, passed 
through Iowa on their way to Salt Lake City. 
They did more than pass through. They opened 
a great highway from river to river in southern 
Iowa over which immicration continued to move 
until the coming of the railroads, two decades later, 
and along which many settlements .sprang up." — 
C. Cole. History of the people of Iowa, p. 223. — 
See also Mormonism: 1846-1848. 

1847-1857. — University of Iowa established. — 
Grimes elected governor. — First railroad. — In- 

dian massacre at Indian Lake. — "The second 
general assembly 11847] . . . decided to establish 
a State university, and, to insure its support, to 
dispose of the two townships of land given by 
Congress for that purpose. The main institution 
was located at Iowa City. One branch was to be 
at Dubuque and one at Fairfield, while normal 
schools were also to be established at Andrew, 
Oskaloosa, and Mt. Pleasant, respectively. . . . 
There was a . . . delay in carrying out this legis- 
lative plan for higher education . . . but in the 
meantime better counsels prevailed, this policy of 
scattering the schools was repealed, and all the 
funds were applied to the main institution at Iowa 
City. . . . From the beginning of Territorial gov- 
ernment in 183S to the year 1854, the Defnocratic 
party was in power, controlling all the legislation 
and dictating the policy of Constitution and laws. 
With the advent of a new school of politics, repre- 
sented by the supporters of Governor James W. 
Grimes and fwhat was later] the Republican party, 
there came a growing conviction that a new con- 
stitution, more in accord with modern notions, 
should be framed. . . . The hard times, that were 
beginning to be felt in the whole country, together 
with the great controversy regarding the slavery 
question that was attracting so much attention at 
this period of history, added to these matters above 
stated, led to the defeat of the Democratic party 
in 1854, and to the victory of the Republicans 
I Whigs], in the electing of James W. Grimes as 
Governor and a General .Assembly in harmony 
with him, that began to legislate to rcoriianize the 
State government in accordance with the views the 
party represented. ... In 1854, the first railroad 
in Iowa was built from Davenport to Iowa 
City, a distance of fifty-five miles, the first rail 
having been laid in Davenport in May of that year, 
at or near highwater mark on the banks of the 
Mississippi river. . . . During the intense political 
controversies that were pending in the Nation, little 
attention was given to the Indian outrages on the 
frontier. . . . The m.as5acre that occurred in 1857 
at Spirit Lake cannot be explained by any wrong 
on the part of the white man, as its perpetrators 
were a lawless, reckless band of thieves, robbers, 
and murderers. In this massacre more than fifty 
white people lost their lives." — H. H. Seerley and 
L. W. Parish, Hiitory and civil government of 
Iowa (State Government Series, B. A. Hinsdale, 
cd., pp. 76-77, 82-83, 86, loo-ioi). 

1848-1860. — Political phases. — Organization of 
Republican party. — Ralph P. Lowe, first Repub- 
lican governor. — ".\11 representatives from Iowa 
in congress up to 1855 were Democrats, with one 
exception. In 1848, on the face of the returns 
Daniel F. Miller, a Whig, received a majority in 
the First congres.sional district. But by throwing 
out the votes cast by the Mormons at Kanesville, 
his opponent, William Thompson, was declared 
elected. When Miller contested the seat, the house 
of representatives declared it vacant, on June 
twenty-ninth, 1850. In a special election then held 
Miller was elected by a majority of two hundred 
and fifty-seven votes. In the election of 1854, 
James Thorington was elected to congress from the 
same district, being carried through on the Grimes 
tidal wave of that year. .Although the party was 
not then in actual existence, he has been styled the 
first Republican congressman from Iowa. Thorn- 
ington devoted himself largely to getting the rail- 
road land grant made by congress. In 1855 the 
Whigs "elected for the first time the judges of the 
supreme court, George G. Wricht chief justice, and 
William G. Woodward and Norman W. Isbell asso- 
ciate justices. ... In 1855 the Democrats made a 


IOWA, 1848-1860 

Constitutional Convention 

IOWA, 1857-1863 

strenuous effort to reverse the Whig majority of 
1854, in the election for minor state officers, but the 
Whigs surprised them as well as themselves by 
almost doubling their majorities of two years be- 
fore. But if that election was fatal to Democratic 
hopes, it was not less so to the Whig party. The 
Whigs were not able to grasp the new issues. They 
had compromised so often that they had lost all 
political courage. As a party, they had been 
weighed in the balance and found wanting. The 
victories that had been won in Iowa in their name 
were victories founded in the moral courage of 
James W. Grimes, and Mr. Grimes found that he 
was no longer in harmony with what had been his 
party. As early as 1855 he wrote approving a 
movement 'to wipe their hands of Whiggery.' It 
could not do the work he had in mind. The new 
alignments that were necessary to do that work 
were then impending. It was the passage of the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill which brought the new align- 
ments about. In the face of new issues men felt 
free to act along new lines. There were Wh'gs 
who believed in slavery. They were called 'silver 
grays.' Eventually they went to the Democrats, 
who believed in slavery. There were free soil 
Democrats, and these eventually united with the 
free soil Whigs to form the organization called the 
Republican party. Governor Grimes became one 
of the guiding minds in the new organization. 'I 
am sanguine,' he wrote to Salmon P. Chase of 
Ohio, on May twelfth, 1855, 'that we shall organize 
a party that will carry the elections in most of 
the northern states in 1856, and in all of them in 
i860.' In Ripon, Wisconsin, a free soil Whig and 
a free soil Democrat unitedly isued a call for an 
anti-slavery meeting to be held at Jackson, Michi- 
gan, and that place has been called the birthplace 
of the Republican party. In Iowa it was not until 
the third of January, 1856, that a similar call was 
issued, for a meeting to be held at Iowa City on 
Februarj' twenty-second, Washington's birthday, 
'for the purpose of organizing a Republican party, 
to make common cause with a similar party 
already formed in several other states of the 
Union.' This call was signed by 'Many Citizens,' 
and was printed in many newspapers. It was 
probably written by Mr. Grimes. ... On the ap- 
pointed day so many came to the meeting that it 
had to be held in the hall of representatives in the 
state capitol. . . . The result was thirty-nine arti- 
cles of political faith. . . . The party was organized 
'to maintain the hberties of the people, the sov- 
ereignty of the states and the perpetuity of the 
Union.' . . . They were not abolitionists. Slavery 
was declared to be 'a local institution, beyond their 
reach and above their authority.' But they did not 
propose to let it spread to new territories. . . . The 
response of the people was instant. The new party 
swept the state. It elected majorities in both 
houses of the general assembly. . . . Under the new 
state constitution an election for governor was to 
be held in 1857. Governor Grimes did not seek 
reelection, and so Ralph P. Lowe of Keokuk, a 
judge of the district court, was nominated and 
Oran Faville of Mitchell County for lieutenant- 
governor, which was a new office. The Democrats 
named as their candidates for the same offices 
Ben M. Samuels and George Gillaspy. . . . The 
election, which was held in October, resulted in 
Republican majorities of about twenty-four hun- 
dred, majorities so small that they alarmed the 
Republicans and encouraged the Democrats in the 
beief that the new party was something merely 
ephemeral. Ralph P. Lowe was the first Repub- 
lican governor of the state, and he was also the 
first to be inducted into that office in Des Moines. 

His administration fell on evil days in Iowa, for 
the panic of 1857 was then in full effect. When the 
general assembly met, also for the first time in 
Des Moines, the retiring governor, James W. 
Grimes, was promptly elected to the United States 
senate to succeed George W. Jones, who received 
scant consideration at the hands of his own party." 
— C. Cole, History of the people of Iowa, pp. 309- 

1857. — Third constitutional convention. — "The 
act of January 24, 1855, calhng for the Conven- 
tion, provided for the revision or amendment oTE 
the Constitution. Many would have been satisfied 
with a few amendments. The Convention, how- 
ever, proceeded to draft a completely revised code 
of fundamental law. The two large volumes of 
printed reports show that the principles of Con- 
stitutional Law were discussed from Preamble to 
Schedule. The most important question before 
the Convention of 1857 was that of Corporations 
in general and of banking Corporations in particu- 
lar. . . . Ne.\t in importance to the question of 
Corporations was the Xegro problem. ... It was 
in respect to these vital questions of the hour that 
the Republican majority in the Convention was 
compelled to declare and defend its attitude. The 
fact that the Republican party of Iowa was thus 
being put on trial for the first time makes the de- 
bates of the Convention of 1857 memorable in the 
political annals of the State. But these Iowa Re- 
publicans were at the same time defining and 
defending the attitude of their party on National 
issues; and so the debates of the Iowa Convention 
are a source-book also in the broader history of 
America. No one can read the pages of these 
debates without feeling that Iowa was making a 
decided contribution to National Politics. Nearly 
four years before the 'Divided House Speech' was 
delivered at Springfield, Illinois, Governor Grimes 
had said in his inaugural address: 'It becomes the 
State of Iowa — the only free child of the Missouri 
Compromise — to let the world know that she 
values the blessings that Compromise has secured 
her, and that she will never consent to become a 
party to the nationalization of slavery.' And full 
two years before Lincoln defined the attitude of 
his party in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, it had 
gone forth from the Iowa Convention, (i) that the 
Republican party was not a sectional party; 
(2) that Abolition was not a part of the Republi- 
can creed; and (3) that, while they would arrest 
the further e.xtension of slavery. Republicans had 
no desire to interfere with the institution in places 
where it already existed. . . . The new Constitu- 
tion was submitted to the people for ratification at 
the regular annual election which was held on 
Monday, August 3, 1857. Naturally enough the 
Democrats, who had been in the minority in the 
Convention of 1857, opposed the adoption of this 
'Republican code.' The Republican party, how- 
ever, now had the confidence of the people and 
were able to secure its ratification by a majority 
of sixteen hundred and thirty votes. At the same 
time the special amendment which proposed to 
extend the right of suffrage to Negroes failed of 
adoption." — B. F. Shambaugh, History of the con- 
stitution of lo-wa, pp. 338-330, 342, 351-3,^2. 

1857-1863. — Samuel J. Kirkwood elected gov- 
ernor. — Gubernatorial contest of 1863. — "The 
slavery question was only one of many that 
troubled the politicians and statesmen of that time 
. . . The state was rife with scandals. One had 
to do with the location of the new capitol and 
another with the construction of the hospital at 
Mount Pleasant; the school funds had been mis- 
managed and one superintendent of public instruc- 


IOWA, 1857-1863 

Gubernatorial Contest 
Part in Civil War 

IOWA, 1860-1865 

lion was a defaulter; the land claimants along 
the river had a quarrel with the Ues Moines Navi- 
gation Company; in I'mveshiek County, Josiah B. 
Grinnell, the friend of John Brown, was defeated 
for reelection to the state senate, and in L)cs Moines 
County, Fit^ Henry Warren, one of the most bril- 
liant men of that era, tailed of election because 
the politicians had placed a foreign-born candi- 
date on the same ticket. Denials and defenses 
would no longer serve and so the Republicans pro- 
ceeded to investigate their own administration and 
to loimulate needed reforms, while over all hung 
the specter of the panic of 1857, which had filled 
the state with the wreckage of business, public 
and private. In the midst of such turmoil the 
governor, Ralph V. Lowe, good and amiable and 
honest, sat bewildered. He was not strong enough 
to cope with thing.-, as they were. When the time 
for nominating a candidate for the high office in 
185Q drew near, it was felt that his leadership 
would not be sufficient, and so he was prevailed 
upon to step aside, though he coveted a second 
term. . . . When the election was held, on the 
eleventh of October, Mr. Kirkwood received a ma- 
jority of 3.170 votes. The victory was a sub- 
stantial, but not wholly satisfactory, one to the 
Republicans. . . . For the presidential election in 
1800 the Republicans held their state convention 
on January eighteenth, and the Democrats on 
February twenty-second. The Democrats selected 
delegates favorable to the candidacy of Stephen 
A. Douglas, but the Republicans were divided in 
their opinions. There was perhaps more Seward 
than Lincoln sentiment in the state. . . . Politi- 
cally, 1863 was an important year in Iowa. Gov- 
ernor Kirkwood's second term was about to expire, 
and he refused to be a candidate for reelection, 
though he was much urged to do so. . . . The 
Republican state convention was held that year 
at Des Moines on the seventeenth of June. For 
governor the two leading contestants were Elijah 
Sells, of many political memories, and Fitz Henry 
Warren, the cavalry leader [author of the famous 
letters 'On to Richmond' in which he outlined a 
vigorous offensive policy; but at the eleventh hour 
Colonel William Stone captured the nomination, 
thus throwing both Sells and Warren out of the 
contest). ... On the eighth of July the Demo- 
crats held their convention in Des Moines. ... A 
committee then named James M. Tuttle, the hero 
of Donelson, who had just won new laurels at 
Vicksburg, where he had commanded a brigade. 
He was persuaded to accept the nomination, but in 
his letter of acceptance he virtually rejected the 
platform of his party so far as it referred to the 
war. ... In the election, Stone received 86,122 
votes against 47,048 cast for Tuttle. By a special 
enactment of the general assembly soldiers in the 
field were permitted to vote, and they cast 16,701 
for Stone against 2,004 for Tuttle." — C. Cole, llis- 
tor\ of the people of Iowa, pp. 320, 321;, 363-,!64, 
1860-1865.— Part played in Civil War.— Re- 
election of Kirkwood. — "The issues over which 
the Civil War was fought be^an to take definite 
form during the administration of Governor Grimes. 
. . . Iowa soon became involved in the negro 
question over which armed men were fighting in 
Kansas. Anti-slavery and pro-slavery men were 
being rushed into that territory, each in an at- 
tempt to out-vote the other. The south sent its 
guerillas, and the north its fanatics. . . . For free 
men, Iowa was the highway to Kansas, and her 
soil became a recruiting ground. The state w.-is 
also a highway for fugitive slaves who were 
conducted along what were called Underground rail- 
ways which led to Canada, where slave laws 

passed in Washington were not effective. . . . While 
Iowa was confronted with such questions, John 
Brown was passing back and forth throuy^ the 
state. He first came to Iowa on his Kansas mis- 
sions in September of 1857. ... On the twentieth 
of December, 18O0, within six weeks after the 
election of Abraham Lincoln, the first act of se- 
cession was passed, by the state of South Carolina. 
. . . Iowa at that time did not have even an 
organized militia. Military preparations had been 
made legislative jests. Even in that very year, 
i8bo, when Governor Lowe had asked for a law 
to organize the militia, the committee on military 
affairs had replied that they were unanimously 
opposed to it. But, fortunately, there were in the 
st.ile many volunteer companies. . . . Early in 
January they began tendering their services to the 
governor. . . . Iowa's allotment of troops was one 
regiment, of ten companies of seventy-eight men 
each, 'for immediate service.' . . . The governor 
immediately Issued a call for the First Iowa Regi- 
ment of infantry. ... A tidal wave of patriotism 
swept over the state. War meetings became the 
order of the day. To save the Union became the 
religion of the people. For the time being par- 
tisan differences were forgotten. . . . Within a 
week twenty-one companies were tendered to the 
governor. The call for troops was Issued on the 
seventeenth of April, and by the eighth of May 
the ten companies of the F'irst regiment were all 
in Keokuk, the place of rendezvous. . . . Those 
for whom there was no room in the F'irst regi- 
ment were not only disappointed, but many of 
them became resentful. They blamed and criticised 
the governor. To keep the peace among the 
zealous patriots, the governor, without authority 
from the war department, created the Second regi- 
ment, and followed it with the Third, summoning 
them to assemble at Keokuk. He literally begged 
the war department to accept these willing men. 
'1 am overwhelmed with applications,' he wrote. 
'I can raise ten thousand men in this state in 
twenty days.' To satisfy the clamorous ones on 
the Missouri, he authorized the creation of the 
F'ourth regiment at Council Bluffs. But while 
men were willing to serve, neither the national 
nor the state government could supply them with 
arms. 'For God's sake, send us arms,' was the 
governor's appeal, 'we have the men to use them.' 
The state treasury was so empty and so poor 
that the governor wanted to avoid the expense of 
an extraordinary session of the general assem- 
bly, but when it was assembled, on the fifteenth of 
May, R. D. Kellogg, a Democrat, moved a reso- 
lution that 'the faith, credit and resources of 
the state of Iowa, both in men and money' be 
pledged to the national government. The resolu- 
tion was passed by a unanimous vote. . . . The 
fruits of the first war enthusiasm had been the 
ten regiments of infantry, the four regiments of 
cavalry, and the three batteries already noted. But 
in September the governor had to make an ap- 
peal for more men. . . . Four more regiments of 
infantry were soon in being, and the Fourth Cav- 
ilry was completed. The Fifteenth and the Six- 
teenth regiments of infantry were recruited during 
the winter months, and the Seventeenth and 
Eighteenth were projected but not filled until the 
following spring and summer. twenty-four 
units, eighteen infantry, four cavalry, and two 
batteries, constituted the state's offerings for the 
first year of the war. The state had been called 
upon to furnish 10.316 men and it offered 21,037. 
... In the midst of these momentous events. Gov- 
ernor Kirkwood was reelected. ... In the form of 
distinct organizations, Iowa contributed to the 


IOWA, 1867-1868 

Organization of 

IOWA, 1873-1898 

war forty regiments of infantry, nine of cavalry, 
and four batteries. All enlistments except the First 
regiment had been for three year terms. . . . The 
exact number of men enlisted during the war can 
never be known, for many of the early records 
were improperly kept and some were lost. . . . The 
records in the adjutant general's office in Des 
Moines show a total of 79,05g enlistments, includ- 
ing the reenlistraents. Reduced to a three-year 
basis, Iowa's quotas under the various calls of 
the government aggregated 61,220 men, but the 
state furnished on the same basis 68,630. . . . On 
estimates of population, two-thirds of the men of 
military age entered the service, and they consti- 
tuted above nine per cent of the total population. 
Of the Iowa soldiers, 12,368 were dead when 
the war closed, or almost one-fifth of all in the 
service." — C. Cole, History of the people of Iowa, 
pp. 285, 314, 315, 331, 333-335. 345-346. 372. 

Also in: B. F. Cue, History of Iowa from the 
earliest times, v. 4, p. iiq. 

1867-1868. — James W. Grimes and the im- 
peachment of President Johnson. — "The differ- 
ences between the congress and Johnson reached 
their first climax in 1867. ... At no time had he 
[Senator James VV. Grimes] been in sympathy with 
the president. He had branded some of his acts 
as foolish and others as wicked. But he could 
not persuade himself that he was guilty of the 
high crimes and misdemeanors for which presi- 
dents are impeachable. Above all else, he doubted 
the policy of impeachments. He did not want to 
introduce into the United States the methods of 
the Latin republics, 'where the ruler is deposed 
the moment popular sentiment sets against him.' 
When the senator's attitude drew criticism he 
prepared 'An Opinion,' in which he defended his 
own views. In this able presentation of the issues 
he questioned the wisdom of destroying 'the har- 
monious working of the constitution for the sake 
of getting rid of an unacceptable president.' He 
said also that he was opposed to 'an approval 
of impeachments as a part of the future political 
machinery.' Rather than make such a departure 
he would bear with the idiosyncrasies of an erring 
executive. He said he was not enough of a par- 
tisan to bow to party necessities, nor did he con- 
sider the charges against the president sufficiently 
proved. The senator took this position against 
the advice of nearly all his friends, both political 
and personal. . . . But the worry and the stress 
and the strain of it all brought on a stroke of 
apople.xy. When the time came to vote on im- 
peachment, he was carried into the senate chamber 
on a litter. The chief justice excused him from 
arising to cast his vote, but with uplifted head 
he voted no, while his colleague, Senator Harlan, 
who had recently left the president's cabinet, voted 
yes." — C. Cole, History of the people of Iowa, 
pp. 383-385.— See also U. S. A,: 1868. 

1873-1874. — Organization of Grangers. — Rise 
of Anti-Monopoly party. — The farmers' cam- 
paign against the railroads was carried on under the 
auspices of the Grangers, known also as Patrons 
of Husbandr>'. Although non-political in purpose, 
it was one of the prime movers in the rise of the 
Anti-Monopoly party. "The sources from which 
the Anti-Monopoly party in Iowa sprang were 
the same as those from which similar parties 
sprang in neighboring states. Like all the people 
of the central West the people of Iowa were at 
first very friendly to railroads, and they were 
very slow to resent the growing abuses. For years 
no attempt was made to check the growth of 
evils, but at last the patience of the people was 
exhausted. The abuses were not confined to one 

state and the demand for their removal arose 
simultaneously in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois 
and Iowa. Fanned by the arrogant attitude of 
the railroad managers the new party movement 
spread in a short time over the whole Northwest. 
The party went under a number of names such 
as the 'New party,' the 'Anti-Monopoly party,' th; 
'People's party,' the 'Farmers' and Laboring Men's 
party,' and the 'Reform party.' . . . After all it 
was really an 'opposition party' — the first of a 
succession of parties based upon economic issues, 
a party of protest and discontent, an unconscious 
effort to grapple with new problems which were 
only vaguely understood. Parties before the Civil 
War had dealt with political, constitutional, and 
moral is.sues. The Anti-Monopoly movement 
marked the lifting of the curtain upon the stage 
where the influences of wealth and democracy 
were to struggle for supremacy. . . . There was 
a growing demand for the regulation of railroad 
rates by legislation; the Republican party was 
in control and not inclined to give heed to this 
demand; and there was a movement on the part 
of the farmers to organize a new political party. 
The activity of the farmers was the more im- 
portant because in Iowa there had been organized 
more local granges than in any other state in 
the Union. In February, 1873, while the legisla- 
ture was in special session to revise the Code, the 
State Grange met at Des Moines; and the influence 
of 1200 Republican farmers at the capital, talking 
to members and asserting that their organization 
would control the next legislature, seems to have 
been the most important factor in securing the 
passage of a law fixing maximum pa.ssenger rates. 
. . . During the months of May and June, 1873, 
the newspapers gave accounts of conventions called 
by the Grangers to nominate candidates for county 
offices and for seats in the legislature. Finally, a 
call was issued . . . for a State Convention which 
met at Des Moines on August 13th. At the open- 
ing there were present two hundred persons. . . . 
Jacob G. Vale was nominated for governor and 
a platform was adopted expressing demands much 
the same as those of the Illinois Independents. . . . 
\.\i the same time] the Republicans held their 
state convention, renominated Governor Cyrus C. 
Carpenter, and adopted a platform favorable to 
the demands of the farmers. ... A friendly ac- 
count of !he .Anti-Monopoly campaign described 
it as unorganized and without leaders, . . . Under 
such circumstances the new party could not carry 
on a very effective campaign. . . . The result of 
the election, however, was a considerable reduction 
in the Republican majority." — F. E. Haynes, Third 
party movements since the Civil War, pp. 67-74. 
1873-1898. — Social legislation. — Granger law. 
— Liquor laws. — Status of women. — State 
Board of Control. — "In 1873 the Republicans 
found the grace to say that 'the producing, com- 
mercial and industrial interests of the country 
should have the best and cheapest modes of trans- 
portation possible,' and . . . that 'actual capital 
invested' in transportation companies should still 
have 'reasonable compensation.' . . . Abuses, ex- 
cessive rates, and discriminations in charges were 
denounced . . . The Democrats . . . abandoned 
their own party organization entirely to make room 
for a new anti-monopoly party, which proclaimed 
the legislative regulation of all corporations and 
the making of maximum railroad rates by law. . . . 
It was a period of financial distress for which 
many remedies were proposed. One of the reme- 
dies was a law that remade the railroad world. 
Passenger rates were fixed at three and four cents 
a mile, the higher rates for the poorer roads. 


IOWA, 1873-1898 

Social Legislation 
State Board of Control 

IOWA, 1874-1908 

and for freipiht purposes the railroads were di- 
vided into four classes and schedules of rates to 
be char>;ed were enacted for each class. All dis- 
criminations between communities and between 
individuals were made unlawful. Rates and serv- 
ices were to be for all alike. This legislation 
became known as the Granger Law. The author 
of the bill was Frank T. Campbell, who after- 
wards became lieutenant governor of the state. 
. . . The law was approved by Governor Carpen- 
ter. The railroads protested what they called con- 
fiscatory legislation. . . . But they linally agreed 
to give the new rates a fair trial, all except the 
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, which se- 
cured a temporary injunction against the rates 
being put into effect. The injunction was dissolved 
by Judge John F. Dillon of the Federal court, 
who upheld the right of the legislature to regulate 
and fi.x railroad charges. His decision was later 
sustained in the supreme court of the United 
States. It was then regarded as an epochal vic- 
tory for the people." — C. Cole, History of the 
people of loica, pp. 414-415. — "The Granger laws 
have been and are still severely criticized by those 
opposed to the principles of State control and 
by the ignorant. It is nevertheless true that those 
laws were moderate, just and reasonably well 
adapted to remedy the evils of which the public 
complained. . . . The Iowa law was imperfect in 
detail and yet its enactment proved one of the 
greatest legislative achievements in the history 
of the state. It demonstrated to the people their 
ability to correct by earnestness and perseverance 
the most far-reaching public abuses and led to 
an emphatic judicial declaration of the common- 
law principle that railroads are high ways and 
as such are subject to any legislative control 
which may be deemed necessary for the public 
welfare." — W. Larrabee, Railroad question, pp. 
33--i3i- — See also U. S. A.: 1866-1877. — "But 
there were many who cared more for morals than 
for railroads or money, and these made the liquor 
laws of the state their paramount consideration. 
The prohibitory law of 1S55, with the wine and 
beer amendments of 1857 and 1858, was still on 
the statute books. During all the intervening 
years the sales of wine and beer had been legal, 
but not the sales of the stronger liquors. Never- 
theless, the stronger drinks had been sold. Those 
who were licensed to sell wine and beer sold also 
whiskey and gin. A minority had repeatedly 
sought to bring this issue to the front, but the 
two dominant parties had succeeded in evading 
thcii- importunities. But year by year the minority 
grew more insistent. .\t the meeting of the 
Woman's Christian Temperance Union, held at 
Burlington in October, 1878, Mrs. J. Ellen Foster 
of Clinton, proposed a constitutional amendment 
on the subject. The idea was soon endorsed by 
other temperance societies, includine the State 
Temperance .Alliance, and the politicians accepted 
it as a solution of their perpetual dilemma. They 
would abide by the decisfon of the people. The 
Republicans made it part of their platform in 
1878. and in 1S80 the general assembly pas.sed 
a joint resolution of .=ubmUsion. The liquor men 
protested, and the Democrats called it the 'most 
offensive form of sumptuary legislation.' but in 
1882, the joint resolution was passed the second 
time, as required by the constitution. On the 
twenty-ninth of July Governor Sherman formally 
declared the amendment a part of the organic 
law of the state. It was forthwith in force and 
effect, but no provision had been made for its 
enforcement. ... In many cities the councils 
licensed the liquor men to violate the law. When 

the political conventions were held that year, 
the Republicans disregarded the issue, holding to 
their theory that it was a non-partisan one, but 
the Democrats pledged themselves to resist the 
enforcement of the amendment and to get rid of 
it as soon as possible. The Republicans carried 
the state, but by largely reduced majorities. In 
the meantime, the amendment itself was declared 
invalid, within four months alter its adoption by 
the people. The decision to this effect was ren- 
dered by Judge Walter I. Hayes of Clinton, in 
a case brought before him in Scott county. . . . 
In the political campaign of 1883, the Democrats 
presented Judge Hayes as their candidate for judge 
of the supreme court. The Republicans followed 
the logic of the situation. They went before 
the people with a platform pledging the party 
to enact a law based on the rejected amendment. 
Buren R. Sherman was renominated for gov- 
ernor, and Orlando H. Manning of Carroll County 
was named for lieutenant governor on the strength 
of his phrase, 'A school house on every hill, and 
no saloon in the valley,' which became a state 
slogan. The Republicans were successful, and 
in 18S4 the legislature enacted statutory prohibi- 
tion, reviving and amending the prohibitory law 
of 1855, with the wine and beer clause eliminated, 
and this went into effect July fourth. . . . From 
1884 to 1896 are twelve years of political tur- 
moil in Iowa. Politics seemed the principal busi- 
ness of the people. It was a period of violent 
unscttlements and readjustments. Prohibition was 
a continuing issue that affected not only political 
conclusions, but even the business of the state. 
The railroad rate is.sue for a short time was 
even more virulent in its outbreak. . . . The status 
of women in official or even clerical positions was 
not well defined until 1876 when the Sixteenth 
General .Assembly passed a law enabling women to 
sit as school directors and to serve as county 
superintendents of schools. In 1872 Governor 
Carpenter made Ada E. North state librarian, 
probably the first woman in America to hold 
such a state office. The organization of clubs 
for various purposes among women did not begin 
until late in the seventies. The rejection of 
suffrage by the general assembly in 1884, how- 
ever, did not retard, but rather accelerated 
women's activities, and a meeting in 1885 of the 
Association for the Advancement of Women was 
notable. ... In the general assembly of i8q8, by 
far the most important bill passed was the one 
creating the State Board of Control, into whose 
care and keeping all the state institutions, with 
the exception of the educational ones, were placed. 
The old system of separate boards for each had 
long been unsatisfactory. Appropriations were 
made by favor and through legislative bargain- 
ing." — C. Cole, History of the people of Iowa, pp. 
417, 422-423, 447, 456-457, 507. 

1874-1908. — Later attempts at railway regu- 
lation. — The railroad law of 1874 was a radical 
measure adopted under the influence of the Anti- 
Monopoly party, but approved and administered 
by a Republican governor. The act h,is been 
cited as "perhaps the best example of an attempt 
to establish a fixed schedule of maximum rates 
and remained unrepealed longer than the similar 
acts of any of the other states. . . . The measure 
was finally repealed in 1878 as the result of a 
systematic campaign waged against it by the rail- 
roads, and in its place was substituted a commis- 
sion appointed by the Governor, with the power 
to give advice, but with no authority to enforce 
the advice. Excellent and well-known men were 
appointed and for many years a truce was es- 


IOWA, 1874-1908 

Railway Regulation 
State Board of Education 

IOWA, 1913-1914 

tablished between the people and the railroad 
managers on terms that had been devised by the 
corporations. All that had been gained by years 
of agitation was now surrendered. It took ten 
years to recover the lost ground and cost the 
people of the state millions of dollars. . . . The 
agitation that finally produced the Railroad act 
of i8S8 gradually took shape. 'Every year 
seemed to add to the grievances of the public. 
Success greatly emboldened the railway companies. 
Discriminations seemed to increase in number 
and gravity. . . . Repeated attempts were made 
in the General Assembly to secure the passage of 
an act looking to that end [that is, a more thor- 
ough control of the railroads], but owing to shrewd 
manipulations on the part of the railroad lobby, 
every attempt was defeated. . . . Railroad poli- 
ticians gradually lost their influence, and the 
symptoms of public discontent gradually increased.' 
The preliminary battles were fought in the Gen- 
eral Assembly of i8S6, while the contest reached a 
conclusion in 1888. . . . The three chief points [ad- 
vocated by Governor Larrabee in his biennial 
message in 1888] were (i) to prohibit free passes 
to public officials, (2) to make the Railroad Com- 
missioners elective, and (3) to give them power 
to fix freight and passenger rates. . . . The strong 
position taken by the Governor for legislative 
control of the railroads encouraged the advocates 
of such a measure in the legislature to frame 
a bill to deal adequately with the problem. It 
met with the most determined opposition from the 
railroads, but for the first time since 1874 they 
found an organization equal to their own, which 
could not be circumvented, intimidated or beaten. 
Bills making the commissioners elective for a 
term of three years and giving them power to 
regulate railroads and other common carriers 
(street railways excepted) easily passed the Gen- 
eral Assembly. . . . The abolition of free passes 
to public officials, however, failed again and that 
reform had to await another forward movement 
in the struggle between the people and the rail- 
roads. . . . For the period when this legislation 
was obtained its completeness and results were 
really remarkable; but the power of the rail- 
roads was only limited and an interval of relaxa- 
tion of agitation was bound to allow them to 
recover in other ways a considerable portion of 
their influence. . . . After another ten years much 
of the work had to be done over again and done 
more thoroughly. . . . The relation between the 
Progressive movement in Iowa and Wisconsin 
was literally that of both cause and effect so 
far as Iowa was concerned. Iowa was in advance 
of Wisconsin in 1804 when La Follette began his 
work in the latter state, and Iowa's experience was 
used by him as an example of better conditions 
as to railroad control. La Follette's agitation 
in turn was the inspiration, at least in part, of the 
reforms made under the administration of Gov- 
ernor Cummins from iqoi to 1008." — F. E. 
Haynes, Third party movements since the Civil 
War, pp. 435-446. 

1907. — Commission government started in Des 
Moines. See Commission government in Ameri- 
can cities: I go?. 

1909-1915. — State board of education created. 
— Other legislation. — "The State Board of Educa- 
tion was created and organized in igog, with James 
H. Trewin, later succeeded by D. D. Murphy of 
Clayton County, as chairman, and William R. 
Boyd of Linn County as chairman of the finance 
committee. The advent of this board meant a 
new era in the development of the state's educa- 
tional institutions. It brought the State Univer- 

sity, the State College at Ames, and the Teachers 
College at Cedar Falls, as well as the minor edu- 
cational institutions under one uniform and co- 
ordinated direction. With useless rivalries abol- 
ished and public confidence established, all the 
institutions made more rapid progress than ever 
before." — C. Cole, History of the people of Iowa, 
p. 531. — In igii, the office of counselor of com- 
merce was created, and the Sixteenth Federal 
Amendment (income tax) was ratified. In 1013, 
the enactments were a workman's compensation 
law, an Employers' Liability Act, a Presidential 
Primary Act, and a blue sky law, which was 
later declared unconstitutional. The number of 
supreme court judges was increased from six to 
seven, and the general assembly provided su- 
preme district and superior court judges should 
be nominated and elected on a non-partisan ticket. 
The Seventeenth Federal Amendment (direct elec- 
tion of senators) was ratified, and George W. 
Clarke was elected governor. In igi5, the state 
limited the working day of children under six- 
teen to eight hours, and provided for contract 
prison labor to dbplace the old system. 

1913-1914. — Proposed reorganization of state 
government. — "Since the adoption of the Consti- 
tution of 1857 there has been little constitutional 
change in the structure of State government in 
Iowa for at no time has a total revision of the 
Constitution been effected or favored by the peo- 
ple. The demands for expansion have been met 
chiefly through a statutory elaboration of the 
executive branch by the creation of new admin- 
istrative offices, boards, commissions, bureaus, and 
departments. Nor has there been thus far any 
considerable demand in Iowa for the reorgani- 
zation of the State government. . . . Apart from 
the agitation of such questions as the regulation 
of primary elections, equal suffrage, the initiative 
and referendum, and the debates on the estab- 
lishment of the Board of Control of State In- 
stitutions in i8q8 and the creation of the State 
Board of Education in igog, there has been little 
or no discussion of the problem of the reorgani- 
zation of State government in Iowa until very 
recently. Indeed, a lively interest in the problems 
of reorganization seems first to have found expres- 
sion in the Thirty-fifth General .'\ssembly which, 
besides endorsing the short ballo't principle by 
providing for the appointment of the State Su- 
perintendent of Public Instruction, the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court Reporter, 
authorized the Joint Committee on Retrenchment 
and Reform to employ "expert accountants and 
efficiency engineers' and to 'institute such changes 
in the administration of public affairs as will 
promote the efficiency and economical administra- 
tion of the affairs of the State in its various 
departments.' The sum of was appro- 
priated to meet the expenses of the proposed 
investigations. On September 13, 1013, the work 
of the expert accountants and efficiency engineers 
was terminated under instructions from the Com- 
mittee, and their final report . . . submitted under 
date of December 21, igi3. From the final report 
... it appears that the Efficiency Engineers, after 
making preliminary examinations of all the offices 
and departments located at the State capital, pro- 
ceeded with detailed investigations of the office 
of Governor, the office of the .'\uditor of State, 
the office of Treasurer of State, the office of the 
Executive Council, the office of the Board of 
Control, the office of the Board of Education, the 
office of the Custodian of Public Buildings, and 
the office of the Dairy and Food Commissioner. A 
report on the Department of Agriculture was 


IOWA, 1913-1914 

Cily Manager 

IOWA, 1915-1919 

presented on March 25, 1913, and a preliminary 
report on the heating plant was presented on 
May 21, 1913. . . . Detailed investigations were 
curtailed owing to lack of funds. Besides suR- 
gestinp more modern methods and recommending 
numerous economies in the work of the several 
offices and departments — especially in the executive 
branch of the government — the Kfficiency Engi- 
neers make some far-reaching rc-commendations 
relative to 'the reorganization of the executive 
functions' of State government. And they direct 
attention to the fact that the adoption of what 
they call their 'basic plan of reorganization' would 
not require the amendment or revision of the 
State Constitution. In other words, the reforms 
proposed could be brought about through ordi- 
nary legislative action. With respect to the legis- 
lative branch of the government the report pro- 
poses no organic change, but strongly urges the 
organization of a well equipped legislative ref- 
erence bureau in connection with the State Li- 
brary. The functions of such a bureau would 
be to collect information relative to current legis- 
lative problems, to draft bills for the members 
of the General Assembly, to furnish other depart- 
ments of government with information relative to 
the methods and precedents of other States, and to 
prepare and issue daily a record of all bills and 
resolutions introduced in the Senate and House 
of Representatives during the session of the Gen- 
eral Assembly. The judicial department of the 
State government was given only a cursory ex- 
amination by the Efficiency Engineers, who offer 
no recommendations in their report but call at- 
tention to a plan for the reorganization of the 
judiciary recently proposed by William R. Vance, 
Dean of the College of Law of the University 
of Minnesota, in an address delivered on January 
IS, IQ14, before the Bar Association of South 
Dakota — which plan they 'believe is well worthy 
of consideration.' The 'basic plan of reorganiza- 
tion' proposed in the report of the Efficiency 
Engineers relates primarily to the executive 
branch of the State government, and calls for 
no alterations in the State Constitution. It recog- 
nizes the fundamental principles of (i) the short 
ballot, (2) the concentration of authority and 
the location of responsibility, (3) the scientific 
budget, (4) the merit system, and (5) business 
efficiency." — F. E. Horack, Reorganization of state 
government in Iowa (lo'iva Applied History Series, 
V. 2. pp. 52-54). 

1914-1920. — City manager movement. — "Iowa 
has at the present time [1020] twelve cities op- 
erating under or pledged to the city manager 
plan. Only two of these, Dubuque and Webster 
City, have adopted commission-manager charters. 
The others have created the position of manager 
by ordinance in accordance with state law au- 
thorizing such action. Dubuque, [with a] popu- 
lation [ofl 30,141, adopted the Commission- 
manager plan January 26, 1020. The council of 
five took office on April 12, and the first manager, 
Ossian E. Carr, assumed duties June i, 1020. . . . 
The city-manager plan in Dubuque was originally 
advocated largely by labor organizations, and 
the election was carried chiefly through their ef- 
forts Of the five councilmcn, two are acknowl- 
edged labor leaders. The new administration is 
strongly supported by both labor and business 
interests. "The outgoing administration left the 
city with accounts badly over-drawn. Nearly 
$100,000 of current funds had been spent in ad- 
vance in addition to an inherited floating debt 
of some $250,000. The state auditor reported 
$550,000 in delinquent taxes on the city books. 

Manifestly the first things to be done were to 
curtail expenses and collect delinquent taxes. 
Within two weeks the city payroll had been 
reduced by $2,500 a month. In view of the 
local aversion to buying tax titles, upon the 
suggestion of one of the councilmen, a company 
was formed with an authorized capital of $300,000 
for the purpose of buying tax titles at the annual 
tax sale. Through publicity as to what was 
being planned, $150,000 in back taxes were paid 
into the treasury immediately i)reccding the De- 
cember tax sale. It is estimated that the fir.'it 
two years under the new plan will be devoted 
chiefly to straightening out municipal Imances, 
after which time due attention will be paid to 
installing needed improvements. . . . The three 
local newspapers and apparently a large majority 
of citizens are solidly behind the new form of 
government. . . . Webster City, with a population 
of S.6S7i bad a commission manager charter ef- 
fective October, 191 6. G. J. Long, the second 
manager, was appointed April, 191 7. ... It is 
worthy of note that Webster City has saved an 
average of $36,000 a year since adopting the man- 
ager plan. Mr. Long is ... a graduate engineer 
and experienced in municipal work. Clarinda, 
whose population is 4,511, adopted the Manager 
plan by ordinance April 1913. Henry Traxler, 
the second manager, was appointed May, loig. . . . 
Just prior to Mr. Traxler's appointment, the elec- 
tors had 'thrown out of office the so-called business 
type of council backed by the commercial club.' 
. . . The city has issued $20,000 worth of bonds 
which will be used in buying up some unsightly 
places and converting them into parks and play- 
grounds. The city owns and operates the only 
theatre in town, and offers many fine attractions. 
A public dance hall is under the superv-ision of 
the city . . . Mount Pleasant, population 4,170, 
adopted . .e manager plan by ordinance hprW 1016, 
with T. W. McMillan manager. . . . Iowa Falls, 
population 4,000, adopted the manager plan by 
ordinance May, 1914. J. O. Gregg, the second 
manager, was appointed May, 1917. . . . Mr. 
Gregg reports, 'W'ith the increased cost of every- 
thing, we have paid $7,500 this year on outstand- 
ing bonds issued in former years, and will com- 
plete the year with a cash balance in the city 
treasury of over $40,000, which practically offsets 
all outstanding indebtedness of all kinds of the 
city, this with a reduction in the tax levy.' . . . 
In Anamosa, population 3,000, the position of 
manager was created by ordinance May, 1019. 
W. F. Hathaway, who formerly held the triple 
position of city clerk, water commissioner, and 
city marshal, was made manager. [The other 
cities in Iowa that have adopted the manager 
plan are as follows: Shenandoah, population, 
5,750, October, 1920; Esterville, 4,200, May, loio; 
Maquoketa, 4,000, June, 1920; Manchester, 3,160, 
May, 1916; Villisca, 2.170, May, 1919; W'est Lib- 
erty, 2,000, April, 1920.]" — H. G. Otis, City- 
manager movement (National Municipal Review, 
Mar.. 1021). 

1915-1919. — Perkins law. — Creation of park 
system. — Road laws. — "In the development of the 
professional school of medicine at Iowa City, the 
first public hospital for crippled children was 
established under what is known as the Perkins 
law [1015]. It was provided that all children 
congenitally or otherwise deformed should receive 
surgical and medical care at public cost in all 
cases where parents and guardians were not able 
to provide such treatment. Under this system 
thousands of children who might otherwise have 
been compelled to go through life handicapped, 


IOWA, 1915-1919 

Part in World War 

IOWA, 1920 

have been restored to almost normal conditions. 
. . . The law has since been extended to adults 
under similar conditions. Another significant law 
provided for the creation of a system of state 
parks, for the purpose of preserving and main- 
taining for the people all the places of great 
historical associations and of admitted scenic nat- 
ural beauty. The first of the parks established 
under this wise law is known as the Devil's Back- 
bone in Delaware County, a projecting and high 
ledge of rock almost encircled by the Maquoketa 
River. Other parks have since been established, and 
eventually the stale will have a completed sys- 
tem of reserved lands for the pleasure and the 
recreation of the people. ... In the domain of 
practical legislation a series of road laws occupy 
easily the first place during this period. The 
construction and maintenance of adequate roads 
is a problem that dates back to territorial days. 
. . . Under various systems, . . . dirt roads have 
been maintained. Rain and frost and travel have 
undone what was done each year. The develop- 
ment and increased use of automobiles and motor 
vehicles of all kinds at last gave the needed 
impetus toward a more permanent construction of 
highways. By successive enactments the work of 
draining, grading, and crow-ning the roads has 
been accomplished, and in iqiq the decisive step 
was taken of listing the roads as primary and 
secondary state highways and county and town- 
ship roads. It was provided that the primary 
roads, connecting the county seats and the principal 
cities, should be hard surfaced by the use of 
either stone, concrete, or brick, or other compo- 
sitions of like durability. The funds for this pur- 
pose are to be derived from three sources, federal 
aid, taxes levied on automobiles and motor ve- 
hicles, and taxes levied on property directly or 
indirectly benefited. The work thus legally out- 
lined is in progress, but many years will be re- 
quired for its completion." — C. Cole, History of 
the people of Iowa, pp. 531-534. 

1917-1921. — Legislation. — Part played in 
World War. — Ratification of federal amend- 
ments. — In 1917, Wilham L. Harding was elected 
governor; a moratorium was provided for men 
in the military and naval service; a state bank- 
ing department was organized and the office of 
superintendent of banking created. During the 
World War, the state furnished 98,781 men or 2.63 
per cent of the entire expeditionary forces; and 
Camp Dodge, a national army camp, was located 
at Des Moines. "The response to the call of war 
was instantaneous and it was overwhelming. Her 
volunteers were so many that in many cities and 
in whole counties the first draft was avoided. The 
three regiments of the National Guard of the state 
were immediately summoned to duty. ... A war 
strength regiment of three thousand six hundred 
men was created, composed of almost equal parts 
of the three regiments. This became the i68th 
regiment of the United States army, which was 
assigned to the Forty-second or famous Rainbow 
Division. The Iowa regiment constituted one- 
fourth of the infantry strength of the division. 
Colonel Ernest R. Bennett of the old Third regi- 
ment was succeeded by Colonel Matthew A. Tin- 
ley, W'ho led it at the front. It was the one large 
distinct unit of the state in the great war, the 
other Iowa troops being scattered through many 
organizations." — C. Cole, History of the people of 
Iowa, p. 541. — In iqiq, the Eighteenth (prohibi- 
tion), and the Nineteenth (woman suffrage) Fed- 
eral Amendments were ratified, January 14 and 
July 2 respectively ; highway legislation divided 
the highways into primary and secondary systems; 

and the nomination and election of judges was 
restored to a party basis. In 1921, Nathan E. 
Kendall was elected governor. 

1920. — Problem of special municipal and leg- 
islation and home rule. — "The Iowa Constitu- 
tion of 1S57 was one of the first to prohibit tha 
passage of special laws for cities and towns. . . . 
The prohibition of special legislation for munici- 
palities had been incorporated in the constitutions 
of Ohio and Indiana in 1851 and it is not unlikely 
that the Iowa provision was copied from one of 
these. . . . Since 1857 the incorporation of cities 
and towns has been under general law based upon 
a statutory classification. Those cities and towns 
operating under special charters at the time of 
the adoption of the present constitution were not 
affected by the adoption of the general statute, 
but they were permitted to give up their special 
charters and organize under the general law if 
they so desired. In like manner they have been 
permitted to give up their special charters and 
organize under the commission plan or the city- 
manager plan, as well as those operating under 
the general law. From the organization of the 
Territory of Iowa in 183S until the constitutional 
provision forbidding special charters went into ef- 
fect in September, 1857, forty cities and towns had 
been granted special charters. . . . Many of these 
special charters were liberal in their provisions 
and the cities and towns possessing them enjoyed 
a considerable degree of home rule. . . . The char- 
ters granted were looked upon as matters chiefly 
of local concern and were usually passed without 
much discussion or debate. ... It is in this spirit 
that much of the municipal legislation is still 
passed. ... In spite of the constitutional prohi- 
bition, special legislation for municipalities in Iowa 
is still profuse, and as long as it has the appearance 
of being general, it has been the policy of the courts 
to sustain it. . . . The right of the special charter 
cities to amend their own charters has proved to 
be of but little value; inasmuch as any legislative 
act applicable to such cities is held tp take prece- 
dence over the charter provisions. Under such 
circumstances there is no security against legis- 
lative interference. . . . Decisions rendered by the 
courts evidently give the legislature complete free- 
dom in passing any law for any city by simply 
creating a class according to its population and 
providing that any city now or hereafter having 
the specified population may enjoy the rights or 
provisions granted. . . . The absurdity as well as 
the injustice of this condition is at once apparent. 
. . . Such classifications have no other object than 
to defeat the constitutional provision. Judge Dil- 
lon [of the Iowa Supreme Court] declares that 
thirty years' experience with these constitutional 
interdicts against local and special legislation has 
convinced him that they have failed to produce 
the beneficial results anticipated. Thus he con- 
cludes that the right to pass local and special legis- 
lation for municipalities should be restored, under 
proper safeguards. ... To permit special legisla- 
tion in such cases may be advisable, but to grant 
a reasonable degree of home rule would not only 
accomplish the same results but would relieve the 
general assembly of a large number of bills that 
regularly take up its time. Statutory home rule 
was urged before the general assembly of Iowa a 
few years ago but failed to p<iss. The charge 
however that the farmers defeated the measure is 
not shown by the record. ... In his presidential 
address before the Iowa State Bar .Association 
in 1915, Hon. F. F. Dawley, citing numerous in- 
stances in which the courts have held that cities 
do enjoy a right of local self-government which 




cannot be taken from them by legislative act, 
declared that 'the long line of cases holding that 
cities and towns have no powers whatever, even 
in local matters, except such as are expressly con- 
ferred by act of the legislature, ought to be over- 
ruled without waiting for an act of the legislature 
to set them aside.' . . . Whenever the fundamen- 
tal right of local self-government is restored to 
the cities of Iowa, whether it be by constitutional 
amendment, court decisions or legislative enact- 
ment, then, and not until then, may we expect to 
see a material decrease in the number of acts, 
biennially passed for particular communities." — 
F. E. Horack, Special municipal legislation in Iowa 
(American Political Science Revie-j.>, Aug., IQ20). 

1920-1921. — United States secretaries of agri- 
culture. — In January, 1920, President Wilson ap- 
pointed E. T. Meredith, prominent Iowa agricul- 
tural leader and editor, to fill the vacancy in the 
cabinet caused by the resignation of Secretary of 
Agriculture Houston, who became secretary of the 
treasury. In 192 1, President Harding appointed, 
as secretary of agriculture to succeed Meredith, 
Henry F. Wallace, also an Iowa agricultural editor 
and publisher. Wallace is the third lowan to fill 
the position, the first being James Wilson, who 
served for si.xteen years, 1897-1913. 

Also in: L. Pelzer, Scope of Iowa history. — 
L. G. Weld, On lite way to Iowa. — Van der Zee, 
Fur trade operaiions. — R. G. Thwaites, Romance 
of Mississippi valley history. — F. J. Turner, Sig- 
nificance of the Mississippi valley in American his- 
tory.— K.. W. Colgrove, Attitude of Congress 
toward the pioneers. — J. Brigham, Iowa: Its his- 
tory and its foremast citizens. — E. H. Downey, 
History of labor legislation in Iowa. — C. O. Rug- 
gles. Economic basis of the Greenback movement. 
— J. L. Gillin. Poor relief legislation in Iowa. — 
C. R. .-Vurner, History of education in Iowa. — 
F. E. Haynes, Child labor legislation in Iowa. — 
R. A. Gallaher, Legal and political status of women 
in Iowa. — Short articles in Stale Historical Society 
of Iowa, loiia Journal of History and Politics, and 
Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 

lOWAS, Indian tribe. See Pawkee family; 


IPEK, town of Jugo-Slavia, southeast of the 
former kingdom of Montenegro; taken in the lat- 
ter part of 1915 by the .\ustrians under Koevess. 
See World War: 1915: V. Balkans: b, 4. 

IPSILANTI. See Ypsilanh. 

IPSUS, Battle of (301 B.C.). See Macedonia: 
B.C. 310-301; Seleucid.*, Empire of. 

IQUIQUE, Battle of (1891). See Chile: 188S- 

IRACA, sacred city in Colombia. See CoLOM- 
BU: 1536-1731- 

IRAK, or Iraq. — At the time of the Mahome- 
tan conquest, "Chaldea and Babylonia occupied 
the rich region south of the river Tigris, watered 
by the Euphrates, and were known as Irak of 
the Arabs, as distinguished from Irak of the Per- 
sians, which corresponded somewhat nearly to the 
modern kingdom of Persia. . . . Irak of Arabia 
was at this time under the jurisdiction of Persia, 
and the wandering .^rabs who roamed over the 
broad desert were tributary to Persia when they 
pitched their tents on the eastern side, and to 
Rome when sojourning on the side towards Syria; 
though they were at no time trusty allies or sub- 
jects. The region of Irak contains many relics 
of a former civilization ; there are the mounds 
that mark the site of old Babylon." — A. Oilman, 
Story of the Saracens, pp. 226-227. — In 1921 Meso- 
potamia assumed its ancient name of Irak. See 

IRAKLI II (1744-1798), king of the Georgians. 
See Caic.\sus: 1736-1799. 

IRALA, Domingo Martinez de (1487-1557), 
Spanish soldier in Paraguay. See Paraguay: 1515- 


IRAN, native name for Persia. (See Tukan.) 
"Between the valley of the Indus and the land 
of the Euphrates and Tigris, bounded on the south 
by the ocean and the Persian Gulf, on the north 
by the broad steppes which the O.xus and Jaxartes 
vainly attempt to fertilise, by the Caspian Sea and 
the valley of the .Ajas [embracing modern Persia, 
Baluchistan, -Alghanistan and Russian Turkestan], 
lies the table-land of Iran. Rising to an average 
height of 4,000 feet above the level of the sea, 
it forms an oblortg, the length of which from 
east to west is something more than 1,500 miles. 
... As far back as our information extends, we 
find the table-land of Iran occupied by a group 
of nations closely related to each other, and speak- 
ing dialects of the same language." — M. Duncker, 
History of antiquity, bk. 7, ch. 1. — See also 
-Aryans; Media and the Medes. 

Invention of paper. See Printing and the 
press: Before 14th century. 

Language. Sec Philolixjy; 14. 

Priests. — Religion. See Magiaxs; Zoroastri- 


IRDJAR, Battle of (1866). See Russia: 1859- 


Geographical description. — Ancient names. — 
Ireland is an island which lies in the .Atlantic to 
the west of Great Britain. "Its greatest length 
is 302 miles; its average breadth no miles. . . . 
The total area is 20,819,928 acres, or 32,531 sq. m. 
. . . The population in 191 1 was 4.390,219 for the 
whole island. No census was taken in 192 1. The 
climate of Ireland bears a close resemblance to 
that of Great Britain, but is modified by the 
marked diflerence in the configuration of the sur- 
face, the greater distance from the continent of 
Europe, and the fact that it is more directly in- 
fluenced by the Gulf Stream drift. The mean 
annual temperature is 50.0' (that of England 
is 49.5°, that of Scotland 47.5°); and the tem- 
perature in Ireland is more equable. Thc^ eastern 
half of the island has a rainfall of from 30 to 
40 inches, and the western half from 40 to 50 
inches." — D. Patrick, ed., Chambers's concise gaz- 

etteer of the world, pp. 361-362. — "Ireland stands 
on the edge of the European plateau, the sea- 
floor sinking to oceanic depths on the west ; while 
on the east it is divided from Great Britain by 
shallow seas, rarely deeper than 70 fathoms. The 
western coast-Pine is deeply indented, and obvi- 
ously reproduces the features of the sea-lochs of 
Scotland and the fjords of Norway. The long 
inlets are river-valleys that have been lowered be- 
neath the sea, and the walls that bounded them 
now jut out as headlands into the Atlantic, their 
outermost peaks forming characteristic chains of 
islands. . . . The east coast of Ireland includes 
few fjords, though the names of Wexford, Car- 
lingford, and Strangford show how the typical 
structure even there impressed the Danish settlers. 
In general, however, on the east there is a series 
of broad bays and accumulated sands, broken only 
here and there by some bold feature like Bray 



Ancient Names 
Primitive Inhabitants 


Head. . . . The general form of the surface of 
Ireland resembles a shallow basin, the highlands 
being grouped along the coast. . . . Central Ire- 
land is, in general, a lowland, with many brown 
bogs, stretches of green meadow, and numerous 
lakes, sinuous in outline, and enclosing abundant 
islands. . . . The Shannon and its important tribu- 
tary, the Suck, run north and south through the 
plain. The former, if we include the Owenmore 
river, rises on the moors of Cuilcagh, falls steeply 
at first, and then has a gentle course of over 
200 miles. It thus appears mainly as a broad 
lowland stream, spreading out to form Loughs 
Allen, Boderg, Forbes, Rec, and Derg." — G. A. J. 
Cole, Ireland (International geography, H. R. Mill, 
ed., pp. 1S7, 180). — "Ireland was known by many 
names from very early ages. Thus, in the Celtic 
it was called Inis-Fail, the isle of destiny; Inis- 
Ealga, the noble island; Fiodh-Inis, the woody 
island; and Eire, Fodhia, and Banba. By the 
Greeks it was called lerne, probably from the 
vernacular name of Eire, by inflection Erin; 
whence, also, no doubt, its Latin name of Juverna; 
Plutarch calls it Ogygia, or the ancient land; the 
early Roman writers generally called it Hibernia, 
probably from its Iberian inhabitants, and the 
later Romans and mediaeval writers Scotia, and 
sometimes Hibernia; and finally its name of Ire- 
land vas formed by the Anglo-Normans from 
its native name of Eire." — M. Haverty, History 
of Ireland, p. lb, note. — See also Scotland: Name. 

Primitive inhabitants. — "The first people . . . 
of whose existence in Ireland we can be said to 
know anything are commonly asserted to have 
been of Turanian origin, and ^re known as 'For- 
morians,' ... a race of utterly savage hunters 
and fisherraen, ignorant of metal, of pottery, pos- 
sibly even of the use of fire; using the stone 
hammers or hatchets of which' vast numbers re- 
main in Ireland to this day, and specimens of 
which may be seen in every museum. . . . Irish 
philologists believe several local Irish names to 
date from this almost inconceivably remote epoch. 
. . . Next followed a Belgic colony, known as 
the Firbolgs, who overran the country, and ap- 
pear to have been of a somewhat higher ethno- 
logical grade, although, like the Formorians, short, 
dark, and swarthy. Doubtless the latter were 
not entirely exterminated to make way for the 
Firbolgs, any more than the Firbolgs to make 
way for the Danaans, Milesians, and other suc- 
cessive races. . . . The first of these were the 
Tuatha-da-Danaans, who arrived under the lead- 
ership of their king Nuad, and took possession 
of the east of the country. These Tuatha-da- 
Danaans are believed to have been large, blue- 
eyed people of Scandinavian origin, kinsmen and 
possibly ancestors of those Norsemen or 'Danes' 
who in years to come were destined to work such 
woe and havoc upon the island. . . . [Some his- 
torians hold that the Tuatha-da-Danaans were 
not a real people; but that the fabled personages 
among them were the gods of the pagan Irish.] 
They, too, were, in their turn, conquered by 
the Milesians or 'Scoti,' who next overran the 
country, giving to it their own name of Scotia, 
by which name it was known down to the end of 
the twelfth century, and driving the earlier set- 
tlers before them, who thereupon fled to the hills, 
and took refuge in the forests, whence they 
emerged, doubtless, with unpleasant effect upon 
their conquerors, as another defeated race did 
upon their conquerors in later days." — E. Law- 
less, Story of Ireland, ch. i. 

Tribes of early Celtic inhabitants. — Historical 
facts in early traditions. — "On the northern coast 

dwelt the Veniconii, in the modern county of 
Donegal, and the Robogdii, in Londonderry and 
Antrim, .'\djoining to the Veniconii, westward, 
were the Erdini or Erpeditani, and next to them 
the Magnatas, all in Donegal. Farther south were 
the Auteri, in Sligo; the Gangani, in Mayo; and 
the \'elibori. or Ellebri, in the district between 
Galway and the Shannon. The south-west part 
of the island, with a great portion of the in- 
terior, was inhabited by the Iverni, who gave name 
not only to the great river but to the whole island, 
and who may, perhaps, be considered as the ab- 
original inhabitants. ... In the modern counties 
of Waterford and Tipperary, Ptolemy places a 
tribe called the Usdiae or Vodis, according to 
the variations of the manuscripts. In the mod- 
ern county of Wexford dwelt the Brigantes; and 
northward from them were the Corlondi, in Wick- 
low ; the Menapii, in Dublin ; the Cauci, on the 
banks of the Boyne; the Blanii, or Eblani, on 
the bay of Dundalk; the V'oluntii, in Down; and 
the Darini, bordering on the Robogdii, in Antrim. 
Three, at least, of the tribes who held the east- 
ern coast of Ireland, the Brigantes, the Menapii, 
and the Voluntii, were, no doubt, colonies from 
the opposite shores of Britain." — T. Wright, Celt, 
Roman and Saxon, ch. 2. — ".About three centuries 
before the Christian Era the light of reliable his- 
tory begins to dawn, and we meet with the legends 
of two important events, which seem to be based 
upon actual facts. The first of these is the founda- 
tion of the famous palace of . . . Emania, which 
for six hundred years afterwards was the seat of 
the powerful kings of the line of Ir in the North. 
. . . The foundation of Emania is regarded by 
Tigherneach, a celebrated and critical historian, 
who was abbot of Clonmacnoise in the eleventh 
century, as marking the commencement of au- 
thentic Irish history. . . . About 250 B.C. the sec- 
ond legend is that connected with Ugaine Mor 
and his family. This powerful king of the line 
of Heremon [who] reigned in the south-east of 
Ireland . . . divided the country among his 
twenty-five children. . . . The foregoing traditions 
of early Ireland, beginning in pure mythology, 
obscured by wild legends, and only towards the 
end revealing an occasional glimpse of actual facts 
which are consistent with later circumstances, are 
obviously not history. Modern scholars have 
endeavoured to ascertain the truths that under- 
lie them, and have formulated reasonable theories 
of the origin of the early inhabitants of Ireland. 
According to these the last colonisation was much 
more recent than is stated in our traditions, and 
consisted of different bands slowly pushing through 
the country, and establishing themselves as a 
dominant class over the earlier inhabitants, who. 
however, still remained in distinct tribes, and 
formed the majority of the population. These 
late arrivals, big, blond, fair-haired men as they 
are alv/ays described, were Celtic speakers, but 
probably Teutonic in race, who came to Ireland 
through Britain. In the densely wooded and 
thinly populated country many small bodies might 
be long settled in any part before arousing hos- 
tility, and even then it would be only that of 
their nearest neighbours. It may be safely said 
that Irish history is reliable as to genealogies and 
the broad features of the principal events from 
the Christian Era, and that it is fairly reliable, 
from a more remote period, as a guide to such 
outstanding events as the foundation of Emania. 
... It is evident that the reliability of . . . [these] 
early traditions must depend greatly upon the time 
at which written records were first made and 
preserved. The period at which the use of let- 



Tuathal to Cormac 


fers was first introduced into Ireland is, however, 
yet another doubtful question. By some the in- 
troduction of writing is ascribed to St. Patrick: 
others behevc that written records were kept in 
Ireland from much earlier times. . . . There was 
much intercourse between Ireland and the Roman 
Empire: there are frecjucnt references to books 
written before St. Patrick came, and to laws 
which were recorded before his arrival. The sud- 
den general adoption of writing immediately after 
the lime of St. Patrick suggests some knowledge 
of it before his time. The probabilities arc that 
the use of letters was known in a certain de- 
gree to the Irish for some time prior to the 
introduction of Christianity, but was not gen- 
erally known until after that event. . . . There 
was one form of writing, however, which was 
peculiar to the Gaelic race. This was . . . Ogham, 
pronounced Owum. . . . Ogham was mostly in- 
scribed on wooden tablets, but was also cut in 
stone. The latter are the only specimens that 
have been preserved. . . . The antiquity of Ogham 
is uncertain, but it is evident that it was too 
laborious as a method of writing to be adapted 
to anything like continued narrative. . . . Oral 
tradition, banded down from generation to gen- 
eration, is, therefore, our only source of informa- 
tion about Ireland until after the Christian Era. 
.As every clan had its specially trained historians, 
their tribal traditions may have been fairly 
well preserved. . . . The division of Ireland into 
twenty-five parts, ascribed to Ugaine having lasted 
for three centuries, is said to have been ended 
by . . . (Eochy Feylagh), who was King of the 
people of Leinster shortly before the Christian 
Era. He is said to have restored the legendary 
'Fh'e Provinces' of the Firbolgs, and to have placed 
sub-Kings over each. ... It is not, [however] 
until the time of St. Patrick that we get definite 
political sub-divisions of Ireland. . . . The con- 
quering clans, who, in course of time, established 
the Irish states, gradually extended their power 
over the clans around them, leaving them un- 
disturbed in their own territories under their 
own chiefs, but subordinate to and paying tribute 
to the chiefs of the superior clans. . . . Shortly 
before the Christian Era the most powerful Kings 
in Ireland were those who ruled in Emania founded 
three hundred years before. This family (known 
in history as the Clanna Rury, extended its sway 
over Ulaidh in the northeast] . . . and in early 
times spread over nearly all the North, and, at 
least, as far South as Taillte (in Co. Meath). . . . 
[ In the reign of Connor MacNessa dissensions 
broke out and a number of military knights, 
known as the "Red Branch" seceded under Fergus, 
and joined Maeve, queen of Connacht] The power 
of the Clanna Rury was checked; and, from that 
time forward, steadily declined." — M. T. Hayden 
and G. A. Moonan, Short history of the Irish peo- 
ple, pp. 7-p, II-I2. — See also Celts: Ancient Irish 

From Tuathal to Cormac (c. 1st century- 
266 A.D.).^"The next event of importance is that 
which is revealed in the stories of the rising of 
the 'unfree clans.' which occurred soon after the 
Christian Era. The subject tribes or Attacotti, 
. . . oppressed by the exactions of their con- 
querors, rose in revolt, and were aided by the 
King of Ulaidh. They slew or expelled most of 
their masters, but were at length subdued by 
Tuathal 'Teachtmhar' or 'The legitimate,' who 
defeated them in the battle of Aicill or Skrecn 
(in Co. Meath). The accounts of this revolu- 
tion are clear enough to indicate some great 
political unhcaval, out of which arose a great 


central dynasty to rival those of Eamhain on the 
north and Laighin on the south. . . . When 
Tuathal had subdued the revolting clans, he is 
said to have founded a new province called Midhe 
or 'Meath,' by cutting off portions of the other 
provinces. The centre of this new Kingdom was 
the palace of Tara. ... To Tuathal may there- 
fore be ascribed the foundation of the Kingdom 
of Meath, and the establishment of the great dy- 
nasty of Tara, which ruled the clans of the 
great open plain from the sea to the Shannon, and 
afterwards sent out branches to rule over the 
clans of more than half of Ireland. . . . Tuathal 
is also said to have originated the famous 
Borumha (Boruma) tribute, which for 500 years 
was the cause of fierce fighting between the Kings 
of Tara and the people of Leinster. The tradi- 
tional cause of the Borumha was an act of treachery 
on the part of the King of Laighin towards 
Tuathal, in revenge for which the latter imposed 
a heavy tribute upon the people of Leinster. . . . 
Whatever may have been the origin of the 
Borumha, the rivalry betw'cen the two families 
of Ugaine lasted for many centuries ; the Kings 
of Meath asserting a right to tribute from all 
Leinster, and their opponents claiming as strongly 
to be the independent rulers of all its tribes. It 
is to be noted that the Borumha was supposed 
to be divided amongst the 'Heremonian' families 
only — that is Meath and its off-shoots, the rulers 
of which were all descended from Tuathal, and his 
grandson Conn. . . . We have seen that those 
'ruling clans' claimed to be descended from the 
early leaders of the 'Milesians.' . . . These spurious 
ancestors may be rejected. But ... we still find 
remaining as cardinal facts in Irish History the 
great groups of families. We also find that of 
three of these groupis each has a common an- 
cestor in three famous rival Kings. It is cer- 
tain that the Kings and 'ruling clans' of all the 
independent Kingdoms of Ireland (except Ulaidh 
[northeastern Ulster] ) during historical times de- 
scended from one of three real personages — Cahir 
Mor, Conn, and Mogh Nuath — who flourished 
about the middle of the 2nd century. . . . [Conn, 
the grandson of Tuathal] found himself opposed 
by Cahir Mor . . . [who succeeded in making 
Leinster independent but who was slain in battle). 
Thereafter Conn fought against Mogh Nuath king 
of the southern tribes. .\i first Conn and Mogh 
Nuath agreed to divide the sovereignty of the 
island between them, the northern half going to 
Conn, the southern to his rival. Mogh Nuath, 
however, was slain in battle, and the division 
fell into disuse except in name. From Conn were 
descended the great families of Meath, the north, 
west and northwest, except the tribes of Ulaidh 
[northeastern Ulster]; from Mogh Nuadat. bet- 
ter known as Eoghan or Owen Mor, the Dalcas- 
sians — kings of Thomond (North Munster) [later 
the O'Briens] and the Eugenians of Desmond 
(South Munster) claimed descent] Hence we find 
in the second century the origin of the three 
great dynasties, which supplied the independent 
rulers of all parts of Ireland (excet)t Ulaidh) for 
hundreds of years, and which contested with each 
other the supremacy of the country. Here, too, 
we have the clues to the alliances and rivalries 
which took place up to the coming of the 
Normans, and also to the historical reasons for 
the conflicting claims which prohibited unity be- 
fore and after that event. . . . The chief inter- 
est in the dynasties thus firmly established in the 
second century centres around the descendants of 
Conn and of Mogh Nuadhat. During the next 
two centuries we find the vigorous descendants of 



Saint Patrick 

Conversion to Christianity 


Conn building up a strong and compact Kingdom 
whose centre was Tara. ... In the reign of Cor- 
mac Mac Airt (227-266 A.D.), a grandson of 
Conn, Tara reached its greatest splendour. Dur- 
ing a long reign of forty years he carried on wars 
against the Clanna Rury, the descendants of Cahir 
Mor and of Oilioll Olim, and also against the 
tribes of Connacht. But his greatest fame was 
as an administrator and as patron of laws and 
learning. To Cormac are ascribed most of the 
buildings which covered the Hill of Tara, chief 
among them being the . . . Banqueting Hall, of 
whose glories the early literature contains glow- 
ing descriptions. Colleges for war, history, and 
law were also established by him, and during his 
reign the first mill erected in Ireland was built 
on the slopes of the royal hill. He is said to 
have had compiled the 'Saltair of Tara' (now lost), 
which contained an account of the territories 
ruled over by the King of Tara, and the tributes 
payable to him in respect of them. [During the 
reigns of Cormac and Cairbre his son we find the 
legendary "fenians," •bodies of professional sol- 
diers who sometimes fought with the king, some- 
times against him, and were finally destroyed by 
Cairbre.]" — M. T. Hayden and G. A. Moonan, 
Short history of the Irish people, pp. 12-16. 

Also in: D. Figgis, Gaelic state in the past and 
future, pp. S-13. — E. A. D'Alton, History of he- 
land, V I. — J. J O'Kelly, Ireland, pp. 1-30. — T. 
Moore, History of Ireland, v. i, ch. 4. 

Mythology of the Roman and Christian eras. 
See Mythology: Celtic: Roman period; Christian 

Ancient religion. — Druidism of Ireland and 
Gaul contrasted. — Celtic church. See Druids: 
Points of agreement, etc.; Celtic church. 

Niall of the Nine Hostages. — Political divi- 
sions. — "So powerful had the Kings of Tara be- 
come that in the . . . [fourth] century we find 
them carrying their arms into the neighbouring 
island, and even to the Continent of Europe. , . . 
One of the most famous leaders in these expedi- 
tions was Niall, King of Tara, called 'of the Nine 
Hostages.' He first aided the Gaels of Dal Riada 
against the Picts, and then led both against the 
decaying Roman power. Eventually, Niall carried 
his arms across to the Continent, and was killed 
on the banks of the Loire. . . . [But even before 
Niall's time, the growing power of the king of 
Tara was threatened. On the one hand the Dal- 
cassians were forcing their way up from the 
South into Connacht, thus increasing their power, 
while during, or immediately after the death of 
Niall other descendants of Conn of the hundred 
battles carved out independent territories for them- 
selves. One of these kingdoms, known later 
as Oriel stretched across the island from Dundalk 
to Sligo Lay, so that the ancient Clanna Rury of 
Queen Maeve was reduced to about the present 
counties of Down and Antrim. Another king- 
dom comprised Donegal, Derry and most of Ty- 
rone, known as Ailcach, while across the Shannon 
Connacht came under the rule of Niall's hajf- 
brothers, who reigned in Cruachan.] The estab- 
lishment of the new dynasties in the West and 
North-west by the brothers and sons of Niall 
respectively completed the political organisation 
of Ireland as we find it in strictly historical times. 
The seven independent states into which the Island 
was thus divided, remained — modified under chang- 
ing conditions — the fields of political influence in 
Ireland until the whole Gaelic fabric was destroyed 
after the Battle of Kinsale in 1603. ... To fol- 
low the fortunes of those seven dynasties is the 
aim of any history of Gaelic Ireland. Their su- 

premacy in their own kingdoms remained perma- 
nent, the rivalries which often convulsed them were 
between competitors of their own families. It is 
possible that Christianity may have helped to 
secure political stability. Certainly from the time 
of its introduction the various royal lines in 
each Kingdom continued without a break. But 
the extent of the Kingdoms was not rigid, and 
their boundaries frequently shifted. The federated 
clans of which they were comprised continued in 
the main to occupy their original lands. But the 
ambition, strength or energy of their rulers often 
led them to endeavour to bring adjoining clans 
under their sway, and the Kingdoms thus expanded 
or contracted. Therefore, while the clans remained 
fixed, the extent of the Kingdoms varied." — M. T. 
Hayden and G. A. Moonan, Short history of the 
Irish people, pp. 17, 24. 

432. — Coming of Saint Patrick. — Conversion 
of island to Christianity. — "It was in the fifth 
century since the Redemption that Christianity 
reached them. Patricias, a Celt of Gaul it is said, 
carried into Erin as a slave by one of the Pagan 
kings, some of whom made military expeditions 
to North and South Britain, and even to the 
Alps and the Loire, became the Apostle of Ire- 
land. ... He was received with extraordinary 
favour, and before his death nearly the whole 
island had embraced Christianity. The coming of 
Patrick took place in the year of our Lord 432, 
and he laboured for sixty years after; planting 
churches and schools, rooting out the practices and 
monuments of Paganism, and disciplining the peo- 
ple in rehgion and humanity. It was a noble 
service, and it impressed itself for ever on the 
memory of the race whom he served." — C. G. 
Duffy, Bird's eye view of Irish history, p. 7. 

Also in: E. A. D'Alton, History of Ireland, v. 
I, pp. 32-33. — "The place of Patrick's birth is 
still a subject of perennial controversy: the neigh- 
bourhood of the Severn and the neighbourhood of 
the Clyde have long had their claims to his 
nativity urged with almost equal earnestness, 
while recently a claim has been forcefully advanced 
on behalf of the neighbourhood of the Tiber. He 
was first brought to Ireland in bondage in the 
course of those maritime expeditions in which 
Niall of the Nine Hostages and other Irish kings 
of that period indulged. Having spent about seven 
years in the service of an Irish chieftain, he es- 
caped and — as appears from the most careful in- 
vestigations — found his way to Gaul and Italy, 
eventually returning to Britain. Then it was 
he felt called back to Ireland, to the children near 
the wood of Fochlad by the western sea. So he 
again set out for Gaul and, to fit himself for 
the mission to him foreshown, studied long and 
diligently at Auxerre, principally under Germanus. 
After all his anxious years, however, Celestine, de- 
termining in 431 to send a bishop to the Scots 
believing in Christ, chose and consecrated there- 
for not Patrick but Palladius. Tigroney, Ceall Fine 
near Dunlavin, and Donard, all in Wicklow, are 
regarded as scenes of the early labours of Palladius, 
whose mission came to a close within a year. 
Thus unexpectedly came Patrick's turn. Conse- 
crated by Germanus, Patrick set out to continue 
the mission in 432, some thirty years after the 
death of Saint Martin, from whom he is said to 
have received the tonsure. Some accounts repre- 
sent him as accompanied by 'twenty-four holy 
clerics,' some by even more. . . . Special reference 
must be made in advance to two outstanding re- 
sults of Patrick's mission: the revision, six years 
after his arrival, of the Brehon Law Code at 
Tara — where we often find him — and the founding 


IRELAND, 5th-6th Centuries 

Introduction of 
Latin Culture 

IRELAND, ;th-9th Centuries 

of Armagh after a further six years, or perhaps 
more. It will be well to bear in mind that Iha 
revised Code rceulated. anioni; other things, (he 
subsequent inauguration of kines and the condi- 
tions under which lands were held by the Church ; 
while the bequests and submission to Armajih, 
promiscuously mentioned in the Saint's life, could 
only have been made after Armach had been 
definitely chosen as the Primatial Sec." — J. J. 
O'Kcily, Irdand: ElemeiUs of Iter early story, pp. 
S4-55. 57- — See also CiiRisnAxiTV : sth-gth cen- 
turies; and Map. 

.Also in: E. \. D'.Alton, History of Ireland, v. 

I. PP 32-3.1 

5th-6th centuries. — Introduction of Latin cul- 
ture. — "The Roman Agricola had proposed the 
conquest of Ireland on the ground that it would 
have a pood effect on Britain by removing the 
spectacle of liberty. But there was no Roman 
conquest. The Irish remained outside the Empire, 
as free as the men of Norway and Sweden. They 
showed that to share in the trade, the culture, 
and the civilisation of an empire, it is not neces- 
sary to be subject to its armies or lie under its 
police control. While the neighbouring peoples 
received a civilisation imposed by violence and 
maintained by compulsion, the Irish were free 
themselves to choose those things which were 
suited to their circumstances and character, and 
thus to shape for their people a liberal culture, 
democratic and national. It is important to ob- 
serve what it was that tribal Ireland chose, and 
what it rejected. There was frequent trade, for 
from the first century Irkh ports were well known 
to merchants of the Empire, sailing across the 
Gaulish sea in wooden ships built to confront 
.Atlantic pales, with high poops standing from 
the water like castles, and great leathern sails — 
stout hulls steered by the born sailors of the 
Breton coasts or the lands of the Loire and 
Garonne. The Irish themselves served as sailors 
and pilots in the ocean traffic, and travelled as 
merchants, tourists, scholars and pilgrims. ... Of 
art the Irish craftsmen took all that Gaul pos- 
sessed — the great decorated trumpets of bronze 
used in the Loire country, the fine enamelling in 
colours, the late-Celtic designs for ornaments of 
bronze and gold. ... In such arts they outdid 
their teachers; their gold and enamel work has 
never been surp.assed. and in writing and illumina- 
tion they went beyond the imperial artists of 
Constantinople. Their schools throughout the 
country handed on a great traditional art, not 
transitory or local, but permanent and national. 
Learning was as freely imported. The Latin 
alphabet came over at a ver>' early time, and 
knowledge of Greek as a living tongue from 
Marseilles and the schools of Narbonne. . . . But 
while the Irish drew to themselves from the 
Em[)ire art, learning, religion, they never adopted 
anything of Roman methods of government in 
church or state The Roman centralised authority 
was opposed to their whole habit of thought and 
genius. They made, therefore, no change in their 
tribal administration. .As early as the second cen- 
tury Irishmen had learned from Gaulish land- 
owners to divide land into estates marked out with 
pillar-stones wh ■ h could be bought and sold, and 
by 700 .A.D. the countn.- was scored with fences, 
and farms were freely bequeathed by will. But 
these estates seem still to have been administered 
according to the common law of the tribe, and 
not to have followed the methods of Roman pro- 
prietors throughout the Empire. In the same way 
the foreign learning brought into Ireland was 
taught through the tribal system of schools. Lay 

schools formed by the Druids in old time went 
on as before, where studenLs of law and history 
and poetry grouped their huts round the dwelling 
of a famous teacher, and the poor among them 
begged their bread in the neighbourhood. The 
monasteries in like manner gathered their scholars 
within the 'rath' or earthen entrenchment, and 
taught them Latin, canon law, and divinity. 
Monastic and lay schools went on side by side, 
as heirs together of the national tradition and 
language. The most venerable saints, the highest 
ecclesiastics, were revered also as guardians of 
Irish history and law, who wrote in Irish the 
national tales as competent scribes and not mere 
copyists — men who knew all the traditions, used 
various sources, and shaped their story with the 
independence of learning. Xo parallel can be found 
in any other country to the writing down of 
national epics in theic pagan form many cen- 
turies after the country had become Christian. 
In the same way European culture was not al- 
lowed to suppress the national language; clerics as 
well as laymen preserved the native tongue in 
worship and in hymns. . . . Like the learning and 
the art, the new worship was adapted to tribal 
custom. . . . Never was a church so truly national. 
The words used by the common people were 
steeped in its imagery. In their dedications the 
Irish took no names of foreign saints, but of their 
own holy men. St. Bridgit became the 'Mary of 
the Gael.' There was scarcely a boundary felt 
between the divine country and the earthly, so 
entirely was the spiritual hfe commingled with the 
national." — .A. S. Green, Irish nationality, pp. 29- 
15. — "Of the Irish missionaries who went afield, 
the fiery Columcille (also called Columba) founded 
his great monastery in lona in 563. This was 
the base from which Scotland was evangelized. 
Columbanus, from Lcinster, went among the 
Franks with a company of missionaries and from 
5QO till he died at Bobbio in 615 he labored among 
barbarians with power and intrepidity. St. Gall, 
an Irishman who was with Columbanus. gave his 
name to the famous Swiss monastery. Dagobert, 
the Merovingian king, who was educated in Ire- 
land, retired in 656 to a cloister founded by an 
Irish abbot in France. Into Bavaria missionaries 
spread from Luxeuil, Columbanus's earlier head- 
quarters. The Irish pilgrims continued to pour 
into the continent as evangelists and scholars and 
scribes, a process which continued until Ireland 
itself came within the savage sweep of the vikings." 
— F. Hackett, Story of the Irish nation, pp. 48-49. 
— See also Educatiox: Medieval: 5th-6th centuries; 
Books: In medieval times; and below: ;th-8th 

5th-9th centuries. — Wars of Septs. — Coming 
of the Danes. — "The political process in Ireland, 
even after the coming of Patrick, was still one 
of sept waiting with sept. The Gaels sought rather 
than avoided the arbitrament of war. In the 
two hundred years of Connacht's dominance in 
the limestone plain, the men of Leinster, safe 
in their own fastnesses, tried continually to re- 
cover Tara. A new unrest came from within. 
Connacht's power was dispersed with the sub- 
divisions that were made to provide for Niall's 
many sons. Through those subdivisions there 
were more Ui Neill outside Connacht than in 
Connacht. These Ui Neill, north and south, com- 
bined to displace the western , branch from the 
monarchy of Ireland. They smashed Connacht 
at the battle of Ocha, 483. This gave the high- 
kingship to the Ui Neill for centuries, but Mun- 
ster had yet to make a bid for supremacy. The 
kings of Cashel grew strong and aggressive until, 


IRELAND, 5th-9th Centuries 

Coming of 

IRELAND, 7th-8th Centuries 

after a predatory career of extraordinary ferocity, 
Feidlimid came in conflict with the reigning Niall 
over the domination of Leinster. In qoS, at the 
battle of Belach Mugna, the king-bishops of 
Cashel played their last game of royal chess. 
Their defeat and subordination left the Ui Neill 
in power. In the weakening of Cashel, however, 
the rest of Munster was brought into the arena. 
Under Brian Boru this new power combined with 
Connacht so as to give him the headship of 
Ireland. West Munster, in the end, did not hold 

CKtiso Ut KELLS 
Meath County, Ireland 

the supremacy. This was one of the elements that 
gave opportunity to the Anglo-Normans. . . . 
The vikings came sweeping the ocean toward the 
end of the eighth century. The most formidable 
pagan fighters of the North, they mastered the 
seas and the islands of the seas in their swift, 
light, stalwart seacraft. In 705 they first came 
to Ireland. In the beginning they had no political 
purpose: they were content to fall on the rich 
and pacific monasteries near the coast, kill the 
monks, whom they surprised, and help themselves 
to vestments, gold ornaments, chalices, fine hang- 
ings, stores, and wines. These expeditions brought 
terror to Christian Ireland: they stimulated the 


Northmen to repeat them. An uneven fight raged 
for fifty years. In the meantime the tidings of 
Christianity came to the North itself. There- 
after the invasions of Ireland became part of the 
tremendous and almost successful effort of the 
Scandinavians to conquer the British Isles. . . . 
When the Norsemen first got their footing in 
Ireland it was as predatory chiefs. The names 
Carlingford, Strangford, Howth, Dubhn, the Sker- 
ries, Leixlip, We.xford, Waterford, ancl Limerick 
testify to their successes, which built up towns 
where the Irish knew no towns. The heathens, 
as they were, reached Dublin which was a cluster 
of huts. They made it a stockaded settlement. 
By S53 Olaf and Ivar were joint kings of Dublin. 
For many years they had no great security in 
Ireland, though Dublin was a safe base for their 
attacking Britain, but their incursions scarred and 
seared the eastern half of Ireland from 879 to 
920." — F. Hackett, Story of the Irish nation, pp. 
S3-SS- — "Intercourse between the northern lands 
and Ireland must have begun at a very early date. 
It was only a few days' journey, and, as the 
Viking vessels were galleys propelled by oars as 
well as by sails, they were independent of the 
weather. The Irish traded and married with 
them a century before the invasion. Even in the 
old Irish epic of the heroic period, there is men- 
tion of warriors from Norway, 'the Northern 
Way,' and of Irish chieftains who were levying 
tribute on the Shetlands, the Orkneys, and the 
Faroes. ... In the year 794 occurred the first 
powerful Norse attacks in Irish waters, when the 
sea-robbers landed on Rcchru, now Lambay, off 
Howth, which they devastated, and some other 
small islands north of Dublin, and simultaneously 
they launched attacks at such distant points as 
the Isle of Skye and Glamorganshire in South 
Wales." — S. MacManus, Story of the Irish race, 
pp. 26S-269. — See also Scandinavian states: 8th- 
9th centuries. 

7th-8th centuries. — Learning and civilization. 
— Its diffusion over Europe. — "When Huns, Van- 
dals, Franks, Alemanni, Langobards, Angles and 
Sa.xons swept across Europe and threw the greater 
part of the Continent back into barbarism, Ireland 
remained the only country where culture, learn- 
ing and scholarship kept couth with their elder 
sources. Alone in Western Europe during the 
sixth century, in Ireland a pure Latin was written, 
and Greek so much as understood. Alone in 
Western Europe, in Ireland a wide culture ex- 
isted, based not only on the study of classic^ 
authors and the sciences of the time, but es- 
pecially active in the creation of a national 
literature, legendary and historical. During these 
years Ireland earned her title. Insula Sanctorum et 
Doctorum. Therefore Continental scholars, flying 
before the barbarian hordes, passed gver into Ire- 
land with their books. They were welcomed and 
honoured. . . . Ireland became the scene of ex- 
traordinary activity in scholarship. North and 
south, east and west, great seminaries and colleges 
of learning arose; and as the fame of these grew 
with the years, scholars came from far afield to 
study in the Irish schools. They came in such 
numbers that the [Brehon] lawyers, . . . were 
compelled to devise laws to knit them into the 
fabric of the State, seeing that it was contrary 
to the tradition of hospitality in the nation that 
they should be put to any charge for their school- 
ing or their entertainment. And when towards the 
end of the sixth century peace again came to 
Europe, Irish scholars set forth with their books 
to repair the ruin that had been caused. . . . Irish 
missionaries and scholars came to the peoples that 


IRELAND, 7th-15th Centuries 

Danish Conquests 
and Sctllcments 

IRELAND, 9th-10th Centuries 

now inhabited Europe as the heralds for the 
most part of a new tlicme. They were the first 
evanpelisers of England, and instructed its lirst poet 
[Csdmon] in his letters. The schools founded 
by CharlemaRnc were in all cases inspired by 
Irish scholarship, and were in most cases prompted 
by Irish scholars, and founded and conducted 
either by them or their pupils. In Germany also, 
in the northern lowlands, amon;; the Alps, and 
in Northern Italy, schools and seminaries were 
established. As far afield as Iceland, Syria and 
Egypt, these missionaries of civilisation went, 
carrying Iheir books." — D. Figgis, Historic case for 
Irish independence, pp. 4-6. 

7th-15th centuries. — Early Irish manuscripts. 
— Sagas. — Annals. Sec Books: In nic<iieval 
times; Cklis: Ancient Irish sagas; .\nxai,s; Irish. 

9th-10th centuries. — Danish conquests and 
settlements. — "When, about the year 8,52, the 
Norse felt ready to make their first great attack 
on Ireland in force, they had the advantage of 
having as their leader [Turgeis] one of the most 
extraordinary and capable figures in Nordic history. 
... He came with a great fleet of 120 ships, 
which held some ten thousand or twelve thousand 
picked men, and which he divided into two 
divisions. One squadron of si.xty ships entered the 
Liffey, while Turgeis himself with the other sailed 
up the Boyne. ... He even got some support 
from the and for a time it looked as if 
the whole northern portion of the island might 
speedily fall under his sway. His design included 
the supplanting of Christianity by the heathenism 
of his own country. With that end in view he 
took possession, some years previously, of Armagh, 
Ireland's Holy City, . . . where (he Abbot, who 
was regarded as the spiritual head of Ireland, re- 
sided. Turgeis drove away 'the Follower of St. 
Patrick,' converted the church into a pagan temple 
and made himself high priest of the new religion. 
. . . These things took place in or about the year 
845, and for some years all the foreigners in Ire- 
land recognised Turgeis as their sovereign, though 
it could hardly be said that he had founded a 
kingdom. His ablest opponent among the native 
chieftains was Niall, provincial king of Ulster. 
. . . About the year 845, he was, somehow, taken 
prisoner by Maelscchlainn (Malachy) king of Mealh, 
and drowned in Loch Owel. . . . After his death, 
the Norsemen abandoned their settlements on 
Lough Ree, moved up the Shannon and fought 
their way along the rivers and lakes to the 
Sligo coast where a fleet had assembled to carry 
them home. Thereafter the tide of victory turned 
for a while in favour of the Irish, and a new 
epoch began in the history of the Scandinavian 
invasion of Ireland." — S. MacManus, Story of the 
Irish race, pp. 260-270. — "The oth century was the 
period of Danish plunder, and of settlement along 
the coasts and in convenient places for p.urposes 
of plunder. Towards the latter end of this cen- 
tury the Irish in Ireland, like the English in 
England, succeeded in driving out the enemy, 
and there was peace for forty years. Then came 
the Danes again, but bent more definitely than 
before on permanent settlement ; and their most 
notable work was the establishment of the Danish 
kingdom of Dublin, with its centre at one of 
their old haunts. .Ath Cliath on the Liffey, where 
the city of Dublin was built by them. . . . Nor 
was Dublin the nnlv Danish city. Limerick. Cork. 
Waterford. Wexford, all became the centres of 
petty Danish kingdoms, active in commerce, skil- 
ful for those times in domestic architecture, and 
with political and legislative ideas identical in 
their essence with those of the people among 

whom they settled. In the course of the lolh 
century the Danes nominally became, for the most 
part, converts to Christianity. But it appears 
that they derived their Christianity mainly from 
English sources; and when they began to organize 
their Church, they did so after the Roman man- 
ner, and in connection with the see of Canter- 
bury."— S. Bryant, Celtic Ireland, ch. 5. — "Hitherto 
the \'ikings, . . . were all of Norwegian stock, but 
with a few Danes and Swedes among them. Dur- 
ing the tenth and eleventh centuries, however, the 
Danes . . . who at that time were ravaging the 
southirn and western coasts of England, took the 
lead in Viking activities. They were better organ- 
ised than the Norse and had a more centralised 
government. . . . The year 847 marks the first 
sudden descent of the Danes, 'in seven score ships,' 
upon the eastern shores of Ireland. They at once 
proceeded to attack the Norwegians and to ccm- 
test the possession of the coast settlements with 
them. ... [In 853 "Olaf the white" and Ivar] 
assumed joint kingship over the foreigners in Ire- 
land and set up their capital at Dublin. From 
there the Norwegians gradually gained ground 
and established vassal states and a string of 
trading posts and stations for their fleets along 
the coast. Many of these settlements bear 
Scandinavian names from fiords, Strangford and 
Carlingford in the north, and Wexford and Water- 
ford in the south, for example. . . . The most 
important artery reaching into the heart of Ire- 
land is the River Shannon. On its banks the 
Vikings, who were most probably Danes, founded 
and fortified, in the second half of the ninth cen- 
tury, a city which they called Limerick, 'Limerick 
of the mighty ships,' as one of the old chroniclers 
calls it. The city flourished and exerted an in- 
fluence over all Munster. ... [It soon became a 
rival to Dublin, and the two cities engaged in con- 
stant warfare with the aid of Irish chieftains, who 
in their turn, asked and received aid from the 
Danes, .^ed Finnliath who reigned in Ulster in 
the ninth century, is said to have been the first 
to make an alliance with the foreigners.] But, 
indeed, from the time of the first coming of the 
Northmen to their final defeat, there probably 
never was a war in which they and the Irish 
were not, in some degree, banded together. Irish 
literature of a thousand years ago is obsessed with 
the spectre of the Norse occupation of Ireland, 
and, if we are to believe the native annalists, a 
night of misery had really settled down on the 
country with the coming of the Vikings." — S. 
MacManus, Slory of the Irish race, pp. 271-273. — 
Raids were frequent with all their accompani- 
ments of slaughter, enslavement and plunder. The 
soldiers of the foemen were billeted on the people, 
and a heavy tax was exacted under penalty of the 
loss of the nose for non-payment. Little could 
be done to oppose the strong, compact bodies of 
invaders. The population was sparse and scattered ; 
there were no fortified towns, then or later, for 
the Irish are not a town-loving race, moreover 
the nation broken up into numerous clans, 
and divided by the jealousies of chieftains, most 
of whom claimed descent from a common source, 
and almost none of whom was willing to pay 
allegiance to another. Even the ties of an embryo 
feudalism were lacking to bind the people into a 
semblance of unity. The early incursions of the 
Danes seem to have been purely predatory, and 
even after they began to settle down in their 
fortified cities, and engage in commerce, raids into 
the interior of the country were frequent and 
were often invited by the bickerings and dis- 
sensions between the chieftains. Thus, during the 


IRELAND, 9th-10th Centuries 

Danish Conquests 
and Settlements 

IRELAND, 1014 

period of relief from invasion which followed the 
death of Turgesius, we read of the Ardri plunder- 
ing both Munster and the north; in 8g5 he overran 
Connaught; a few years later Connaught and 
Meath were at war. Again, early in the tenth 
century the Ardri in alliance with Leinster plun- 
dered Munster, which was prosperous under the 
rule of Cormac, prince-bishop, a strong and also 
a very learned man. Cormac defeated the allies; 
then turned and defeated Meath and Connaught. 
Not satisfied with his success, however, he claimed 
the seat of the Ardri, and invaded Leinster to 
collect tribute; but was defeated in battle (goS) 
by the followers of the Ardri, and the men of 
Leinster and Connaught and was slain. Meantime 
warfare between the Danes and Irish had again 
begun, and too often the Danes had Irish allies. 
Thus Cormac of Ossory gave his grand daughter 
in marriage to Thurston the Red, and was him- 
self made king of Dublin. But under his suc- 
cessor, Sitric the Dane, Ossory was overrun by 
his late allies, assisted by the Desies, whose home 
was in the south of VVaterford. In qoi Dublin 
was taken by the Ardri, Flan; but in 916 was 
taken from his successor by Tomar the Dane, 
who ground the country down by every sort of 
oppression. After this there was constant fight- 
ing between the Danes and Irish with success 
now on one side, now on the other, for over sixty 
years. Then in a great battle at Tara, Malachy II, 
the Ardri, defeated the Danes at Tara (qSo). For 
sixteen years, he carried all before him, and 
seemed to be on the way to build up a strong 
kingdom across the island, in Leinster, Meath 
and Connaught. But a stronger man than he had 
risen in Dalcassia to the south. This was Brian, 
son of Kennedy, chief of Thomond, and high 
king of Munster. Brian's eldest brother, who had 
fought continuously against the Danes, and their 
allies, the men of Leinster, was betrayed in 976 
"some say by an Irish prince, and treacherously 
put to death by his Norse and Irish enemies. 
Brian, then thirty-five years of age, became king 
of Munster and took quick vengeance on the 
assassins. In three years' time he was the un- 
disputed king of the southern half of Ireland. . . . 
For a few years there was show of friendship be- 
tween [Brian and Malachy], . . . and in qq8 they 
came to an understanding, and made a truce ac- 
cording to which . . . [Brian was king of the 
southern, Malachy of the northern half of the 
island]. Thereupon the Leinstermen allied them- 
selves with the Dublin Danes and revolted. Brian 
and Malachy united their forces, 'to the great joy 
of the Irish,' as the Four Masters say, and, in 
Qpq, defeated them. . . . The two Irish kings soon 
quarrelled again, and in the year 1002, Malachy, 
finding that there was defection in his ranks, was 
compelled to resign his supremacy to the superior 
force of Brian and to step down to the position 
of a provincial king. . . . Both Malachy and 
Brian were extraordinary men and it would seem 
as if Ireland was not big enough for both of them. 
. . . [Had Brian] begun his career .at an earlier 
age and had he not had to contend with foreign 
invasion, he would no doubt have succeeded in 
welding the Irish clans into a strongly centralised 
and compact empire. That design probably never 
entered into his calculations. As it was, he did 
achieve that result to a certain extent and his 
reign was remarkably successful. ... He had his 
royal seat at Kincora, a well situated place near 
Killaloe, on the Shannon, where he ruled with 
a steady hand, established his power and authority 
on a firm basis, enforced law and order, imparted 
rigid and impartial justice, and dispensed a royal 

hospitality. Though much of his time was given 
to preparation for war, ... he still found time 
to build forts, roads and churches. He founded 
schools and encouraged learning, dispatched agents 
abroad to buy books, and during his reign the 
bardic schools began to rise again. He had diffi- 
culties with his own people, and indeed his title 
as emperor was never admitted by . . . [the 
kingdoms of the north, from whom he took 
hostages]. Nor were the Leinstermen any too friendly 
and he had to maintain permanent garrisons in 
parts of Munster. . . . Brian even attempted to 
extend his power beyond the limits of Ireland 
In the year 1005 he fitted out a fleet manned by 
Norsemen from Dublin, Waterford, and Wexford 
and Irish and pillaged the shores and levied 
tribute on the inhabitants of northern and west- 
ern Britain. He did not extirpate the Danes who 
were domiciled in Ireland or banish them from 
the kingdom, but treated them with the utmost 
leniency, and recognised the element of strength 
they would add to promote commerce and de- 
velop the resources of the country. In return for 
the Dublin Danes binding themselves to follow 
him in his wars, he was obliged to guarantee them 
and the other foreigners possession of their terri- 
tory in Ireland. [Nevertheless he reigned in peace 
for twelve years.]" — S. MacManus, Story of the 
Irish race, pp. 276-278. — See also Normans: 8th- 
gth centuries: Island empire of the Vikings; Scan- 
DINAv^AN SLATES : Sth-qth centuries. 

Also in: C. Halliday, Scandinavian kingdom 
of Dublin. — C. F. Keary, Vikings of western 
Christendom. — G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the 
Normans, v. i, pp. 30, 31. 

1014.— Battle of Clontarf.— Results.— Influ- 
ence of the Danes. — Unfortunately Brian made 
marriage alliances with his late enemies which were 
fatal to the power of his house. He gave his 
daughter in marriage to Sitric, son of the king 
of Dublin, and himself married Gormflaith, daugh- 
ter of the king of Leinster, and Sitric's mother, 
"fairest of women, who did all things ill." Her 
taunts about his vassalage, and a petty quarrel 
with Murrough, Brian's eldest son, led her brother 
the king of Leinster to revolt. He and his men 
"were quickly joined by the Dublin Danes, by 
Flaherty O'Neill of Tirowen and by O'Rorke of 
Breffni. Those two latter chiefs suddenly invaded 
Meath and defeated Malachy, but in a second 
battle were defeated. . . . Malachy pursued them 
and ravaged the country . . . but he was met by 
the Leinstermen and Danes, defeated . . . land) 
pursued to his own country wliich was plundered 
to its centre. . . . Malachy appealed to Brian, . . . 
[the Ardri who was in>part successful against the 
enemy, but failed to capture Dublin]. The. next 
few months were spent by both sides in prepar- 
ing for the great struggle which all felt to be 
near. From Kincora the summons went forth 
and was readily answered . . . [and the names of 
clans and chieftains reads like a roster of the 
ancient names of Ireland. The princes of Uladh 
and Tirowen in the north alone remained aloof 
and the Scots of Caledonia sent a contingent]. 
When all these forces were assembled there must 
have been not less than 20,000 assembled under 
the command of the old warrior King. In bring- 
ing together the Danes, nobody was more active 
than Gormfleth. . . . She had sent her son, Sitric, 
to the Danish leaders to beg their assistance, 
bidding him agree to any terms which they might 
demand. From Norway and Denmark, from the 
Orkney and Shetland Isles, from Northumbria and 
Man, from Skye and Lewis and Cantire and 
Cornwall, these Northmen came, . . , By Pqlm 


IRELAND, 1014 

Battle of 

IRELAND, 1014 

Sunday (1014) the Danes and Lcinstcrmen were 
assembled in Dublin and the whole surface of 
I'ublin Hay was covered with their ships." — E. A. 
D'Alton. History of Ireland, v. i, pp. 114-115. — 
The great battle of Clontarf, fouKht on Good 
Friday of the year 1014, gave ... a decisive vic- 
tory [to the Irish]. . . . The day seems to have 
been decided on by formal challenge. . . . The 

and the aged king on his knee? before the Crucifix, 
rushed in, tut him down with a .single blow, 
and then continued his flight. . . . The deceased 
hero took his place at once in history, national 
and foreign. . . . The fame of the event went 
out through all nations. The chronicles of Wales, 
of Scotland, and of Man ; the annals of .\demar 
and Marianus; the Sagas of Denmark and the 


I'.KI.AN BOKi; O.N THt I'L.M.N Ul- cLO.NT.\KF 
(.\ftcr painting by 1". Calherwood) 

forces on both sides could not have fallen short 
of 20,000 men. . . . The utmost fury was dis- 
played on all sides. . . . Hardly a nobly born man 
escaped, or sought to escape. The ten hundred 
in armor, and 3.000 others of the enemy, with 
about an equal number of the men of Ireland, 
lay dead upon the field. One division of the 
enemy were, towards sunset, retreating to their 
ships, when Brodar the X'iking, perceiving the 
tent of Brian, standing apart, without a guard, 

Isle,';, all record the event. . . 'Brian's battle,' as 
it is called in the Sagas, was, in short, such a 
defeat as prevented any general northern combina- 
tion for the subsequent invasion of Ireland. Not 
that the country was entirely free from their at- 
tacks till the end of the nth century; but, from 
the day of Clontarf forward, the long cherished 
Northern idea of a conquest of Ireland seems 
to have been gloomily abandoned by that in- 
domitable people." — T. D'A. McGee, Popular his- 


IRELAND, 1014 

Influence of 

IRELAND, 1014-1169 

tory of Ireland, v. i, bk. 2, cli. 6. — "It was a 
costly victory for the Irish; the king himself, 
. . . [his eldest son Murchadh, and Murchadh's son 
Turlough] all fell in battle. ... On the con- 
clusion of the battle the troops disbanded, each 
clan going to its own territory, and Donchadh, 
Brian's son, who had been away on a foraging 
expedition and had taken no part in the battle, 
took command. But the days of Ireland's glory 
were departed." — S. MacManus, Story of the Irish 
rate, p. 282. — "The battle of Clontarf marks an 
important epoch in Irish history. ... It cer- 
tainly did not rid Ireland of 'the foreigners.' 
The Norsemen remained as before in possession 
of the walled city of Dublin and of the sea-board 
towns which they had created on the east and 
south coasts, whence they dominated the adjoin- 
ing districts, and occasionally joined in the in- 
ternal contests of the Irish themselves. . . . The 
battle of Clontarf marks the downfall of the 
hopes of Brian to establish a strong monarchy in 
Ireland, and the failure of the most promising 
attempt ever made to make Celtic Ireland a 
nation. . . . The edifice he had commenced fell 
with him. He left no successor strong enough 
to maintain the position he had won for him- 
self with the sword. Nay, the very success of his 
career made it much more difficult for even any 
of the legitimate line of titular monarchs to make 
his rule a reality. Few pages of Irish h story are 
more bitter reading for an Irishman than those 
which tell of the subsequent fortunes of the 
shattered battalion of the Dalcassians, the brave 
remnants of Brian's own tribe. No sooner had 
they buried their dead on the field of battle 
than dissensions, we are told, broke out among 
the leaders of Brian's army." — G. H. Orpen, Ire- 
Imid under the Normans, v. i, pp. 28-30. — "The 
Viking age was by no means a starless night in 
Ireland. . . . Though internecine feuds and bat- 
tles with the Danes took up much of the chief- 
tains' time, other things besides spears and swords 
were exchanged between the Irish and the in- 
vader. ... In matters of agriculture and cattle 
raising the Irish were the teachers of the Norse- 
men, but in other purely material pursuits the 
civilisation of the Norse 'was superior to that of 
the Irish. Though by the middle of the seventh 
century, in the pre -Viking period, Ireland had made 
considerable progress in the art of ship con- 
struction, it was above all from the hardy sailors 
of the north that they learned to build and 
sail great ships and to organise fleets, to use iron 
armour, to fight on horseback and no longer from 
chariots or on foot, to build stone forts and 
bridges, and to live in fortified cities surrounded 
by walls. . . . Nor were the Vikings mere sea 
robbers; they were merchants as well. Since they 
controlled the seas, for a long time all trade 
and shipping between Limerick and other Irish 
ports and the west of France and Spain was in 
their hands. They exported Ireland's products 
and imported all that Ireland wanted, as wheat, 
wine, costly silks, and fine leather, and they helped 
to introduce foreign fashions into Ireland. The 
first Irish coins that were struck in Ireland were 
minted by Norse kings who held court in Dublin. 
. . . The Irish probably also adopted the north- 
ern system of weights and measures. How much 
Irish society and domestic life were influenced 
by Norse occupation is seen in the Irish language 
itself, in which there is scarcely a word mean- 
ing a large ship or its parts or markets or trade 
that is not borrowed from the Norse, if it is 
not from the Latin." — S. MacManus, Story of the 
Irish race, pp. 283-284. — See also Normans: loth- 


13th centuries; Influence of the Vikings; Philol- 
ogy: 17. 

1014-1169. — From fall of the Danes to coming 
of Normans. — "Just as Brian had disturbed the 
old rule of alternate succession in Munster between 
the descendants of Cormac Cas and those of 
Eoghan Mor, so, but with still more fatal effect, 
he had put an end to the custom, acquiesced in for 
upwards of five centuries, according to which the 
ard-ri of Ireland was chosen alternately from the 
two great houses of the Hy Neill race, or descend- 
ants of Niall of the Nine Hostages, King of 
Ireland at the close of the fourth century. Hence- 
forth the prize of the sovereignty of Ireland was 
open to all comers. What Brian had won by the 
sword an O'Brien, or an O'Conor, or a MacMur- 
rough, might win by the same means. For the 
moment the deposed King Malachy was allowed to 
resume the crown which he had been forced to 
yield to Brian. . . . From the death of Malachy 
(1022), however, up to the year of Dermot's 
expulsion (1166), there never was a universally 
acknowledged king of Ireland. In the phrase of 
the annalists, there were only kings co fressabhra, 
'with opposition.' " — G. H. Orpen, Ireland under 
the Normans, v. i, pp. 35-37. — Turlough, grand- 
son of Brian made himself strong and when he 
died in 10S6 "he was the foremost in power and 
influence among the Irish kings, in ability and 
energy, both in peace and war, not unworthy of 
the grandson of Brian. Abroad also his fame 
was great. By Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, who corresponded with him, he is styled the 
magnificent King of Ireland, and he congratulates 
the people of Ireland that God had given them 
such a king. . . . [.-Vfter him Donal O'Loughlin, 
chief of Tirowen in the north was ambitious of 
becoming Ardri. Against O'Loughlin was op- 
posed Murtagh O'Brien son of Turlough who 
overran the northwest and reduced the northeast 
to submission. But the Archbishop of Armagh 
made peace between them.] While the greater 
chiefs were constantly engaged in war, so also 
were the minor chiefs. . . . Year after year, every 
clan and every sept was at war with its neighbour; 
from Innishowen to Desmond, from lar Connaught 
to Athcliath, there was the same monotonous itera- 
tion of war and plunder; and disorder and dis- 
cord were supreme. Nor were the Danes idle 
as might be expected. ... At intervals, these 
Danes either plundered themselves, or allied them- 
selves for purpose of plunder with some native 
chief. ... If to this be added, that they oc- 
casionally sacked a monastery or church, we have 
exhausted the list of their achievements. . . . War 
was so widespread in 114S, that the Four Masters 
lament that 'Ireland was a trembling sod,' but 
they might have written the same of almost any 
other year at that time. War was everywhere. 
In the north, every two clans fought, and scarce 
a year passed that a quarrel did not arise between 
Tirconnell and Tirowen. Neither the memory of 
their common ancestors nor considerations of per- 
sonal interest were able to restrain them. . . . [By 
this time the supremacy had shifted from Thomond 
to Connaught. Turlouirh O'Connor, king of Con- 
naught, who died in 1156, was a great figure 
in those weary days, and raised his kingdom to a 
height it had never reached before.] His death 
removed the foremost figure from the theatre of 
Irish affairs, one who for nearly fifty years had 
been concerned in all the great events that had 
happened, and in most of which his was the con- 
trolling influence. . . . [Turlough O'Connor, than 
whom no king in Ireland, since Brian Boru had 
had such influence or power, was followed on the 


IRELAND, 1014-1169 

Danes to Normans 

IRELAND, 1169-1200 

throne of Connaught by Roderick O'Connor, who, 
on the death in battle of the last Ardri of the 
race of Nial, was, with rare unanimity allowed to 
succeed. The chiefs agreed to give him the hos- 
tages which he sought, and] al Dublin, whither 
he had marched. Roderick was inaugurated king, 
'as honorably as any king of the Gael ever 
inaugurated ' ... He convoked at ."Vthboy (1167), 
a great council of princes and ecclesiastics, where 
many useful regulations for the government of 
the entire country were made, and the members 
of which separated . . . 'without controversy or 
battle.' . . . Weary of war, it seemed at last that 
the energies of the people were to be directed 
into peaceful channels, that the reign of discord 
was over, and the reign of unity and peace was 
about to dawn." — E. A. D'Alton, History oj Ire- 
land, V. I, pp. 125, 129-130, 133-137- 

Lcinster, which was burdened with the pay- 
ment of the Boru tribute, seems to have felt her- 
self itiore or less alien to the rest of the nation, 
and to have been more willing than the other 
tribes to ally herself to the Dane. At some time 
the tribute seems to have been dropped; but is 
said to have been reimposed by Brian Boru, and 
it has been suggested that the rankling feeling of 
wrong thereby engendered was at the bottom of 
Mailmorra's quarrel with Brian, which Gormflaith's 
taunts only excited. Be that as it may, du'ing 
the time of disorder which followed Brian's 
death, Leinster gained rather than lost, and while 
no Ardri came from the family of her chieftains, 
she was become sufficiently powerful to hold her 
own against invaders. Early in the twelfth cen- 
tury Dermot MacMurrough became king; gave 
hostages to Turlough O'Connor in sign of sub- 
mission to him as his over king, and received a 
third of Meath when that kingdom was divided 
by O'Connor. He sems to have been an able 
man, and "consolidated the strength of Leinster 
under his own personal rule. Yet among his own 
people he w as not popular ; he was more feared 
than loved; and though the prestige of success 
won him followers, it did not win him their af- 
fection. . . . [The consolidation of his power was 
evidently made partly at least at the expense of his 
sub chiefs, for we read that he killed two, and 
blinded seventeen chiefs, besides others of in- 
ferior rank. Blindness as a physical disability pre- 
cluded any Irish chief from ruling, and was for 
an unscrupulous man an easy if sinister means of 
imposing his will. If this were all Diarmuid did 
his name would probably have sunk into oblivion. 
But sometime in 1152 he carried off Dervorgilla, 
the beautiful but elderly wife of Tighcrnan 
O'Rorke, king of Breffni, in the absence of her 
husband.] O'Rorke appealed to his friend, Turlogh 
O'Connor, who led an army into Leinster (1153), 
defeated MacMurrogh, and brought away Der- 
vorgille [who retired to the convent at Mcllifont]. 
. . . With O'Rorke the recollection of the wrong 
done him by MgcMurrogh was ever vivid. . . . 
[His opportunity came when Roderick O'Connor 
was made .^rdrij and he determined to the 
ravishcr by whom he had been so cruelly wronged. 
Aided by Roderick, he entered Lcinster w^ith a 
strong force. They were joined by MacTurkill, 
chief of the Dublin Danes — for they, too. hated 
Dermot — by the King of Ossory, and by the various 
Lcinster chiefs, all anxious to be emancipated from 
his tyranny. L'nable to cope with so many en- 
emies, Dermot retired to the monastery of Ferns." 
— E. .\. D'.Mton, History oj Ireland, v. I, pp. 175, 
177. — "It w'as, apparently, towards the close of 
the year 1166 that Diarmuid furtively left his dun 
of Ferns and sailed across the Irish Sea for the coast 

of Wales. He first made his way to Bristol, then 
the chief city of the West of England, with close 
associations with the people of Leinster. Thence 
he journeyed to seek Henry of Anjou, . . . [who 
was] busily engaged . . . fighting his own sub- 
jects of Aquitaine and also his liege lord, the 
King of France. He was so much occupied by 
his ambitions for Continental power that he was 
unable to give personal assistance to Diarmuid. 
But he welcomed the exile, and sympathised with 
his story of revolted subjects and an unjust 
suzerain. . . . Accordingly, he gave liberty to Diar- 
muid to recruit such of the Xorman adventurers 
on the Welsh marches as might be enticed into 
an enterprise in Ireland. . . . Returning to Bristol, 
Diarmuid first secured the promise of [the services 
of Richard de Clare, commonly known as Strong- 
bow] . ... In that warrior's needy circumstances 
the prospect held out by Diarmuid of a mar- 
riage with the latter's daughter and the succession 
to his Kingdom was sufficiently alluring. Next, 
MacMurrough won over Robert Fitz-Stephen and 
Maurice Fitz-Gerald . . . [and others of the Fitz- 
gerald family to whom] he promised the town of 
Wexford." — M. T. Ha\ den and G. A. Moonan, 
Short history oj the Irish people, pp. loq-iio. 

1169-1200. — English invasion. — Strongbow. — 
English Pale. — "In the month of May, nog, the 
first body of the adventurers arrived under the 
leadership of Robert Fitz-Stephen, and others. 
.•\bout 2,000 strong, they landed at Bannow Bay in 
the extreme south of the present county of Wex- 
ford. The district was part of Ui Cinnsealaigh, 
[Diarmuid's territory] and the people of the open 
country were loyal to their chief. But on the one 
side lay Waterford, and on the other Wexford, 
and the Norse inhabitants of both towns were 
bitterly hostile to Diarmuid. . . . The combined 
forces attacked Wexford. Retreating before the 
mailclad knights, the inhabitants defended the 
walls and beat off their assailants. At length, 
however, they yielded on terms, and recognised 
Diarmuid as their lord. The town and surround- 
ing country were granted to Fitz-Stephen and his 
principal associates." — M. T. Hayden and G. A. 
Moonan, Short history oj the Irish people, p. 110. — 
"Ossory was laid waste, and Diarmuid returned 
to Ferns, the Irish closing up again and occupying 
the wasted territory. These proceedings had at- 
tracted Roderic O'Connor's attention, and he 
gathered the forces of Connacht and Meath, and 
marched against Diarmuid ; but instead of crush- 
ing him while he was able, he parleyed, and finally 
made a treaty by which Diarmuid was to be 
recognized as King of Leinster, was to send the 
English back, and not to bring any more of them 
over. . . . Diarmuid [however] continued organiz- 
ing. Maurice Fitzgerald and Raymond Le Gros 
came over with detachments, and finally Strongbow 
him.self landed with close on 2,000 men in .August 
1 1 70. The combined armies marched on Water- 
ford, which was taken at the third assault, and 
no quarter given. .Amidst the ruin and carnage the 
marriage of Strongbow and Eva celebrated, 
and the spoilers marched on Dublin with an army 
of 5,000 English and perhaps 10.000 Irish. . . . 
[Dublin was taken.) Hasculf, the Danish King 
of Dublin, escaped by sea; Roderic, . . . turned 
back to Connacht for winter quarters, and the 
enemy were left in undisputed possession of Wex- 
ford, Waterford and Dublin — that is to say, prac- 
tically in possession of the south-eastern coast. 
[Sec also Dublin: I2th-i4th centuries.] In the 
meantime the English Crown came into play-. 
Diarmuid died towards the end of 11 70, and 
Strongbow claimed Leinster by virtue of bis com- 

45 T 9 

IRELAND, 1169-1200 

English Invasion 

IRELAND, 1169-1200 

pact and his marriage with Eva. Tidings of this 
reached Henry, [who had no liking for a power- 
ful vassal] and he issued a mandate condemning 
Strongbow's proceedings, ordered that no English 
ship should carry anything to Ireland, and ordered 
all English subjects in that country to return to 
England by next Easter. . . . [In the meantime 
Roderick, with an army estimated at 30,000. in- 
vested Dublin, while his allies, the Manxmen, 
invested it from the sea. Strongbow, it is said, 
offered to pay homage to O'Connor, who refused 
the offer. In desperation, the Normans then made 
a sally, and] routed the whole army, Roderic him- 
self barely escaping with his life. Strongbow now, 
feeling himself unable to hold Leinster without 
English help, went to England to Henry and 
laid his conquests at his feet, declaring that he 
acted only in his name, and would deliver over 
Leinster to him. This was precisely what Henry 
wanted, so Strongbow was 'graciously pardone^l,' 
and his English estates were restored to him. 
Henry himself equipped an army and landed in 
VVaterford in October 1171, with about 5,000 men, 
and the occurrences during this visit are some- 
what uncertain. English writers maintain that 
he received the submission of all the Irish chiefs, 
including Roderic O'Connor himself. The Annals 
of I he Four Masters, on the other hand, simply 
record that he came and went, and do not re- 
cord any submissions; though the Aimals of Ulster 
and Loch Ce, in entries which agree almost word 
for word, say that he 'received the hostages' of 
Munster and Leinster and Meath." — P. S. 
O'Hegarty, Indestructible nation, pp. 7-9. 

Also in: W. O'C. Morris, Ireland, pp. 28-57. 

Henry II "asserted his authority as 'Lord of 
Ireland,' in a series of acts of harshness and 
clemency; but, true to his mission as a Son of 
the Church, he sought to enlist her great spiritual 
power on his side. At a general synod, held at 
Cashel, under the sanction of the Pope, and 
attended by several English Bishops, it was sol- 
emnly proclaimed that 'Ireland had received a 
Lord and King at the hand of Providence.' . . . 
Meanwhile Henry had taken care to .secure the 
submission of the late invaders, by granting them 
the territories they had seized, to be held as 
ordinary fiefs ■of the Crown; and the chain of 
feudalism was thrown over the whole country, by 
the assertion of his title as its superior lord, 
illusory as the pretence was. The magnificence 
and the power of the great Angevin king seem 
to have fascinated most of the Irish chiefs ; they 
were entertained by him in royal state in Dub- 
lin ; they made homage, and offered tribute, in 
return for his politic arts and courtesies; and 
though Roderick held aloof for a time, he soon 
consented to become a vassal king of Connaught. 
The supremacy of England, at least in name, over 
all Ireland, was thus affirmed; and, at the same 
time, Henry made an attempt to give it reality 
within the tracts of Leinster, which had been, 
in a certain measure, subdued. Parts of this 
region were made shireland, and were placed under 
the system of administration and law, which had 
grown up in England since the Norman Conquest. 
A governor was appointed with vice-regal func- 
tions; something like a great Council was estab- 
lished; Courts of Anglo-Norman law were created; 
and the 'men of Bristol' were given a charter 
for Dublin. The genius of Henry had traced the 
lines of conquest; it had not completed a single 
part of the edifice. No train of colonists fol- 
lowed his army to people the districts it had 
overrun; that army, besides, was much too weak 
to attempt to keep hold on the whole country. 

The king, too, had been forced to temporise with 
Strongbow and his companions in arms; he made 
them, indeed, his vassals in name; but he did 
not curtail their overgrown power. . . . The au- 
thority of the Crown was feeble even in the Anglo- 
Norman region, known afterwards as the English 
Pale ; and in the Celtic region beyond it was 
almost a nullity, for the submissions and tributes 
of the Irish chiefs, even if continued, made it, 
in no sense, sovereign. . . . 'He departed from Ire- 
land,' said an acute historian, 'without striking 
one blow, or building one castle, or planting one 
garrison among the Irish ; neither left he behind 
him one true subject more than those he found 
there at his coming over, which were only the 
English adventursifi spoken of before, who had 
gained the port towns in Leinster and Munster, 
and possessed some scopes of land thereunto ad- 
joining, partly by Strongbow's alliance with the 
Lord of Leinster, and partly by plain invasion 
and conquest.' " — W. O'C. Morris, Ireland, p'p. 29- 
31. — It was not long before Strongbow and the 
Ardri were at war, and the long story of attack 
and reprisal began. Moreover the Irish chief- 
tains had already commenced the short-sighted 
policy of seeking aid against each other from the 
Anglo-Normans. Thus in 11 75, according to the 
Annals of Tigernach, on the invitation of Rod- 
erick O'Connor the Ardri, Raymond le Gros 
assisted by the Connaughtmen, laid waste Tho- 
mond. "The hereditary feud between the O'Conors 
[or O'Connors] and the O'Briens was repeatedly 
breaking out, and contributed in no small de- 
gree to the ultimate loss of both kingdoms. . . . 
[Just about this time Roderick O'Connor made a 
treaty of peace with Henry, by which Roderick 
became Henry's liege man as king of Connaughi 
and overlord of Ireland] The treaty was, how- 
ever, subject to this proviso, that Rory was 
not to interfere with the lands which the king 
retained in his dominion and in the dominion of 
his barons, namely Dublin, Meath, 'as fully as 
Murrough O'Melaghlin held it,' Wexford with the 
whole of Leinster, and Watcrford with all the 
land between it and Dungarvan. . . . [This treaty, 
known as the Treaty of Windsor, though not work- 
able, is important .is showing the lands at this 
time actually under English rule. In 11 76 Strong- 
bow died, and as far as we can judge his death 
was a misfortune.] Moreover, to judge by the 
earl's success in winning over most of the chief- 
tains of Leinster to acquiesce in the Norman 
settlement, which he did . . . more by persuasion 
and reasonable treatment than by the sword, he 
was the man best fitted to carry on the work 
of pacification. This, it is scarcely needful to 
say, was not the opinion of the native annalists. 
. . . But the native annalists not unnaturally 
fathered on Strongbow the evils which they deemed 
to have arisen from the English intervention in 
general. To him personally they do not ascribe 
any act of treachery or bad faith, or even of 
unusual severity." — G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the 
Normans, v. i. pp. 347-348, 350, 358, 350.— The 
years which followed Strongbow's death tell a 
tale of constant fighting. Between 1177 and 11S5 
Uladh, the eastern part of Ulster, and part of 
Oriel, to the south and west of it, were taken 
by John de Courcy to whom Henry is said to have 
given jesting permission to go and take what he 
could. Henry's jests it may be noted were rather 
grim. In 11 77 Henry's son John, a child of ten, 
was created "Lord of Ireland" Hugh de Lacy 
was given Meath. for the service of a hundred 
knights; Fitz Stephen and de Cogan received 
Cork for the service of sixty knights, and Philip 


IRELAND, 1169-1200 

Social System 

IRELAND, 1269 

de Braose was granted Limerick (Thomoiul of the 
Delcassians) for the service of sixty lcni;.'hts. it 
might be supposed that the Irish chieftains would 
have united in defense of their lands and peo- 
ple against the invaders. But, it must be re- 
membered that Ireland was then no more united 
in one nation than the City Republics of Italy 
composed one people, or than the petty princelets 
of Germany were united in brotherly love throuKh- 
out the Thirty Years' War. It was palpably true 
that no combination strong enough to drive out 
the invaders could be made in the existing state 
of Ireland, once Leinster and the coast towns had 
been occupied. This being the case it would have 
been well for the country ii some one of the 
nobles had been permitted ro set up a strong 
government. But Henry was himself too unruly 
a vassal to the king of France to permit a vassal 
of his own to become strong enough to- rule. 
Moreover, his own defiance in France made him 
suspicious, and only too ready to listen to en- 
emies of the men whom he sent to govern in h.s 
name. In 1184 Hugh de Lacy, lord of Meath, 
who had married a daughter of Roderick O'Connor, 
was removed from office a second time, and the 
king's son John was sent over in the hope that 
he could induce the chieftains to submit. But 
John failed in every way. His arrogance and 
petulance insulted and alarmed the chiefs who 
went to meet him, and they departed bursting 
with indignation to inform the other chiefs of 
the treatment they had received. His levity and 
the robbery and pillage indulged in by his foU 
lowers almost succeeded in doing what other 
injuries had not achieved and uniting the dis- 
united chieftains. Cork and Thomond formed a 
league against him. The older colonists held aloof 
and befdre his recall the English power was all 
but destroyed. In iiSq Henry died, and the 
same year Roderick O'Connor breathed his last in 
the Monastery at Cong where he had been driven 
\ears before by his sons. He had lived to mourn 
his lack of energy and initiative in dealing with 
McDermott and his allies. The next years are 
marked by constant fighting among the chiefs with 
the .\nglo-Normans now on one side, now on the 
other. The English, who were never strong enough 
to conquer the whole country had apparently from 
the first adopted the policy of .seizing lands and 
building strongholds within the territories assigned 
to them. In these same territories independent 
Irish chieftains, held rule over their own people, 
and lived by their own law. — Based on G. H. 
Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, pp. 109-110. — 
See also Ulster: 1171-1186. 

Also v.: Mrs. J. R. Green, Henry the Second, 
ch. 8. — .\. G. Richey. Short history of the Irish 
people, ch. 6-7.^W. A. O'Conor, Tlistory of the 
Irish people, bk. 2, ch. 1-2. — T. Moore, History of 
Ireland, ch. 26-29. — F. P. Barnard, ed., Strongbo'ja's 
conquest of Ireland: From contemporary -ji-riters. 

1199-1260. — Continued resistance of Ulster to 
Normans. — Invasion of Tyrconnell by Brian 
O'Neill. — Defeat of Ulster chiefs at Down- 
patrick. See Ulster: iiQq-1260. 

1269. — Social system at coming of Normans. 
— "There were nearly two hundred tuatlL< or ter- 
ritories, in Ireland, each occupied by a tribe, under 
its chief who was oftentimes designated king of 
a tuath. The subdivisions of a tuath were bally- 
betaighs, of which there were usually thirty to 
each tuath. The ballybetaigh was again sub- 
divided into twelve seasreachs, each of one plough- 
land or about one hundred and twenty acres. The 
ballybetaigh was supposed to be of extent to 
supply grazing for four herds of seventy-five cows 

each, 'without one cow touching another.' In 
general, the whole of the lands of the territory 
belonged to all the tribe. But there was a limited 
circle, including the king, the nobles, and a few 
of the leading professional men, each of whom 
had private rights in a certain portion of the 
land — the right to use those lands for the benefit of 
himself and family, but not to transfer them to 
any person outside the tribe. The foregoing re- 
fers only to special portions of the tribal land. 
The greater part of the tribal land was free for 
the use of ail the [Jtople of the tribe. These 
privileged ones who had exclusive rights to the 
use of certain lands, usually rented large por- 
tion in parcels to the ceiles (tenants) — who formed 
the feine, or general body of the people. The 
privileged person usually also rented to the ceile 
cattle for stocking the land. The ceile who owned 
his own stock, or who had to borrow but little, 
was of much higher standing than the ceile who 
had to borrow or rent all his stock. The former 
was called a free ceile, and the latter an unfree 
because he was bound to those above him by 
so many obligations. The stock borrowed from a 
noble (or from a certain class between the noble 
and the ceile called bo-aire, who had stock to 
rent) was returned, it or its equivalent, at the 
end of seven years. Below the ceiles — the feine, 
or general body of the people of the tribe — were 
two classes usually rated as non-free. One of 
them was the bothach and soncleithe, who were 
labourers, horseboys, herdsmen, and hangers-on, 
supported by particular families to which they 
were attached, and who were considered members 
of the tribe, but had neither property rights nor 
any voice in the tribal council. The other, the 
fuidir, were strangers, fugitives, war captives, con- 
demned criminals or people w-ho had to give up 
their freedom in order to work out a debt or 
fine that they could not pay. These latter, were 
not of the tribe, only belonged to it. and were 
serfs, pure and simple. Only, they had the risht 
of renting a little land and gradually acquiring 
property — till, in the course of a certain number 
of years, having accumulated some substance, and 
having proved to the tribe that they were people 
of character, they could, by the general voice of 
the tribe, be received into the fold, and become 
of the feine. . Of course the bothach and sencleithe 
were privileged to raise themselves even more 
easily than the fuidir. The very humblest might, 
by inherent worth, work his way up to be 
eventually among the noblest. So, the class system 
in Ireland was not a caste system. It was only 
the fuidir, the mere flotsam and jetsam of the 
nation, who were in the state of semi-servitude. 
The feudal system, the system of the lord and 
the serf, which was the rule throughout almost all 
the countries of Europe then, was never known 
in Ireland — at least not until the English, after 
they had established footing there, endeavoured to 
introduce from their own country a form of it. 
The system in Ireland was something more like 
the patriarchal system of the east. The tribe re- 
solved itself into family groups called derb-fine 
centering around one leading family from whom 
the chief was always chosen. The law of in- 
heritance in ancient Ireland was not that of primo- 
geniture, but of gavel-kind — that is, instead of 
the eldest son inheriting all the father's property, 
it was divided, cattle and land, among all the 
sons. But the eldest son got, with his share, the 
house and offices and household effects. Special 
responsibilities fell to him as guardian of his sis- 
ters, and of hLs brothers under age, and as the 
representative of the family in all cases of stress 


IRELAND, 1269 

Under Anglo-Norman 

IRELAND, 12th-14th Centuries 

or need. The laws protected every one, including 
the base fuidir. They were especially framed to 
protect the weak against the strong. 'No person,' 
says the law, 'shall be oppressed in his difficulty.' 
And the law forbade the rent-payer to give service 
or rent to one who would exact unjustly. The 
greedy oppressor had to repent and pay a fine 
before his ceile should resume giving him either 
rent or service. The ceile contributed to the 
head of the tribe a certain amount of labour, a 
portion of the household needs, and a certain num- 
ber of days' military service, which was demanded 
when the need arose. But the chief, or king 
of the territory — as well as the provincial king 
and the Ard-Righ — kept about him a number of 
paid permanent troops — his household troops com- 
posed of his own people, and a small standing 
army usually composed of mercenaries. And the 
strongest, most powerful man was chosen as the 
king's airechta, champion or avenger. The king 
of the tuath paid tribute to the provincial king, 
who in turn paid tribute to the Ard-Righ. And 
on the other hand, each of the higher kings paid 
back to his tributary a small courtesy tribute called 
tuarastal. The Book of Rights specifies in full, 
and curious detail, the cis, or amounts of the 
tribute in cattle, in cloaks, in swords, etc., due 
from each inferior king to his superior — and like- 
wise the tuarastal from the superior to his in- 
ferior. The headship (whether chief or king) 
was hereditary only to the extent that the ruler 
was always chosen by the people, from within 
one family. From the righ-damna (king ma- 
terial) that is, the royal uncles, brothers, sons, 
nephews, grand-sons and grand-nephews, the peo- 
ple chose whatever male member of the family 
would make the wisest, bravest, and best ruler. In 
later centuries, in order to avoid the evils of 
disputed succession, the king's successor was always 
chosen during the king's hfetime— and this king- 
elect was called tanaiste. He had to be with- 
out physical blemish or deformity. When elected 
he had to swear to observe the law, and to govern 
in accordance with the law and the ancient cus- 
toms. At the inauguration the ollam, in presence 
of the people, read to him the laws that he must 
swear to observe, and the ancient customs that 
he must swear to maintain. And for non-observ- 
ance of these, he was Hable to be, at any time, 
deposed." — S. MacManus, Story of the Irish race, 

pp. 2Q3-2QS. 

12th-l4th centuries.— Under Anglo-Norman 
conquerors. — Jealousy of chiefs. — Lack of unity 
among nobles. — System of government. — Mis- 
ery of warfare. — Extent of conquest. — State of 
the church. — Brehon laws. — Attempts to ex- 
tend English judicial system. — Feudal system. — 
Influence of towns. — Anglo-Normans Celticized. 
— Gallowglasses. — In 1210 John went over to 
Ireland to seek to make a settlement. "Cathal 
Crovderg of Connaught and O'Brien of Thomond 
had tendered him their submission and offered their 
services if required; their aid was accepted against 
the De Lacys; and the unusual spectacle was pre- 
sented of two Irish princes marching with an 
English king to suppress the revolt of two powerful 
English lords. . . . The submission of the Irish 
chiefs left John no enemy to conquer except O'Neill 
and the northern princes and he made no attempt 
to conquer them, the flight of De Lacy and De 
Braose left him no rebels to chastise; and, freed 
from the necessity of making war, he turned his 
attention to works of peace, and took measures 
to establish English institutions in those parts of 
Ireland, which had been subdued by English arms. 
Almost all Leinster and Munster and the greater 

part of Meath, John believed could safely be 
brought within the Pale of English law, and 
this wide extent of territory he divided into twelve 
counties, Louth, Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Carlow, 
Kilkenny, Wexford, Waterford, Cork Kerry, 
Limerick and Tipperary. In these counties he de- 
creed that English laws and customs should pre- 
vail. ... In the counties recently formed, courts 
were set up. judges appointed and sheriffs and 
the other officers necessary to carry out the Court's 
decrees. Over all was the Viceroy, sopetimes 
called justiciary, sometimes Lord Deputi/, some- 
times Lord Lieutenant and with him, as a Council, 
but subordinate to him, were the Lord Chancellor 
and the Lord Tre^rer. The Lord Chancellor 
had the custody of the great seal and in power 
and dignity was first and greatest of the judges. 
The Lord Treasurer was at the head of the Court 
of Exchequer, and had charge of the King's reve- 
nues, and fines and debts accruing to the King 
passed through his hands. . . . [King John] may 
be getting credit from historians for having done 
more in Ireland than he actually did, but at 
least this can be said that his conduct in Ire- 
land, during his last visit, favourably contrasts 
with his record on the other side of St. George's 
Channel. . . . [Other historians claim that John 
did not and could not have created twelve coun- 
ties, and that the introduction of English law 
within the conquered territory was a slow process, 
which covered many years.] After John's de- 
parture, the country continued to be in a sadly 
disordered state. Chief fought against Chief and 
within the clans there was internecine warfare, 
in which the barons were ever ready to take 
part, and advance their own interests. Such a 
war was waged in 1224 after the death of Crov- 
derg of Connaught, the successor of Roderick. 
Turlogh O'Connor, the son of Roderick, made 
himself king with the aid of O'Neill of Tirowen 
who helped him to oust Hugh, the son of Crov- 
derg. Hugh O'Connor asked and obtained as- 
sistance from De Marisco, the viceroy, who with 
his own forces and those of O'Mellaghin of Meath, 
crossed the Shannon. Turlogh O'Connor got the 
assistance of Thomond, and between the two 
armies Connaught was devastated. Hugh O'Con- 
nor however was made king and after this period 
of slaughter and desolation peace was restored. 
The English in their march through Roscommon 
and Mayo had plundered everything, and left 
ruin and misery in their track; the steps of Donogh 
O'Brien, in Ga'lway, on his march from Thomond, 
were similarly marked, and there was hardly a 
church or territory in Connaught that had not 
been plundered and laid waste. . . . Without corn 
or cattle, the people were in the last extremity 
of distress and large numbers perished of hunger; 
in the wake of famine, the horrid spectre of fam- 
ine fever appeared, and Connaught seemed as a 
land accursed, a land of mourning and lamenta- 
tion and woe. It was about this date that 
Richard de Burgho assumed the title of Lord of 
Connaught. . . . The English had already ac- 
quired settlements in Connaught, they had built 
strong castles on Lough Corrib, they were thus 
enabled to exercise an influence on its local af- 
fairs, and, best of all, the King of Connaught 
was their creature; it was they who placed him 
on the throne and, as they had put him up, they 
could as easily pull him down." — E. A. D'Alton, 
History of Ireland, v. i, pp. 236-240, 245.— "For 
twenty-five years — 12 24- 1249 — confusion ruled in 
Connacht, and the De Burghs, the Geraldines and 
other Normans again took part in the lighting, and 


IRELAND, 12th-14th Centuries 

Lack of 

IRELAND, 12th-14th Centuries 

extended their own power. But the rivalries and 
quarrels amongst tiie Normans Ihemselvcs pre- 
ventid any serious conquest." — M. T. Hayden, 
and (J. A. Moonan, Short history of the Irish peo- 
/>''■. P- 130 — "Compared with Connaufiht, alter- 
nately de.-olatcd by English noble and Irish chief, 
and in which the tumult of war was seldom 
hushed, the state of Munster, during these years, 
was one of peace. Yet there were many elements 
of discord and turmoil within its bounds. . . . 
Early in the thirteenth century the Fitzgeralds 
had gained a strong foothold in Desmond, and 
the position of De Burgho at Limerick was near 
and his forces strong. The ancient jealousy be- 
tween the O'Briens of Thomond and the Mac- 
Carthys of Desmond still survived and the 
strength of each of these families was often dis- 
sipated by faction and discord and petty ambi- 
tion ; and to carry their point these princes, like 
the O'Connors of Connaught, were always ready 
to call the English to their aid. . . . ITirconneil 
and Tirowcn in the northwest was fairly tranquil 
during the life of Hugh O'N'eill of Tirowen, a 
strong and masterful man. But in 1230, after the 
death of Hugh, his successor in conjunction with 
the English wasted Tirconnell, and in reprisal 
had his own province overrun.] Had the various 
English chiefs — De Burgho, FitzGerald and the 
rest — united under a single leader, with their 
superior forces and superior arms, thiy would 
quickly have overborne the Irish, and the native 
chiefs, lacking unity and cohesion and fighting only 
for themselves, would have fallen one by one. . . . 
Successive English Kings had paid but little at- 
tention to Irish concerns, had never effectually 
conquered it, and had left their Viceroys at Dublin 
insufficiently supported, while a number of power- 
ful barons, impatient of control, despising the 
feeble authority of the central government, had 
gradually and imperceptibly risen to the position 
of independent rulers. Intent on the acquisition of 
wealth and lands, they made peace and war as 
they pleased; if they united it was not for the 
English King's interests but for their own; even 
their own countrymen they did not spare. . . . 
The translator of the Annals of Clonmacnoise does 
not exaggerate, when he says 'that there reigned 
more dissensions, strifes, wars and debates be- 
tween the Englishmen themselves than between 
the Irishmen.' -The dissensions among the Irish 
were the cause of most of their miseries: the 
dissensions among the .Anglo-Irish were the cause 
why the conquest of Ireland was indefinitely de- 
layed, and the agony of the country indefinitely 
prolonged." — E. A. D'Alton, History oj Ireland, 
V. I, pp. 250, 253, 260. — Most historians seek to 
place all the blame upon one side or the other 
but the truth seems to lie just where this writer 
has laid his finger. Each side was too strong to 
let the other prevail ; too weak, and its force 
too grcaily dissipated by jealousies to hope to 
prevail itself. By the end of the thirteenth cen- 
tury, the authority of the provincial kings had 
been weakened in the struggle. "The traditional 
influence of their families, however, remained, and 
their leadership was recognised. The heads of 
the opposition in every district were the repre- 
sentatives of the dynasties which for so many ■ 
centuries had ruled the various Kingdoms. . . . 
With a base that stretched from Dublin to Dun- 
dalk a great Norman triangle reached to Trim 
and was continued to Athlone. ... On the north 
it was connected, through dangerous passes which 
were bordered by Irish clans, with the remote 
settlement around Strangford Lough and Belfast 

Lough. On the south lay the plains and coast 
of Leinster, which united by double bonds Dublin 
and VVaterford. From the occupied district 
around Watcrlord Norman lines lay along the 
valleys of the south-eastern rivers and reached, 
with difficulty, to Limerick. Below Limerick the 
Geraldines lay from Croom to Tralec. . . . Nor- 
man wedges were thus driven through the island, 
splitting up every district into suctions. In these 
sections — which generally consisted of difficult or 
naturally protected country — the Irish remained in- 
dependent. In most cases the lands they retained 
were part of their original possessions, and in 
their diminished territories the clans still grouped 
thcni.-^elvis under the recogni.scd leadership of the 
titular Kings of the ancient but now shattered 
Kingdoms. . . . But these leaders, and the adjoin- 
ing clans who followed them, were encompassed 
by lines of Norman castles and cut off from many 
of the clans who had previously acknowledged 
their rule. ... In this compulsory new grouping 
of the clans there were two groups which call 
for special attention. The first was in the north, 
over which the supremacy of the O'Neills had 
greatly extended by their over-lordship. . . . The 
second was the remarkable grouping of clans of 
diifeient Kingdoms which took place in the mid- 
lan.'ls, where they formed an 'island' of Irish 
independence, which for centuries continued to be 
a most important factor in Irish affairs. . . . An 
extraordinary state of affairs is shown by the 
cheqi.ered design. In one small island lie two 
races of different language and different culture, 
two systems of government, two systems of law, 
t\vo social systems, side by side, interspersed, dove- 
tailed. The Norman lord in his castle rules his 
retainers by feudal law; the Gaelic chief leads 
his clan and administers it by Brehon law. [See 
Bkehon laws.] Each surrounds and is sur- 
rounded by the other. Each despises the other 
until experience modifies the views of both. There 
is no authority over the chief except the free 
spirit of the clan and the influence of brehon or 
bard; little authority over the lord beyond the 
occasional power of the King's deputy and the 
more infrequent visit of the King's sheriff. . . . 
Two attempts, indeed, were made by the Crown 
to curb the power of the Norman nobles in Ire- 
land. The first was on the occasion of the sec- 
ond visit to Ireland of John. . . . The second 
attempt was when Sir John Wogan, Lord Deputy, 
summoned the first representative Parliament of 
the Normans in Ireland which passed a law pro- 
hibiting (amongst other matters) private wars 
(1295). But immediately afterwards De Burgh 
and Fitz-Gerald were again fighting one another! 
. . . The hostility between the two races entereci 
even into the Church. From the lirst there had 
been friction between the Irish and Norman 
clergy. . . . After the death of St. Laurence 
[O'Toole] the Archbishops of Dublin were all 
nominees of the King of England, and were for 
the most part courtiers and politicians rather 
than ecclesiastics. Wherever Norman power ex- 
tended, the bishops were also generally the nomi- 
nees of the King. The Pope, however. Who, during 
this time was struggling against the claims of 
temporal sovereigns to 'invest' bishops, frequently 
supported the Irish clergy in their election of 
Irish bishops to their dioceses. ... A similar state 
of affairs prevailed in the monasteries both of 

the old orders and of the new orders of 'friars' 

Franciscans, Dominicans. Carmelites — which were 
introduced at this time. In the religious houses 
in Norman lands no Irishman was allowed to 
enter, while in those in Irish lands no Norman 


IRELAND, 12th-14th Centuries 

System of 

IRELAND, 12th-l'!th Centuries 

was admitted. The building of great abbeys, 
which had begun before the Invasion, was con- 
tinued by the Irish chiefs. The Normans, too, 
who were great builders of abbeys as well as 
castles, erected many abbeys in the districts which 
they had been able to occupy." — M. T. Hayden, 
and G. A. Moonan, Short history of the Irish 
people, pp. 134, 145-147- 

"Henry, had he not been called away by the 
storm following the death of Becket, might have 
left things in better shape, but nothing could make 
up for the permanent absence of the king. Two 
antagonistic systems henceforth confronted each 
other. On one side was the feudal system, with 
its hierarchy of land-owners, from lord-paramount 
to tenant-paravail; its individual ownership of 
land; its hereditary succession and primogeniture; 
its feudal perquisites, relief, wardship, and mar- 
riage; its tribute of military service; the loyalty 
to the grantor of the fief which was its pervading' 
and sustaining spirit ; its knighthood and its 
chivalry ; its Great Council of barons and baronial 
bishops; its feudal courts of justice and officers 
of state; all however highly rude and imperfect. 
On the other side was tribalism, with its tie of 
original kinship instead of territorial subordina- 
tion; its tanistry; its Brehon law. But the feudal 
system in Ireland lacked the keystone of its aroh. 
It was destitute of its regulating and controlling 
power, the king. A royal justiciar could not fill 
the part. From the outset the bane of the prin- 
cipality was delegated rule. Ireland was a sepa- 
rate realm, though attached to the Crown of 
England. It had a Parliament of its own, which 
followed that of England in its development, being 
at first a unicameral council of magnates, lay and 
clerical; but after the legislation of Edward I. 
a bicameral assembly with a Lower House formed 
of representatives of counties and boroughs, whose 
consent would be formally necessary to taxation. 
. . . Weak, however, was the Parliament of the 
colony compared with that of the imperial coun- 
try. If the Lords ever showed force, the making 
of a House of Commons was not there. The 
representation, as well as the proceedings and the 
records, appears to have been very irregular. Noth- 
ing worthy of the name of Parliamentary govern- 
ment seems ever to have prevailed. Among those 
who signed the Great Charter was the Archbishop 
of Dublin ; but of chartered rights Ireland was 
not the scene. There is no appearance of a sep- 
arate grant of subsidies by the clerical estate. 
The clergy, it seems, were represented by their 
proctors in the Lower House, as by the bishops 
and abbots in the Upper House. The Parliament 
appears to have been generally a tool in the hands 
of the deputy. The irregularity of its composition 
seems to have extended to its meetings. From 
the first the relation between the feudal realm and 
that of the tribes was border war. They were 
alien to each other in race, language, and social 
habits, as well as in political institutions. The 
Norman could not subdue the Celt, the Celt could 
not oust the Norman. The conquest of England 
by William of Normandy had been complete, and 
had given birth to a national aristocracy, which 
in time blended with the conquered race and 
united with it in extorting the Great Charter. The 
Norman colony in Ireland was left to its feeble 
resources, and to a divided command, while the 
monarchy was far away over sea, was squandering 
its forces in French fields, and could not even 
project a complete conquest. . . . Anglo-Norman 
and Celt, feudalist and tribesman, alike were 
Catholics. A common religion might have been 
a bond, a common iriergy might have been a 

mediating power. But race and language prevailed 
over reUgion. The Churches, though outwardly 
of the same faith, remained inwardly separate, and 
not only separate but hostile to each other." — 
G. Smith, Irish history and the Irish question, 
pp. 13-17- 

"Henry HI died on November 16, 1272. During 
his long reign of fifty-six years the area of Anglo- 
Norman rule in Ireland had been greatly extended. 
The earldom of Ulster had been strengthened, and 
the earl's influence began to assert itself over 
the northern kings. The conquest of Connaught 
had been finally effected, and the sway of her 
native kings was restricted to a broad belt about 
the upper reaches of the Shannon. A beginning 
was made of the occupation of a portion of Tho- 
mond. The barons of County Limerick had es- 
tablished a strong colony in Kerry, and with those 
of County Cork had erected castles on advan- 
tageous sites beside the natural harbours of the 
south and south-west coasts, and in some inland 
places. The barons of Ireland were seldom inter- 
fered with by the government. They were in 
general loyal to the Crown . . . and the king had 
no conflict with them comparable to that which 
arose with the barons of England during his reign. 
With the exception of the long-drawn-out contest 
in Connaught, there was no serious conflict be- 
tween the Crown and the native kings up to the 
year 1260, and in spite of local disturbances the 
wealth and trade and general prosperity of Ireland 
had greatly increased. In the latter part of 
Henry's reign, however, while England was dis- 
tracted by the struggle between the Crown and 
the baronage, disaffection among the native princes 
came to a head in the north, south, and west of 
Ireland. In the north there was the futile attempt 
of Brian O'Neill to revive the high-kingship of 
Erin. In the south there was the more effective 
movement of Fineen McCarthy to resist the en- 
croachments of the Munster barons into Desmond. 
In Thomond [north Munster] the O'Briens were 
beginning to be restive, while in Connaught noth- 
ing could restrain the turbulence of Aedh 
O'Conor . . In spite of . . . capricious changes 
the barons of Ireland had no reason to complain 
of Henry's justiciars. They were men who spent 
most if not all of their lives in Ireland, who held 
lands there and had the interests of the colony 
at heart, and who, if they took little thought of 
the interests of the native Irish' population, at 
least understood them and their ways as no offi- 
cial fresh from England could do. . . . What little 
legislation there was for Ireland in Henry's reign, 
as in the reigns of his predecessors, took in gen- 
eral the form of writs and ordinances addressed 
by virtue of the royal prerogative to the justiciar 
or other executive officers or to his subjects in 
Ireland generally. In a few cases enactments made 
by the king and council in England were by the 
king's authority transcribed and transmitted for 
observance in Ireland. Thus the Great Charter, 
as reissued in England under date November 12, 
1216, was extended to Ireland with some slight 
variations to suit the case of that country. . . . 
The command in general terms that English laws 
and customs were to be observed in Ireland was 
more than once repeated in Henry's reign, and in 
1236 the constitutions of Merton were transmitted 
and ordered to be observed in Ireland. Other 
ordinances were concerned either with procedure, 
or with declarations of the substantive law on 
special points on which doubts had arisen in the 
Irish courts." — G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the 
Normans, v. 3, pp. 2qi-2q2, 206, 2QS-300. 

"If we consider the map of Ireland in the reign 


IRELAND, 12th-14lh Centuries 


IRELAND, I2th-I4th Centuries 

of Edward I, wc find that about three-fourths 
of the country were actually dominated by Ani;lo- 
Norman lords. In these districts nearly all the 
best land . . . was parcelled out amonp their vas- 
sals, and here the feudal organization and feudal 
land-system prevailed . . . Ibutl most manors 
throu;;hout the country included among the ten- 
ants numerous Irish betaghs . . . and other unfree 
classes. As in England the Norman landholders 
formed a ruling aristocracy, . . . I but J Celtic free- 
holders in feudalized Ireland were more rare than 
Saxon freeholders in England. In the remaining 
fourth the Irish clans continued to be virtually 
autonomous. In their territories the families of 
their chieftains, and those of their urrighs, or 
subordinate chieftains, formed the aristocracy, 
, . . and English judges, sheriffs, and other officers 
of the Grown never made their appearance. . . . 

case of serfs, they became by custom free Where 
the towns received a charter, the burgesses usu- • 
ally elected their own mayors or provosts and 
other officers, held their own courts, established 
trade-guilds, and while paying their burgagcrents 
and certain small dues to the lord, were practi- 
cally exempt from feudal burdens and feudal con- 
trol. Others might more properly be described 
as thriving manorial villages possessing franchises 
of varying degrees of importance. These towns 
and manorial villages were very numerous. . . . 
Most of these towns were indeed diminutive in 
size, but in their small way they formed centres 
of industr>' and trade, and of free orderly mu- 
nicipal life, even, in many cases, when the sur- 
rounding country had become subject to a dis- 
orderly form of feudalism. . . . Pari passu with 
the growth of towns proceeded the growth of 

Cc K. M. Newman 

Founded by Franciscans, 15th Century. 

But after all deductions and e.xplanations have 
been made, the fact remains that Anglo-Norman 
rule in Ireland throughout the thirteenth century, 
and especially towards its close, was a very real 
thine. ... It was not, of course, absolute over 
all the country. It extended only in a modified 
form to the districts which remained under Irish 
rule. Here the old contests between rival factions 
over the succession to the local chieftainships 
broke out from time to time, and the settlers by 
favouring one or other of the claimants, with a 
vjfw to increasing their own influence, not infre- 
quently added to the turmoil. The subjugation 
of Connaught involved a decade of intermittent 
warfare in that province, and there were at- 
tempts at domination not permanently successful 
in other territories. . . . The towns were inhabited 
largely by men of EnKlish r.Uher than of Norman 
blood, ahd the names of the burgesses very oftein 
denoted a trade. Irishmen too were occasionally 
made burgesses, and then, as in England in the 

trade, inland and foreign. To the Normans, in- 
deed, was due the introduction into general use 
of coined money, without which trade cannot ad- 
vance very far. ... A good index of the cxnort 
trade of Ireland and of the relative importance 
of the principal ports is given by the receipts! 
of 'the great new custom' granted by the mag- 
nates to the king in 1257. . . . Henceforth through- 
out Edward's reign this was an important source 
of revenue. In the first five years the foreign 
merchants, who were collectors of the custom, ap- 
pear to have received from it upwards of £7,522. 
. . . Sawn timber was sent to England for build- 
ing purposes, and to make ships and oars, and 
bretachiae or wooden towers w'ere sent to Wales 
and Gascony for military objects. . . . Ireland in 
the latter half of the thirteenth century and the 
bcuinning of the fourteenth exported large quan- 
tities of grain. . . . There are . . . examples of 
the private export of grain to England, Scotland, 
and France. But the principal cases of the ex- 


IRELAND, 12th-14th Centuries 

Scottish Invasion 

IRELAND, 1314-1318 

port of grain and other victuals that come under 
notice were to supply the king's armies in Gascony, 
Wales and Scotland. . . . In the course of the thir- 
teenth century a certain amount of amalgamation 
of a wholesome kind went on. We hear of more 
intermarriage in high quarters. ... It seems prob- 
able that in the feudalized districts any Irishman 
of proved loyalty could obtain license to use Engn 
lish laws, if he wished it. Moreover, many of the 
lesser chieftains, while retaining their own laws 
and customs, preserved in general friendly rela- 
tions with their new overlords in all parts of Ire- 
land. Thus in Connaught O'Heyne, O'Shaugh- 
nessy, O'Flaherty, O'Madden, and O'Kelly were 
usually loyal to the de Burghs. There was no 
general combination against the English of Con- 
naught until the time of the invasion of Edward 
Bruce, when the confederates suffered a severe de- 
feat at the battle of Athenry." — G. H. Orpen, Ire- 
land under the Normans, v. 4, pf>. 259, 261-262, 
271-273, 276-279, 301-302.— "The Irish who had 
been conquered in the field revenged their defeat 
on the minds and hearts of their conquerors; and 
in yielding, yielded only to fling over their new 
masters the subtle spell of the Celtic disposition. 
[The De Burghs became Bourkes or Burkes, the 
MSweenies had been Veres in England, and the 
Munster Geraldines merged their family name in 
that of Desmond.] . . . Statute was passed after 
statute forbidding the 'Englishry' of Ireland to use 
the Irish language, or intermarry with Irish fam- 
ilies, or copy Irish habits. . . . But all in vain. 
. . . From the century which succeeded the Con- 
quest till the reign of the eighth Henry, the 
strange phenomenon repeated itself, generation 
after generation, baffling the wisdom of statesmen, 
and paralysing every effort at a remedy." — J. A. 
Froude, History of England, v. 2, clt. 8. — But if 
the Anglo-Normans became Celticized, on the 
other hand, the Irish were becoming feudaUzed. 
"A great deal of this change in the fortunes of 
the Irish was due to the impotence of the Crown 
of England, and to the feuds and weakness of 
the Irish Normans. . . . But it was chiefly due 
to a change in the military methods and organi- 
sation of the clans themselves. They still despised 
the use of armour. . . . But they were improving 
in the building of castles and in military tactics. 
Most important, however, was the introduction of 
permanent military forces into the clans. Hitherto 
. . . the Irish clans were not organised on a 
military basis as were the Normans. The fighting 
men were called from their occupations when 
their services were needed, and to these they re- 
turned when the immediate fighting was over. Now, 
however, the continued warfare made it necessary 
to have permanent troops devoted especially to 
warfare and always ready for it. Most of these 
were recruited from the Gaelicised Norse of 
Argyll and the Scottish islands. These, known as 
'gall-oglaigh,' or 'gallowglasses,' had been employed 
by many of the northern and western chiefs in 
the preceding period, but from this time forward 
they were an established feature in every clan. 
Under their own officers, who were called 'con- 
stables,' they were ready to serve any chief who 
employed them, but frequently bodies of them set- 
tled down as the permanent followers of one special 
family. In addition to this 'standing army' of 
gall-oglaigh, Irish troops were also permanently 
employed, and were supported by a subsidy called 
'buanacht' or 'bonnaght.' . . . This adoption of a 
'standing army' naturally increased the personal 
power of the chiefs at the expense of the clan, 
as the continued warfare against the Norse had 
done in an earlier period. Nor was this the only 

way in which feudal ideas were having an influence 
upon the Irish organisations. The great practical 
advantage of an established system of succession 
was being forcibly illustrated, and the feudal right 
of the son to succeed to the father was being 
partly recognised. Many of the disputes which 
occurred in the families from which the chiefs 
were selected were due to the conflict of the two 
ideas. The chiefs were becoming territorial lords 
with the right of handing down their authority 
to their own families. The dues, or tributes, pay- 
able from the earliest times by the minor clans 
to the superior chiefs . . . were also materially 
altered. The Normans were becoming 'Irishised,' 
. . . but the clans, on their part, were becoming, to 
some e.xtent, feudalised." — M. T. Hayden and G. 
A. Moonan, Short history of the Irish people, pp. 

1314-1318. — Scottish invasion. — "Very serious 
trouble indeed came in the reign of the second 
Edward. The battle of Bannockburn — the greatest 
disaster which ever befell the English during their 
Scotch wars [see Scotland: 1306-1314] had almost 
as marked an effect on Ireland as on Scotland. 
All the elements of disaffection at once began to 
boil and bubble. The O'Neills — ever ready for a 
fray, and the nearest in point of distance to 
Scotland — promptly made overtures to the Bruces, 
and Edward Bruce, the victorious king's brother, 
was despatched at the head of a large army, and 
landing in 13 15 near Carrickfergus was at once 
joined by the O'Neills, and war proclaimed. The 
first to confront these new allies was Richard 
de Burgh, the 'Red Earl' of Ulster, who was twice 
defeated by them and driven back on Dublin. The 
viceroy. Sir Edmund Butler, was the next encoun- 
tered, and he also was defeated at a battle near 
Ardscul, whereupon the whole country rose hke 
one man. Fedlim O'Connor, the young king of 
Connaught, the hereditary chieftain of Thomand, 
and a host of smaller chieftains of Connaught, 
Munster, and Meath, flew to arms. Even the De 
Lacys and several of the other Norman colonists 
threw in their lot with the invaders. Edward 
Bruce gained another victory at Kells, and having 
wasted the country round about, destroying the 
property of the colonists and slaughtering all whom, 
he could find, he returned to Carrickfergus, where 
he was met by his brother. King Robert, and to- 
gether they crossed Ireland, descending as far 
south as Cashel, and burning, pillaging, and de- 
stroying wherever they went. In 13 16 the younger 
Bruce was crowned king at Dundalk. Such was 
the panic they created, and so utterly disunited 
were the colonists, that for a time they carried 
all before them. It is plain that Edward Bruce 
. . . fully hoped to have cut out a kingdom 
for himself with his sword, as others of his blood 
had hoped and intended before him. His own 
excesses, however, went far to prevent that. So 
frightfully did he devastate the country, and so 
horrible was the famine which he created, that 
many even of his own army perished from it or 
from the pestilence which followed. His Irish 
allies fell away. . . . The colonists began to re- 
cover from their dismay. Ormonds, Kildares, and 
Desmonds bestirred themselves to collect troops. 
The O'Connors, who with all their tribe had 
risen in arms, had been utterly defeated at Athenry, 
where the young king Fedlim and no less than 
10,000 of his followers are said to have been 
left dead. Roger Mortimer, the new viceroy, 
was re-organizing the government in Dublin. The 
clergy, stimulated by a Papal mandate; had all 
now turned against the invader. Robert Bruce 
had some time previously been recalled to Scat- 


IRELAND, 1327-1367 

Edward III 
Laws against Absentees 

IRELAND, 1327-1367 

land, and Sir John de Bermingham, the victor of 
Athenry, pushing northward at the head of 15,000 
chosen troops, met the younger Bruce at Dundalk. 
The combat was hot, short, and decisive. The 
Scots were defeated, Edward Bruce himself killed, 
and his head struck off and sent to London. The 
rest hastened back to Scotland with as little de- 
lay as possible. The Scotch invasion was over." 
— E. Lawless, Story of Ireland, pp. 108- no. 

Also in: M. T. Haydcn and G. A. Moonan, 
Short history of the Irish people, p. 155. 

1327-1367. — Under Edward LII. — Laws against 
absentees. — Statutes of Kilkenny. — Policies of 
Edward. — Decline of English power. — The 
Scotch wars of the Edwards had an important 
influence on Irish history, for from the date of 
the invasion by the Bruces, the power of the 
English Crown began to wane, and the e.xtent of 
the English colony to dwindle. "Confederacies 
led by O'Neill in the North, MacCarthy in the 
South-West, MacMurrough in the South-East, won 
victory after victory-. ... In 1341, in the Parlia- 
ment of Kilkenny, it was stated that one-third 
of the island had been recovered by the Irish. 
In addition there were numerous feuds of the 
Anglo-Irish, soon to bear fatal fruit. ... In 1331 
the King issued in the Parliament of Westminster 
a scheme of reform for Ireland called de articulis 
in Hibernia obsen'andis. By these Edward, among 
many other reforms, decided that the same law 
was to apply to the Irish as well as to the English, 
excepting the betaghs or Irish serfs. . . . Thus, 
apparently, a royal fiat from England enfranchised 
all the Irish, but the language was brief and 
vague, it w-as not ratified in the Irish Parliament, 
and unfortunately seems to have had little effect. 
With this was coupled another striking decree^ 
an act of Resumption ... by which all Irish 
grants made by Mortimer and the Queen mother 
were resumed by the Crown. ... .An ordinance 
also dealt with the absentees: they were to cross 
to Ireland and recover their possessions. . . . 
Meanwhile in Ireland a vigorous deputy, Sir .An- 
thony Lucy, . . . was convinced that the great 
magnates were the real foe to the interests of 
government and of justice to the Irish. After 
some fighting against the Irish, in which it was 
obvious that the native lords were taking up a 
neutral attitude, he summoned a Parliament to 
Dublin, and then adjourned it to Kilkenny (7 July 
1331). But Maurice, Earl of Desmond, atid most 
of the nobles refused to attend. . . . Edward had 
to retrace his steps. Sir John D'.\rcy was sent 
over for a third time in 1332 empowered to 
declare a general pardon. Desmond was confined 
and sent to England, . . . but was released in 
1333. ... In 1333 occurred the murder, at Car- 
rickfergus, of the young Earl of Ulster. . . . The 
Earldom of Ulster thus passed according to Eng- 
lish feudal law to the daughter of the murdered 
man. But the .Anglo-Irish had for some time in- 
sisted on and practised male succession, and the 
uncles of the dead Earl, . . . Edmund and Ulick 
de Burgh, . . . seized his lands in Connacht, where 
they were destined to found the two great Norman- 
Irish houses of Mac William Uachtar and Mac 
William lochtar. The Earldom of Ulster itself 
was thus left without a protector, and from this 
date we may assign the founding of Clandeboy. 
. . . Connacht was from this time lost for all prac- 
tical purposes to England. The later De Burchs 
became the most Irishized of the great old families. 
Their very position made them rebellious, and 
hostile to all English claims. . . . tin fact they 
became in name and deed Irish chiefs. The con- 
tinued confusion in the countrv determined Ed- 

ward to continue his repressive policy, and to 
break the power of the great .Anglo-Norman or 
Anglo-Irish nobles. He betrothed his son Lionel, 
duke of Clarence, to the young Countess of Ulster, 
and thus transferred her claim to his own family. 
He was diverted from Ireland by the hope of 
conquering both France and Scotland. But, never- 
theless, he still continued to pay attention to 
Ireland. In 1338, the king in council declared 
that only Englishmen born were to hold offices 
under the crown.] The idea was of course that 
Englishmen would be impartial, more skilled in the 
law, unattached to the; local interests, less likely 
to be intimidated, and more likely to ensure a 
full revenue for the Crown. . . . The Deputy then 
summoned a Parliament to Dublin for October 
1341, but it was answered by an act of complete 
defiance. Desmond, Kildare and others, scornful 
of . . . [a] mere knight, Sir John Moriz, who 
had been sent in a King's place, summoned a 
rival Parliament to Kilkenny, . . . representing the 
whole Anglo-Irish population, nobles, clerics, 
towns. . . . They determined to appeal to the King 
in person, and forwarded to him by two envoys 
a long and searching indictment in French of 
the .Anglo-Irish Government. . . . The result was 
a victory for the .Anglo-Irish party. The King 
received the envoys graciously, restored the grants 
01 his ancestors and himself, and validated all 
pardons of debts. He needed the help of Ireland 
against France. In February 1344 Sir Ralph D'Uf- 
lord was sent over to carry out the new policy, 
. . . and for many ^ears a policy of conciliation 
followed. The vigour of the royal policy was 
shown in the raising of large armies to suppress 
the Irish and recover the lost country. ... [In 
1346, a law against absentees provided that no 
ecclesiastic, noble nor able-bodied man might 
leave Ireland without special licence.] In 1357 
Royal Regulations w'ere enacted declaring that 'the 
affairs of our land (of Ireland) shall be referred 
to our Councils, but shall be determined in our 
Parliament there,' an acknowledgment of the legis- 
lative supremacy of the Irish Parliament. The 
Patriot party were also conciliated by the state- 
ment: 'All the English born in Ireland as well as 
those born in England be true Englishmen living 
under our dominion and sovereignty and bound 
by the same laws, rights and customs.' ... In 
1361, 'hearing lately by the constant relation of 
certain people that mere Irish have been appointed 
officials, &c., in cities and boroughs, . . . and to 
canonrics, prebends, benefices,' the King issued a 
writ to deprive all such persons, but exempted all 
faithful Irishmen living in the King's peace and 
obedience. By the same writ no Irishman, 'mere 
Hibernitus de natione Hibernka existens,' might be 
made mayor, bailiff, officer or minister in any place 
subject to us. This was in answer to a petition 
of Parliament." — E. Curtis, ViceroyaUy of Lionel, 
duke of Clarence, in Ireland (Journal of the Royal 
Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, IQ17, pp. 174- 
177, 178, 179, 180-181). — In 1361 Lionel, duke of 
Clarence, who was now married to the young 
countess of Ulster, was sent over to Ireland as 
lord lieutenant, and the absentees were summoned 
to attend him. "The policy which Lionel was 
charged with alarmed both Irish and Anglo-Irish. 
The former were to be ousted from their conquests, 
the absentees were to recover the lands which 
had largely fallen to the FitzGeralds, Butlers and 
others. .A new English Conquest was contem- 
plated, it seemed. . . . Taking up the policy of his 
father, who had earlier tried to break the power 
of the .Anglo-Irish, and influenced by his wife, 
who hated the race which had murdered her 


IRELAND, 1327-1367 

Statutes of Kilkenny 
Henry V 

IRELAND, 1413-1467 

father, Lionel forbade any of native birth to come 
near his army. . . . [He found, however, that lie 
would meet with small success without the aid 
of the Anglo-Irish. He, therefore, reversed his 
policy, and united the two elements in. his army. 
The Anglo-Irish enabled him to gain some vic- 
tories, and win back some part of the land which 
had been reconquered by the Irish. But the sub- 
mission of the Anglo-Irish was only outward. 
Jealousies were apt to blaze up, and a writ of 
1364 which ordered "that no Englishman born 
in England or in Ireland shall make any dis- 
sension on pain of line and imprisonment" gives 
a clue to the outbreaks that must have disturbed 
his court. In 1366] the dissensions of colonists 
and English-born, the steady advance of the Irish, 
and other questions, made a general review of 
the state of Ireland necessary . . . and the famous 
ParUament of Kilkenny was summoned to meet 
him, [Lionel] on Ash Wednesday. . . . The gen- 
eral character of . . . [the] enactments of this 
Parhament was as follows: — Alliances by marriage, 
gossipred or fostering between English and Irish 
are forbidden. All Englishmen, and Irish living 
among them, must speak English, use English sur- 
names derived from towns, trades, or colours, and 
follow English customs. The Brehon law, or that 
compound of Brehon and feudal law called March 
law, is not to be used by the English. Irishmen 
are not to be admitted into cathedrals, benefices, 
or reUgious houses. If any of the English, or 
Irish among the Enghsh, use the Irish language, 
he shall be attainted, and his 4ands go to his lord, 
until he undertake to adopt and use English. The 
English are not to entertain or make giits to 
Irish minstrels, rimers or story tellers. In order 
to make a joint resistance to the Irish, parleys 
or treatises with them must be made in common, 
and only by legal permission. The colonists are 
to forsake hurleys and quoits and learn the use 
of the bow. There is to be but one peace and 
one war throughout the whole of the King's land 
of Ireland. The English must not break any 
peace legally made between English and Irish. Xo 
Irishman may pasture or occupy labour lands 
belonging to English or Irish being at peace against 
the will of the lords of the said lands, but if they 
do so the lord may impound their cattle, but . . . 
if the party make satisfaction to the lord they 
shall be handed back to him entire, and anyone 
dividing the beasts shall be punished as a robber 
and disturber of the peace. In every county 
four of the most substantial men are to be made 
wardens of the peace. . . . Kerns and hired sol- 
diers may only be maintained on the marches (a 
blow at the Anglo-Irish lords and their practice 
of coyne and livery). No difference should be 
made between English born in Ireland and Eng- 
lish born in England. . . . The reason for these 
enactments is given in a preamble which states 
that . . . 'many English . . . forsaking the Eng- 
lish language, manners, mode of riding, laws and 
usages, Uve and govern themselves according to 
the manners, fashion and language of the Irish 
enemies, and also have made divers marriages and 
alliances with the said Irish enemies whereby the 
said land and the liege people thereof, the English 
language, the allegiance due to our lord the King, 
and the English laws there are put in subjection 
and decayed, and the Irish enemies exalted and 
raised up.' . . . The English land, where obedience 
to English law might be looked for, was reckoned 
as the ten counties or liberties of Louth, Meath, 
Trim, Dublin, Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny, Wex- 
ford, Waterford and Tipperary. . . . The evident 
purpose of the Statutes of ICilkenny was, not to 


declare war on the Gaelic race and tradition 
throughout Ireland, but to delimit the English 
area, and to preserve therein a population English 
in speech, law and allegiance. In effect this could 
only apply to Eastern Leinster, and a few parts of 
nearer Munster, Connacht, Western Munster and 
nearly all Ulster were either under the Gaels, or 
the half-Gaelicised Norman houses. The Irish 
inside the colony were not to be punished as 
such, but in order that they should not impair the 
English character of this area, they were to be 
forced into English ways. It was a deliberate 
provision for the legal division of Ireland into 
two nations. Certain of the provisions about the 
Irish, both within and without the 'Pale' are 
marked by a distinct sense of equity, as those 
dealing with the keeping of peace with the Irish, 
and, as regards Irish graziers and renters of English- 
men's lands. . . . Edward III had begun with the 
hope of enfranchising the Celts, and reducing the 
liberties of the Norman magnates. With the vice- 
royalty of his son this hope was abandoned. The 
attempts to extend the Common law by a gen- 
eral measure of enfranchisement for the older 
race were abandoned. . . . Even the 'Five Bloods,' 
after the Statutes of Kilkenny, lost their honorary 
rights. . . . The Statutes of Kilkenny were con- 
firmed again in 1404 and 1407 by Parliament 
under the Earl of Ormond. A second result was 
that the .'\nglo-Irish were installed in power. On 
Lionel's retirement soon after this Parliament, the 
Earl of Desmond was made Justiciar (Feb. 1367), 
and though Englishmen were from time to time 
appointed, the .^nglo-Irish ideal of a native-born 
viceroy was frequently realised. Little checked 
by the lieutenancy of Lionel, the tendencies which 
he came to oppose continued their full course The 
Irish advance went on till over one-half of the 
island was in the hands of the Gaelic princes 
again. Thus, in 136Q, ... by a treaty at Adare 
with John MacNamara, the Justiciar abandoned 
all Thomond to the Irish after a struggle which 
had lasted nearly a hundred years. In Lionel's 
Earldom of Ulster, the O'Neills began a great ad- 
vance across the Bann, and Monaghan fell into 
Gaelic hands. ... In effect, Edward III was the 
last real king in Ireland until Henry VHI. The 
Statutes of Kilkenny, with which Lionel was so 
identified, had small practical effect. There is 
little evidence that the Irish inside the Pale took 
surnames from trades, colours and places, aban- 
doning their family names. So far from dying 
out, the Irish language and customs spread over 
almost the whole island. In the Parliament of 
Drogheda, under Poynings, in 1494, although the 
Acts of Kilkenny were re-enacted, the clauses 
against the use of the Irish language and method 
of riding horse were repealed, for they could no 
longer be enforced. Even the English of the 
Pale had become bi-lingual." — E. Curtis, Vice- 
royalty of Lionel, duke of Clarence, in Ireland 
(.Journ-al of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of 
Ireland, igi8, pp. 66, 67, 69-72). ^See also Ab- 

1413-1467.— Reign of Henry V.— Condition 
during Wars of the Roses. — "Henry V., who 
ascended the throne in 1413, was so engrossed with 
France that he gave hardly any attention to Ire- 
land ; so that there was little or no change in Irish 
affairs during his reign ; and there was strife 
everywhere. Matters at last looked so serious 
that in 1414 the king sent over an able and active 
military man as lord lieutenant. Sir John Talbot, 
Lord Furnival, subsequently earl of Shrewsbury, 
who became greatly distinguished in the French 
wars. He made a vigorous circuit round the Pale, 

IRELAND, 1413-1467 

Wars of the Roses 

IRELAND, 1413 1467 

and reduced O'Moore, Mac Mahon, O'Hanlon, and 
U'Xeill. But tliis brought the Palcsmen mure evil 
than good; for the reUef was only temporary; 
and when the brilliant exploits were all over he 
subjected them, in violation of the Statute of 
'Kilkenny, to coyne and livery, having no other 
way of paying his soldiers. No sooner had he 
left than the Irish resumed their attacks, and for 
years incessantly harried and worried the mis- 
erable Palesmen, except indeed when kept quiet in 
some small degree by the payment of black rent. 
The accession of Henry VI., in 1422, made no 
improvement in the country, which continued to 
be everywhere torn by strife. Ireland was now 
indeed, and for generations before and after, in 
a far worse condition than at any time under na- 
tive management, even during the anarchical period 
after the battle of Clontarf. The people of 
the Pale probably fared neither better nor worse 
than those of the rest of the country. But to 
add to their misfortunes, there arose, about the 
time of the king's accession, a deadly quarrel be- 
tween the Butlers, headed by the earl of Ormond, 
and the Talbots, headed by Richard Talbot, arch- 
bishop of Dublin and his brother Lord Furnival, 
who came twice again to Ireland as Lord lieu- 
tenant. This feud was so violent that it put a 
stop to almost all government business for many 
years. Meantime in 1423 the Irish of Ulster made 
a terrible raid on Louth and Meath, defeated 
the army sent against them, and carried off great 
booty; till at last the inhabitants had to buy 
peace by agreeing to pay black rent. In 1449 
Richard Plantagenet, duke of York, a prince of 
the royal blood and heir to the throne of Eng- 
land, was appointed lord lieutenant for ten years. 
He won the affections of the Irish both of native 
and English descent, treating them with fairness 
and consideration. In an act of parliament of 
this time we have a frightful picture of the con- 
dition of the colonists of the Pale. In time of 
harvest companies of the soldiers were in the habit 
of going with their wives, children, servants and 
friends, sometimes to the number of a hundred, to 
the farmers' houses, eating and drinking, and pay- 
ing for nothing. They robbed and sometimes killed 
the tenants and husbandmen; and their horses 
were turned out to graze in the meadows and in 
the ripe corn, ruining all the harvest. The par- 
liament held by the clukc in 1449, asserted for the 
first time the independence of the Irish legislature: 
that they had a right to a separate coinage, and 
that they were absolutely free from all laws ex- 
cept those passed by the lords and commons of 
Ireland. The duke had not been in Ireland for 
more than a year when Jack Cade's rebellion 
broke out; on which he went to England in 1451 to 
look after his own interests. For the past cen- 
tury and a half the English kings had been so 
taken up with wars in France, Scotland, and 
Wales, that they had little leisure to attend to 
Ireland. Accordingly we have seen the Irish en- 
croaching, the Pale growing smaller, and the people 
of the settlement more oppressed and more mis- 
erable year by year. But now about this time — 
1454 — began in England the tremendous struggle 
between the houses of "i'ork and Lancaster, com- 
monly known as the Wars of the Roses, which 
lasted for about thirty years, and during which 
the colony fared worse than ever. . . . The Pale 
became smaller than ever, till it included only 
the county Louth and about half those of Dublin 
Meath and Kildare. At one time not more than 
200 men could be got together to defend it. . . . 
|.\fter the triumph of the Yorkists in 1461] the 
Geraldines, both of Desmond and Kildare, were 

in high favour, while the Butlers were in di-sgracc. 
These two factions enacted a sort of miniature of 
the Wars of the Roses in Ireland. . . . Thomas, 
the eighth earl of Desmond — the Great Earl as 
he was called — was appointed lord deputy. . . . 
The Irish parliament pa.ssed an act in 1465 that 
every Irishman dwelling in the Pale was to dress 
and shave like the English, and take an English 
surname. . . . Another and more mischievous 
measure forbade ships from fishing in the seas 
of Irish countries, because the dues went to make 
the Irish people prosperous and strong. But the 
worst enactment of all was one providing that it 
was lawful to decapitate thieves found robbing 
'or going or coming anywhere' unless they had an 
Englishman in their company. And whoever did 

Built by Cormac McCartliy, 1449 

SO, on bringing the head to the mayor of the near- 
est town, was licensed to levy a good sum of the 
barony. This put it in the power of any evil- 
minded person to kill the first Irishman he met, 
pretending he was a thief, and to raise money 
on his head. This indeed was not the intention 
of the legislators; the act was merely a desperate 
attempt to keep down marauders who swarmed at 
this time all through the Pale. With all the earl 
of Desmond's popularity he was unable to restore 
tranquillity to the distracted country. He was 
defeated in open fight in 1466 by his own brother- 
in-law O'Conor of Offaly. . . . Neither was he 
able to prevent the septs from ravaging the Pale. 
... He was first replaced in 1467 by John Tip- 
toft, earl of Worcester, . . . [who] acting on the 
secret instructions of the queen, . . . caused the 
earls of Desmond and Kildare to be arrested ; 
and had them attainted for exacting coyne and 


IRELAND, 1485-1509 

Henry VII 
Poynings Act 

IRELAND, 1513-1535 

livery, and for making alliance with the Irish, 
contrary to the Statute of Kilkenny. Desmond 
was at once executed; Kildare was pardoned." — 
P. W. Joyce, Concise history of Ireland, pp. 114- 

1485-1509.— Accession of Henry VII.— War- 
beck. — Poynings Acts. — Change of policy. — 
Power of Geraldines. — "Henry VII. sat on a tot- 
tering throne, long after he had been proclaimed 
king [in 14S5]. His power in England was 
thwarted by plots and factions; in Ireland it was 
little more than a name. Gerald, the eighth Earl 
of Kildare, revered as the 'Great,' in the traditions 
of a race devoted to leaders of men, was Viceroy, 
and supreme at the Castle; but his authority in 
Ireland was very different from that of an ordi- 
nary governor of the Pale. He was connected 
by marriage v^-ith chiefs of the O'Neills, and with 
the Butlers of Ormond, his feudal enemies; he 
had immense influence with the Desmonds of his 
blood, having saved them from an arbitrary act 
of attainder. Nature, too, had made him a remark- 
able man, abounding in wit, resource, and ca- 
pacity ; he could rule, with e.xcellent results, in 
the interests of the Crown, . . . but he was equally 
ready to conspire against it, if crossed in any of 
his ambitious purposes. . . . [The earl] seems to 
have aspired to play the great part of a War- 
wick; he crowned the Pretender, Simnel, with his 
own hand ; and he despatched from Ireland the 
force which was destroyed at Stoke. The threats 
and remonstrances of the king proved vain ; and 
notwithstanding this act of flagrant rebellion, Kil- 
dare received a pardon, and was kept in his gov- 
ernment. Ere long he took up the cause of Perkin 
Warbeck; and, meanwhile, the impotence of the 
state being more than ever manifest, the discords 
and troubles of Ireland continued to increase, 
and the ruin of the Pale seemed fearfully im- 
minent. Henry was forced at last to take a de- 
cided course; he resolved to try to effect a thor- 
ough change in the system of government and 
administration that had so long prevailed in Ire- 
land. Sir Edward Poynings, a member of that 
able official class, encouraged for centuries by the 
Plantagenets, and especially favoured by the Tu- 
dors, was placed at the head of affairs in Irelan(J, 
and charged to make a searching and complete 
reform. The subordinates who accompanied him 
• — a significant fact — were soldiers, churchmen, and 
lawyers of English birth ; the Anglo-Irish had been 
removed from the Castle." — W. O'C. Morris, Irr- 
latid, pp. 57-58. — "The king now saw that his Irish 
subjects were ready to rise in rebellion for the 
house of York at every opportunity. He came to 
the resolution, therefore, to lessen their power by 
destroying the independence of their parliament ; 
and having given Sir Edward Poynings instructions 
to this effect, he sent him over as deputy." — P. W. 
Joyce, Concise history of Ireland, p. no. — .^fter 
some military operations, which he found to be 
beset with treacheries and difficulties, the new lord 
deputy held a Parliament at Drogheda — "perhaps 
the most memorable that was ever held in Ireland, 
as certainly no other Parliament in that country 
made laws which endured so long as two which 
were then enacted, and were known for centuries 
afterwards as the 'Poynings Acts.' By the first of 
these it as ordained that no Parliament should 
be held in Ireland in future until the king's Coun- 
cil in England had approved not only of its being 
summoned, but also of the Acts which the Lieu- 
tenant and Council of Ireland proposed to pass 
in it. By the second the laws enacted before that 
time in England were extended to Ireland also. 
Thus the Irish legislature was made entirely de- 

pendent upon England. The Irish Parliament had 
no power to originate anything, but was only 
free to accept or (if they were very bold) to 
reject measures drawn up by the Irish Council 
and approved already by the king and his Council 
in England before they were submitted to discus- 
sion. Little as this looks like parliamentary 
government, such was the state of subjection in 
which the Irish Parliament remained by virtue of 
this law for nearly three centuries later. Almost 
the whole time, that is to say, that Ireland had 
a sejjarate Parliament at all it remained in this 
manner restricted in its action by the legislation 
of Sir Edward Poynings. ... It should be re- 
membered, however, that Henry VII. merely sought 
to do in Ireland what there is every reason to 
suppose he practically did in England. Legislation 
was not at this time considered to be the chief 
business of a Parliament." — J. Gairdner, Henry the 
Seventh, ch. 8. — "The real enemies which the Eng- 
lish Crown had to fear in Ireland were not the 
Irish themselves, but those Anglo-Irish colonists 
who wished to be independent of English control. 
Henry VTI. therefore determined to try a new 
experiment. Instead of governing Ireland from 
England, the English power in the country was 
to be upheld by combining it with that of the 
strongest of the nobles, who, in return for con- 
ducting the government, and preserving order, 
were to be allowed to do pretty much as they 
pleased. The Geraldines were by this time the 
most powerful of all the Anglo-Norman houses. 
They were descended, it will be remembered, from 
that Maurice Fitzgerald and his relatives who came 
over at the time of the Norman invasion. They 
had gradually divided themselves into two branches, 
which were converted into Earldoms early in the 
fourteenth century. The Earls of Desmond ruled 
over the Monster Branch, and held most of 
Limerick, Cork, and Kerry, while the Leinster 
Geraldines, who lay along the frontiers of the 
English Pale, were presided over by the Earls 
of Kildare. In accordance with this new policy, 
Garrett or Gerald Fitzgerald, the Eighth Earl of 
Kildare, was appointed Deputy in 1496. He had 
taken part in the Simnel conspiracy, and had been 
attainted by Poynings' Parliament for his support 
of Perkin Warbeck; yet he had so great an in- 
fluence with both nobles and chiefs that if his 
loyalty could be secured his services would be 
invaluable. The new experiment was at first a 
complete success. Kildare was an able man, though 
hardly a statesman, and he saw that his power 
in Ireland would be greatly increased if joined 
to that of the Crown. He carried the English arms 
far and wide among the Celts, and though his 
expeditions were often the result of his private 
quarrels, this mattered little to the government as 
long as he acted as the representative of English 
authority.' His greatest exploit was the defeat of 
the tribes of Munster and Connaught at the Battle 
of Knockdoe in 1504, for this great victory did 
more towards restoring English prestige in Ireland 
than any event which had happened for a very 
long time." — C. Maxwell, Short history of Ireland, 
pp. 27-28. — On the accession of Henry VIII in 
I sop Kildare w-as made lord deputy. 

Also in: P. W. Joyce, Concise history of Ire- 

1513-1535.— Quarrels of Butlers and Fitz- 
geralds. — Rebellion of Silken Thomas. — "In 
1513 [Kildare] 'The Great Earl,' as he was called, 
was killed in a raid against one of the tribes, 
and was succeeded by his son, Garrett Oge or 
Young Gerald Fitzgerald. Garrett Oge, as Lord 
Deputy, also conducted many expeditions against 


IRELAND, 1513-1535 

Silken Thomas 

IRELAND, 1520-1546 

the tribes, and did good service for the Crown 
in Ireland. He was neither as able nor as tactlul, 
however, as his father, and he was greatly ham- 
pered by the enmity of the Butlers, the hereditary 
foes of his house, who were continually forwarding 
complaints of his conduct to the English Court. 
He was charged, for instance, with enriching him- 
self with the Crown revenues, marrying his daugh- 
ters into hostile tribes, and interfering with the 
judges in their administration of the law. Some 
of these charges were doubtless true, and Kjldarc 
was twice summoned to England in order to make 
his defence. Twice he managed to hold his own 
with the King, but when it was discovered that 
he was dabbling in treason and treating, through 
his cousin Desmond, with powers hostile to Eng- 
land, he was summoned a third time to London 
and sent to the Tower (1534). The enemies of the 
Geraldines now caused rumours of his execution to 
be spread in Ireland, which so infuriated the son 
whom he had left as Deputy in Dublin during 
bis absence that he broke into open rebellion. Rid- 
ing through the city on the nth June, 'Silken 
Thomas,' as he was called from the fringes on 
the helmets of his followers, summoned the Council 
to St. Marys Abbey, and there publicly renounced 
bis allegiance. At this juncture Garrett Oge died 
in the Tower; he too had probably contemplated 
rebellion, for before leaving Ireland he had con- 
veyed great stores of arms and ammunition from 
Dublin to his various strongholds. The chief 
of these was the Castle of Maynooth, into which 
his son now threw a large garrison. The rebellion 
became serious. The Royalist Archbishop Allen 
was murdered in an attempt to escape to Eng- 
land. Lord Thomas, now Ear! of Kildare, harried 
the Pale, and laid siege to Dublin Castle ; he 
sent envoys to implore the aid of the Emperor 
and of the Pope, and he offered to divide Ireland 
with the Butlers. The citizens of Dublin, however, 
chased his undisciplined forces from their walls. 
Ormond replied to his suggestions by invading his 
territories, and reinforcements arrived from Eng- 
land. With the aid of heavy artillery', used now 
for the first time in Ireland, Sir William Skeffing- 
ton, on March 23rd, 1535, battered down the walls 
of Maynooth, and slaughtered the garrison. Kil- 
dare's Celtic allies fell away from him, and in a 
few weeks' time he was forced to surrender. This 
ended the rebellion. He was conveyed to England 
with five of his uncles who had been treacher- 
ously arrested at a banquet, and after eighteen 
months' imprisonment they were all executed. This 
struck a final blow at the great power of the 
House of Kildare, and through it at the whole 
Anglo-Norman faction in Ireland. It was now 
clearly seen that Ireland could not be ruled from 
within, and' as the English colony had almost 
disappeared, only two courses of action were still 
open to the English Crown. Either Ireland must 
be abandoned altogether, or a new conquest of 
the countrj- must be speedily undertaken." — C. 
Maxwell, Short history oj Ireland, pp. 28-30. — In 
detailed reports sent in 1533 by the council to 
the king and Thomas Cromwell "they describe the 
miserable disordered state of the countr>-, which 
they attribute to the frequent change of depu- 
ties, to the constant imposition of 'coyne and 
liver\', black rents, and other exactions; above 
all to the vast power and privileges in the hands 
of the great Anglo-Norman lords — especially Kil- 
dare, Ossory, and Desmond — and to their continual 
quarrels. . . . They wind up by telling the king 
that reformation should begin with his own sub- 
jects- — 'When your grace has reformed your earls, 
English lords, and others your subjects, then pro- 

ceed to the reformation of your Irish rebels.' " — 
P. W. Joyce, Short liistory oj Ireland, p. 300 

1520-1540. — Negotiations between Irish chief- 
tains and European powers. — Effect of war be- 
tween England and France. — In the year 1520, 
Henry \ 111 "resolved to attempt a complete con- 
quest of Ireland, and thenceforward Tudor meth- 
ods increased in efficiency at such a rate that the 
Irish chieftains began to get alarmed for their 
safety. . . . One of the first of the Irish chieftains 
to ajiprehend the existence of a new policy, 
and to understand the necessity for common action 
against England, was James [Fitzgerald], earl of 
Desmond, who was in alliance with France in 1523 
and with Austria in 1529. ... [In fact] the first 
lifty years of the sixteenth century is tilled with 
negotiations between Irish chieftains and Conti- 
nental princes. Again and again during those years 
the Irish appealed for military assistance to France, 
Scotland, and the Empire, and we tind Irishmen 
moving through the great events of the century 
as easily as if they had been brought up in the 
Italian or French schools of politics. The rela- 
tions of Irishmen with the Continent during those 
years centre for the most part about France. . . . 
The war between England and France was destined 
to have important consequences for Ireland. . . . 
Following on the quarrel between Henry and Fran- 
cis I, the Irish, in 1523 opened negotiations with 
the French king. . . . [Two French ambassadors] 
arrived in Ireland in June, 1523 . . . and planned 
a vast conspiracy by which Desmond to be 
assisted to free Ireland and in return was to 
join in a campaign to dethrone Henry VIII. and 
set up in his stead Richard de la Pole. . . . [Fran- 
cis on his side agreed to arrange no truce with 
Henry that did not include Desmond, Turlough 
O'Brien and his nephew, and that if Hcnn,- should 
break the peace with them, Francis would come 
to their a.ssistance] The French were to occupy 
. . . Cork, Kinsale, and Youghal ... as a secur- 
ity for their assistance in men, money, and muni- 
tions. . . . [This] treaty was solemnly ratified by 
Francis I. . . . News of the conspiracy soon 
reached London and Kildare, as the Lord-Deputy, 
was ordered to secure the person of the Earl of 
Desmond. While Kildare pretended to track down 
the Earl, in reality he entered into closer rela- 
tions with him, and together they concerted a 
common plan of action. Kildare brought other 
Irish chieftains into the conspiracy by marriage 
alliances. . . . [His] next move was to transfer 
the artiller)- and military stores from Dublin Castle 
to his own castle at Maynooth, which, in the eyes 
of Irishmen, was tantamount to a declaration that 
he had abandoned England. . . . (Desmond de- 
ferred . . . [action], but in the year 1529 he car- 
ried out an Irish invasion of England on a com- 
prehensive scale. ... In twelve months he landed 
an army — estimated in round numbers at 20,000 
men — in Pembrokeshire. They spread themselves 
over the country about Milford Haven and between 
St. David's and Tenby — easily crushing all attempts 
at local resistance. Irish ships swarmed along the 
coasts, and for twelve months the countryside was 
virtually an Irish possession. But matters of mo- 
ment required Desmond's presence in Ireland, and, 
drawing his forces together, he returned in a blaze 
of glory.) , . . [Meantime] the Franco-Irish al- 
liance was shattered at the battle of Pavia. . . . 
Desmond had staked everything on a turn of the 
wheel in European politics. He had played for 
high stakes and he had lost. [But it was not till 
Henry had wrung the last concession from French 
weakness that he .seriously turned his attention 
to Ireland. . . . Kildare, as the most outstanding 


IRELAND, 1535-1553 

Henry VIII 

IRELAND, 1540-1579 

culprit, he could not allow to go unpunished. Apart 
from the fact that he had been plotting with 
France, Henry considered that Kildare had shame- 
fully neglected his duties as Lord-Deputy. ... It 
was reported in 1526 that scarcely a word of 
English was heard in the country of Kildare, that 
the inhabitants persisted in their Irish customs, 
and that, except Dublin and Drogheda, the Pale 
itself had become Irish. In 1526 Kildare was 
accused by his old enemy. Sir Piers Butler, of 
conspiring with Irish enemies to help Desmond in 
his intrigues with France, and of neglecting to 
arrest him on special instructions from the King. 
. . . Kildare was called to London to answer these 
charges, which were serious enough to have brought 
any other chieftain to the block. . . . Meanwhile 
Desmond, who was the root of all the trouble, con- 
tinued travelling steadily along the paths of re- 
bellion. With admirable pertinacity, on the failure 
of France, he searched for a new ally among the 
European powers then at variance with England, 
and in the Emperor of Austria he seemed likely 
to find a new auxiliary. . . . The English agents 
were soon in possession of Desmond's secret 
machinations, which they promptly reported to 
Henry. . . . [Proceedings for his attainder before 
the Irish parliament were begun but his death in 
1529 made an end of them.]" — J. Hogan, Ireland 
in the European system, v. i, pp. xxviii, xxx, 18, 
22, 24-2S, ii. 

1535-1553. — Reconquest under Henry VIII 
and fall of Geraldines. — Political pacification 
and religious alienation. — "Skeffington, the new 
Lord Deputy, brought with him a train of ar- 
tillery, which worked a startling change in the 
political aspect of the island. The castles which 
had hitherto sheltered rebellion were battered into 
ruins. . . Not only was the power of the great 
Norman house which had towered over Ireland 
utterly broken, but only a single boy was left 
to preserve its name. With the fall of the Geral- 
dines Ireland felt itself in a master's grasp. . . . 
In seven years, partly through the vigour of 
Skefiington's successor. Lord Leonard Grey, and 
still more through the resolute will of Henry and 
Cromwell, the power of the Crown, which had 
been limited to the walls of Dublin, was acknowl- 
edged over the length and breadth of Ireland. . . . 
Chieftain after chieftain was won over to the 
acceptance of the indenture which guaranteed him 
in the possession of his lands, and left his au- 
thority over his tribesmen untouched, on condi- 
tions of a pledge of loyalty, of abstinence from 
illegal wars and exactions on his fellow-subjects, 
and of rendering a fixed tribute and service in 
war-time to the Crown. . . . [This] firm and con- 
ciliatory policy must in the end have won. but 
for the fatal blunder which plunged Ireland into 
religious strife at the moment when her civil 
strife seemed about to come to an end. ... In 
Ireland the spirit of the Reformation never ex- 
isted among the people at all. They accepted the 
legislative measures passed in the English Parlia- 
ment without any dream of theological conse- 
cjuences, or of any change in the doctrine or cere- 
monies of the Church. . . . The mission of 
Archbishop Browne [of Dublin] 'for the plucking- 
down of idols and extinguishing of idolatry' was the 
first step in the long effort of the English Govern- 
ment to force a new faith on a people who to a 
man clung passionately to their old religion. 
Browne's attempts at 'tuning the pulpits' were met 
by a sullen and significant opposition. . . . Protest- 
antism had failed to wrest a single Irishman from 
his older convictions, but it succeeded in uniting 
all Ireland against the Crown. . . . The popula- 

tion within the Pale and without it became one, 
'not as the Irish nation,' it has been acutely said, 
'but as Catholics.' A new sense o) national iden- 
tity was found in the identity of religion." — J. R. 
Green, Short history of the English people, ch. 7, 
sect. 8. — "Whether the religious quarrel between 
England and Ireland, between Catholic and 
Protestant, once begun, was carried on with any 
greater amount of bitterness or of intolerance than 
the same quarrel in any other part of Europe, is 
beside the point to discuss; the only matter of 
relevance is the peculiar effect which this theo- 
logical controversy has had upon the subsequent 
course of political events. \'ery few will deny 
that the spirit in which it was conducted more 
than justified the suspicions which later genera- 
tions have had, the one party towards the other. 
... Of the political aspect of the religious change 
it is hard to speak too strongly. It was disastrous, 
for by making Reform identical with Repression, 
it threw Catholicism into natural alliance with 
Patriotism, thus creating a confusion which may 
never be unravelled for centuries. But what was 
still more fatal was the wholesale system of ex- 
propriation by which it was accompanied, and it 
was probably this more than any other considera- 
tion which doomed it — in a word, the Plantations 
damned the Reformation. As far as any Act of 
a Legislature can change the faith of a nation, the 
Parliament which Henry assembled in Dublin, and 
at which a large number of Irish chiefs were 
present, both acceded to his new title of head of 
the Church and sanctioned his new policy of 
the suppression of the nftnasteries. This, how- 
ever, was previous to the confiscations of land. It 
was another matter when attainder of a chief 
meant the confiscation of the territories of a tribe, 
and it was just here that the pinch was felt, and 
the wanton burning in the market-place of Dublin 
of the Baculum Christatum, or staff of St. Patrick, 
part of which Holy Relic was said to have touched 
the hands of the Saviour, produced an effect on 
the popular mind such as only the scattering of the 
ashes of Edward the Confessor by Saracens would 
have produced had they come to London as con- 
querors." — L. G. Redmond-Howard, New birth of 
Ireland, pp. 3S-36. 

Also in: R. Bagwell, Ireland under the Tudor s, 
p. I, ch. 9-15. — M. Haverty, History of Ireland, 
ch. 30. 

1540-1579. — Influence of French negotiations. 
— "From 1540 to 1579 to invade Ireland and make 
it a basis for operations against England may 
be said to have been the settled policy of France. 
... On 22nd July 1543, Henry VHI. delivered 
an ultimatum to France, so worded as to be tanta- 
mount to a declaration of war. . , . [Francis was 
eager to use the disaffected Irish in retaliation on 
Henry. He seems to have promised to send over 
a fleet to aid them to rise against the English 
power, and for this purpose stores and ammuni- 
tion were collected at Brest.] Meanwhile in Ire- 
land the conspiracy had spread widely. The Irish 
chieftains were in correspondence with FitzGerald 
and the French king. French agents had been 
travelling through the country and had held con- 
ferences with many of the strongest chieftains. 
Henry tried a policy of conciliation, [but] its 
soothing effects were more than counterbalanced 
by his religious policy. . . . Ireland was in open 
rebellion during the year 1547, O'Donnell rose out 
in the north, and 15,000 Scots landed to support 
him. The Geraldines and the O'Connors were 
ravaging the Pale. The Earl of Desmond was 
suspected of being in correspondence with the 
French, and so notorious an intriguer as James 


IRELAND, 1540-1579 

Influence of 
French Negotiations 

IRELAND, 1541-1555 

Delahidc had arrived in Ireland and was thought 
to be in the company of the Earl. . . . The de- 
sign of a French conquest of Ireland, which may 
have been no more than a temporary expedient 
for Francis I., became in the reign of Henry II. a 
serious object of French policy. This design on 
Ireland is reflected in the French policy towards 
Scotland. Since the arrival of Mary Stuart in 
France Scotland had practically ceased to have 
an independent government, and Henry determined 
that this state of things should last not only be- 
cause Scotland would be an appanage of the French 
crown, but also because it would serve as a 
stepping-stone to Ireland. . . . Ireland, as usual, 
was ripe for rebellion. ... Of late years Belling- 
ham, an English soldier, had carried on the gov- 
ernment of Ireland with Spartan rigour. He had 
suppressed the rebellions of the O'Connors and 
the O'RIores of Leix and Offaly, two clans who 
had given England continual trouble, and in words 
that have a Cromwellian flavour boasted that 'none 
(of the king's enemies) escaped but by mistake 
or hiding them in ambush, etc., such was the great 
goodness of God to deliver them into our hands.' 
The two chieftains were dispossessed and it was 
proposed to plant their lands with English col- 
onists. This object lesson was not lost on the 
other chieftains, who recognised that some day a 
similar fate might befall themselves. Ireland in 
the year 1540 was a powder magazine where a 
spark from France would precipitate an explo- 
sion. . , . The first advances seem to have come 
from France, . . . [and] by the spring of iS4q 
the conspiracy, both in Ireland and France, was 
in full swing. The strongest supporters of the 
Irish enterprise were members of the Catholic 
League — such as Cardinal Pole, the House of 
Guise, the Bishop of Valence. Strozzi, Prior of 
Capua, and the Queen-Dowager of Scotland. . . . 
In early spring, 1540, Wauchop arrived in Ire- 
land from France and set about organising a gen- 
eral confederation of the northern and southern 
chieftains. . . . O'Neill and O'Donnell took an oath 
of fealty to the French king, and in their own 
names and in the names of their fellow chieftains 
pledged themselves to acknowledge his sovereignty. 
. . . Before Monluc [the French envoy] set out for 
France another important step was taken. When 
in Scotland he had sounded the Scottish nobility 
on the subject of a league with Ireland, and his 
suggestion had been so well received that now he 
was able to effect an alliance between M'Connell, 
Lord of the Isles, and the Irish chieftains. At 
last Monluc's fondest hopes had been realised. Ire- 
land, Scotland, and France stood united in a close 
confederacy against England. .Assailed at once 
from those three points, English power would cer- 
tainly be borne to the earth. . . . But Henry 
[II], as always, pursued a policy of vacillation. In 
Ireland they waited confidently for the arrival of 
the French forces, and occupied the interval of 
waiting in perfecting arrangements and extendine 
the conspiracy, which now spread throughout the 
whole country and even included parts of Wales. 
[Finally Con O'Neil broke out into rebellion, 
and by the month of March a good part of the 
country was under arms. But Henn.' of France 
again entered into negotiations with England, this 
time successfully, and the Irish once more found 
that they had been used by their allies as a 
weapon to be used and thrown aside.]" — J. Hogan, 
Ireland in the European system, v. I, pp. 35, 60. 

63. 74. 07, QQ-IOO, 104. 110. 144. 

1541-1555.— Assumption by Henry VIII of 
title of king of Ireland. — Parliament of 1541. — 
Causes of discontent. — Plantation scheme. — 

"Hitherto the English kings, from the time of John, 
had borne the title of Lord of Ireland. It was now 
considered that a higher title would add weight 
to the king's authority; and it was resolved to 
confer on him the title of King of Ireland. With 
this object a parliament was assembled in Dublin 
on the i2th June (1541); and in order to lend 
greater importance to its decisions, a number of 
the leading Irish chiefs — among others, Kavanagh, 
O'Moore, and O'Reilly — were induced to attend it; 
and O'Brien of Thomond yielded so far that he 
sent deputies to represent him. This was the first 
parliament attended by native Irish members. The 
earl of Desmond also, and several other Anglo- 
Irish lords — some who had not come to a parlia- 
ment for many years, and some never before — 
attended. The presence of all these made the 
present parliament the most remarkable yet held 
in Ireland. The Irish lords, and some also of the 
.Anglo-Irish, did not understand a word of Eng- 
lish; and they were greatly pleased when the earl 
of Ormond translated into Irish for them the 
speeches of the lord chancellor and the speaker. 
... If there had been no additional disturbing 
influences after the reign of Henry VIII., it is 
probable that Ireland would have begun to settle 
down, and that there would have been no further 
serious or prolonged resistance. But now two 
new elements of discord were introduced ; for 
the government entered on the task of forcing the 
Irish people to become Protestant ; and at the 
same time they began to plant various parts of 
the country with colonies of settlers from Eng- 
land and Scotland, for whom the native inhabitants 
were to be expelled. The Irish on their part re- 
sisted, and fought long and resolutely for their re- 
ligion and their homes ; and the old struggle was 
intensified and embittered by religious rancour. The 
Plantations succeeded, though not to the extent 
expected; the attempt to Protestantise the Irish, 
though continued with determined persistency for 
three centuries, was a failure. These two projects 
were either directly or indirectly the causes of 
nearly all the dreadful wars that desolated this 
unhappy country during the period comprised in 
the present part of our history. Two other evil 
influences also began to make themselves felt about 
this time. The titles conferred by Henry VTII. 
on the native chiefs, with the accompanying land 
grants, gave rise to long and bitter disputes in the 
succeeding reigns. It was commonly the acknowl- 
edged chief of the district at the time who received 
the royal title. His successor, both in title and in 
position as head, was, according to English law, 
his eldest son or his next heir; but according 
to the Irish law of tanistry. that member of the 
family whom the tribe selected was the person 
to succeed to the chiefship. This was mi.xed up 
with the question of land, a further and a worse 
complication. According to the English law, the 
chief who relinquished his land to the king, and 
to whom the king regranted it, became the owner, 
and it would descend to his heir after his death. 
But according to Brchon law, as the chief well 
knew, he had no right of ownership; and the 
person to succeed him in pos.session was the tanist. 
Thus when this titled chief died. English and 
Irish law came, in a double sense, into direct 
antagonism ; and there was generally a contest, 
in which the government supported the heir, and 
the tribe the tanist. This was mainly the origin 
of the disturbances among the O'Briens of Thomond 
and the O'Xeills of Tyrone, ... as well as of 
many others. The disturbing influence next to 
be mentioned was in .some respects the most gen- 
eral and far reaching of all. Ireland was then 


IRELAND, 1541-1555 

Act of Uniformity 

IRELAND, 1559-1603 

as it has always been, the weak point of the em- 
pire in case of invasion from abroad. . . . For 
some time before the accession of Elizabeth, and 
all through her reign, there were continual rumours, 
both in England and Ireland, of hostile expeditions 
from Spain or France to Ireland. These rumours, 
some of which, as we shall see, were well founded, 
generally caused great terror, sometimes panic, 
on the part of the government. ... If a chief, 
encouraged by the prospect of help from abroad, 
rose in rebellion, it was not enough, as it would 
be under ordinary circumstances, to reduce him 
to submission, inflict reasonable punishment, and 
take guarantees of future good behaviour. It 
was necessary to crush him utterly ; and such 
thorough precautions were taken as that an in- 
vader should have neither help nor foothold in 
the country. . . . And so were the unhappy des- 
tinies of this country in great measure shaped; 
not by what was needed for the protection and 
welfare of the people, but merely that Ireland 
might be made unsuitable as a point of attack. 
... A disquieting agency less serious than any 
of the preceding, but still a decided element of 
disturbance, was the settled policy of the Tudors 
to anglicise the Irish people. ... To anglicise the 
people the government employed all the agencies 
at their disposal, and employed them in vain." — 
P. W. Joyce, Short history of Ireland, pp. 3S6, .^qo- 

"On the accession of Edward VI. in i.';47, 
Sentleger was continued as deputy. As there 
were some serious disturbances in Leinster, Ed- 
ward Bellingham, an able and active officer, was 
sent over in May this year as military commander 
bringing a small force of 600 horse and 400 foot. 
He reduced O'Moore of Leix and O'Connor of 
Offaly, and sent them to London, in 1548, where 
they were treated kindly and got pensions. Mean- 
while the two territories were annexed to the Pale, 
and Bellingham built a number of castles to keep 
down the people. ... In the time of queen Mary, 
who succeeded Edward VI. in 1553, an entire 
change was made in the mode of dealing with 
Irish territories whose chiefs had been subdued. 
Hitherto whenever the government deposed or 
banished a troublesome chief, they contented them- 
selves with putting in his place another, com- 
monly English or Anglo-Irish, more likely to 
be submissive, while the general body of oc- 
cupiers remained undisturbed. But now when a 
rebellious chief was reduced, the lands, not merely 
those in his own possession, but also those oc- 
cupied by the whole of the people over whom he 
ruled, were confiscated — seized by the crown — and 
given to English adventurers, undertakers as they 
were commonly called. These men got the lands 
on condition that they should bring in or plant 
on them a number of English or Scotch settlers; 
for whom it was of course necessary to clear off 
the native population. After the banishment of 
O'Moore and O'Conor in 1548 their districts of 
Leix and Offaly were given to an Englishman 
named Francis Bryan and to some others, who 
proceeded straightway to expel the native people 
and parcel out the lands to new tenants, chiefly 
English. But the natives resisted; and the fight- 
ing went on during the whole of the reign of 
Edward VI., with great of life to both sides. 
As this settlement did not succeed, the whole dis- 
trict was made crown property in 1555 and 1556, 
during the reign of queen Mary, ancl replanted. 
But the natives still struggled for their homes ; 
and a pitiless war of mutual extermination went 
on for many years, till the orieinal owners were 
almost completely banished or exterminated." — 

P. W. Joyce, Concise history of Ireland, pp. 142, 
151, 153. 

1558-1560. — Accession of Elizabeth. — Effect of 
Act of Uniformity. — "On the death of Mary in 
1558, Elizabeth became queen. Henry VIII. had 
transferred the headship of the church from the 
Pope to himself; Edward VI. had changed the 
state religion from Catholic to Protestant; Mary 
from Protestant to Catholic; and now there was 
to be a fourth change, followed by results far 
more serious and lasting than any previously ex- 
perienced. A parliament was assembled in Dublin 
in 1560, to restore the Protestant religion; and 
in a few weeks, though after much opposition and 
clamour, the whole ecclesiastical system of Mary 
was reversed. . . . The queen being by law now 
head of the Irish church, was supposed to have the 
appointment of all the Irish bishops. But as 
the English power reached only a small part of the 
country, many bishops were appointed by 
the Pope. . . . Those appointed by the queen were, 
with few exceptions, men of a very unworthy 
stamp. . , . Wherever these new regulations were 
enforced, the Catholic clergy had of course to 
abandon their churches, for they could not hold 
them without taking the oath. At the same time, 
... as there was no adequate provision made for 
the support of the new Protestant pastors. . . . But 
the crowning folly of the government was ex- 
hibited in the regulation that none were to be 
appointed except those who could speak English, 
which in those days meant that they could not 
speak Irish . . . The priests, who had been turned 
out of their parishes, and the inmates of the 
suppressed monasteries who had been sent adrift 
on the world, especially the 'mendicant friars,' who 
lived on alms and cared nothing for privations, 
went about among the people; and while they 
actively and successfully opposed the reformed 
doctrines, they ministered to the people in secret 
and kept alive the spirit and practice of religion. 
... In many places the new statute of uniformity 
was not brought sharply into play. In Dublin 
fines were inflicted on those who absented them- 
selves from church; and to avoid the penalty, 
many went to Mass in the morning and to church 
in the evening. But the churchwardens tried to 
prevent even this by calling a roll of the par- 
ishioners at the morning service. . . . Even within 
the Pale the great body of the people took no 
notice of proclamations, the law could not be 
enforced, the act of uniformity was a dead letter, 
and the greater number of the parishes remained 
in the hands of the priests." — P. W. Joyce, Short 
history of Ireland, pp. 306-308.- — "Elizabeth, al- 
ways a stateswoman first and churchwoman after- 
wards, was rather inclined at first to follow her 
father's policy of internal consolidation by the 
conciliation of the great families, but partly owing 
to the rebellion of Thane O'Neil, and partly to the 
perpetual danger which the Spanish Armada re- 
minded her was latent wherever Catholics were 
in power, she realised that in Ireland, at least, she 
must be a churchwoman first and stateswoman 
afterwards." — L. G. Redmond-Howard, New birth 
of Ireland, p. 37. 

1559-1603.— 'Wars of Shane O'Neil and Hugh 
O'Neil, earls of Tyrone. — League of Geraldines 
and Ulster Confederacy. — "As authentic Irish 
history begins with St. Patrick, so with Elizabeth 
modern Irish history may be said to begin. . . . 
At her accession, Elizabeth was too much occupied 
with foreign complications to pay much heed to 
Ireland. Trouble first began in a conflict be- 
tween the feudal laws and the old Irish law of 
Tanistry. Con O'Neil, Earl of Tyrone, had taken 


IRELAND, 1559-1603 

Wars of 
Earls of Tyrone 

IRELAND, 1559-1603 

his title from Henry VIII., subject to the Eng- 
lish law of succession ; but when Con died, the 
clan O'Neil, disrepardinR the English principle of 
hereditary succession, chose Shane O'Neil, an il- 
legitimate son of Con, and the hero of his Sept, 
to be The O'Xeil. Shane O'Xeil at once put 
himself forward as the champion of Irish liberty, 
the supporter of the Irish right to rule themselves 
in their own way and pay no heed to England. 
Under the pretence of governing the country, Eliza- 
beth overran it with a soldiery who. as even Mr. 
Froude acknowledges, lived almost universally on 
plunder, and were little better than bandits. The 
time was an appropriate one for a champion of 
Irish rights. Shane O'Neil boldly stood out as 
sovereign of Ulster, and pitied himself against 
Elizabeth. . . . Shane froucht bravely against his 
fate, but he was defeated [1567!. put to flight, 
and murdered by his enemies, the Scots of Antrim, 
in whose strongholds he madly sought refuge. 
His head was struck off, and sent to adorn the 
walls of Dublin Castle. . . . His lands were de- 
clared forfeited, and his vassals vassals of the 
Crown. English soldiers of fortune were given 
grants from Shane's escheated territory, but when 

the delinquents with merciless severity as he went 
along, hanging and imprisoning great numbers. He 
. . . [took Desmond prisoner and brought him 
to] Dublin, leaving his brother John Fitzgerald, 
or John of Desmond as he is called, to govern 
South Munster in the earl's absence. He con- 
vened a parliament in Dublin in which during 
1560, 1570, and 1571 were passed acts to spread 
the Reformation and to attaint Shane O'Neill and 
confiscate his lands. In 1567, at Ormond's in- 
stigation, John of Desmond was treacherously 
seized without any cause, and he and hLs brother 
the earl were sent to London and consigned to 
the Tower, where they were detained for six years. 
All this was done without the knowledge of 
Sydney, who afterwards quite disapproved of it. 
. . . There had been reports that large districts 
in Ireland were to be taken from the owners and 
planted with colonics; and this, coupled with the 
proceedings in Dublin to force the Reformation 
produced great alarm and discontent. Matters 
were brought to a crisis by the arrest of Desmond 
and John Fitzgerald. James Fitzmaurice Fitz- 
gerald, the earl's first cousin, now went among 
the southern chiefs and induced them all, both 

Residence of the O'Neills 

they attempted to settle they were killed by the 
O'Neils."— J. H. McCarthy, Outline of Irish his- 
tory, ch. 4. — In the south "the Fitzgeralds and . 
the Butlers were at perpetual war. 'The earl of 
Desmond, the head of the southern Geraldines, 
was a Catholic, and took the Irish side; the earl 
of Ormond, the leader of the Butlers, had con- 
formed to the Protestant faith, and had taken 
the side of the English all along. By the tyranny 
and oppression of these two earls, as well as by 
their never-ending disputes, large districts in the 
south were devastated, and almost depopulated. 
On one occasion Desmond, who claimed jurisdic- 
tion over Decies in Waterford, crossed the Black- 
water with his army to levy tribute, in the old 
form of coyne and livery. The chief of the dis- 
trict. Sir Maurice Fitzgerald, a relative of the 
Butlers, called in the aid of the earl of Ormond. 
Desmond, taken unawares, was defeated in a battle 
fought in 1565 at .^ffane in the county Waterford, 
b«ide the Blackwater, and he himself was wounded 
and taken prisoner. ... .At the same time Con- 
naught in a state almost as bad, by the 
broils of the earl of Clanrickard and his sons with 
each other, and with the chief? all round The 
deputy. Sir Henry Sydney [Sidneyl. a very able 
man, endeavoured to make peace. He undertook 
3 journey south and west in 1567; and having 
witnessed the miseries of the countrj', he treated 

native Irish and Anglo-Irish, to unite in defence 
of their religion and their lands: and thus was 
formed what was called the Geraldine League. 
Thus also arose the Geraldine rebellion. When 
Sydney heard of these alarming proceedings he 
proclaimed the chiefs traitors, and in 1560 made 
a journey south with his army, during which he 
and his officers acted with great severity. This 
circuit of Sydney's went a good way to break 
up the confederacy, and many of the leaders were 
terrified into submission." — P. W. Joyce, Concise 
history of Ireland, pp. 146-147. — "About this time 
or a little before, a project to colonise a large part 
of Ireland was seriously entertained by the English 
government: it was a matter of secrecy, but the 
secret leaked out ; disquieting rumours ran through 
the country ; and there was a ferment of alarm 
among the chiefs both native and Anglo-Irish. 
That these reports were not without foundation 
was brought home to them in a manner not to 
be mistaken by the proceedings of an English 
adventurer. Sir Peter Carew. . . . [on the ground 
that he was descended from one of the early 
invader? to whom a large grant had been made. 
This shadowy claim, which was actually baseless, 
he proposed to put into effect, and proceeded to 
Ireland, where, with a band of follower?, he at- 
tempted to ou?t the occupiers, and replace them 
by his own retainers.] Among the lands seized 


IRELAND, 1559-1603 

League of Geraldines 

IRELAND, 1559-1603 

by Carew was a large district belonging to Sir 
Edmund Butler, brother of the earl of Ormond, 
Ormond himself being at this time in England. 
IButler, a "cholerick man" naturally resented the 
intrusion, and induced two other brothers. Pierce 
and Edward, to join the league. Elizabeth, how- 
ever, placated Ormond, who was her cousin, and 
he in turn induced his brothers to make peace. 
Sidney declared the southern chiefs traitors in 
156Q and prepared for a campaign in Munster 
to break up the confederation. He reduced the 
south, then proceeded to Galway, and so returned 
to Dublin. Sidney was most severe in his meth- 
ods. He burned and destroyed as he went, and 
executed every man he found in arms.]" — P. W. 
Joyce, Short history of Ireland, pp. 425-426.^ 
"About this time Sydney appointed 'Presidents' 
to govern Munster and Connaught. The object 
was to produce peace ; but it did the very re- 
verse; for the presidents used their great power 
so mercilessly that they drove both chiefs and 
people to rebellion everywhere. Sir Edward Fitton 
and Sir Richard Bingham, two presidents of 
Connaught, were perhaps the worst, and Sir John 
Perrott, a brave old soldier, who was made Presi- 
dent of Munster in 1571, though very severe, 
was about the best and most reasonable of all. 
Perrott took Fitzmaurice's castles one after an- 
other, and at last, in 1573, forced him to submit. 
After this, as the rebellion was considered at an 
end, the earl of Desmond and his brother were 
released. Sydney had been lord justice in 1558; 
and after that he was three times lord deputy, 
1565, 1568, 1575. In 1577 during his last deputy- 
ship, he raised a great disturbance at home by 
attempting to impose an illegal tax on the people 
of Dublin and the Pale, without obtaining the 
consent of the Irish parliament. His harshness 
on this occasion caused great excitement and dis- 
content among the loyal people of the Pale, and 
helped to drive some into rebellion. In the end 
the matter was compromised. Fitzmaurice fled to 
France after his submission; and the Geraldine 
rebellion slumbered for about six years." — P. W. 
Joyce, Concise history of Ireland, p. 148. — "Sir 
Francis Cosby, the Queen's representative in Leix 
and Offaly, had conceived and executed the idea 
of preventing any further possible rising of the 
chiefs in those districts by summoning them and 
their kinsmen to a great banquet in the fort of 
Mullaghmast, and there massacring them all. Out 
of 400 guests, only one man, a Lalor, escaped from 
that feast of blood. . . . With such memories in 
their minds, the tribes rose in all directions to 
the Desmond call." — J. H. McCarthy, Outlines of 
Irish history, ch. 4. — "In iS7q the Pope . . . 
fitted out for . . . [Fitzmaurice] a sm.all squadron 
of three ships with 700 Italian soldiers, intended 
for Ireland, which was placed under the command 
of Thomas Stukely, . . . [who, however], joined 
another expedition led by the king of Portugal; 
and the Irish never heard any more of him or 
his squadron. Meantime Fitzmaurice embarked for 
Ire'and in 1570 in three small ships which he had 
procured in Spain, with about eighty Spaniards, 
accompanied by Dr. Allen, a Jesuit, and by [Dr. 
Sanders! . . . . landed at the little harbour of 
Smerwick in Kerry, . . . and was joined by Des- 
mond's two brothers, John and James Fitzgerald. 
But Fitzmaurice . . . was killed, in the same year, 
in a skirmish . . . [and with his death the re- 
bellion was doomed]. John Fitzgerald now took 
command of the Munster insurgents; and soon 
collected a considerable force. . . . Lord justice 
Drury and Sir Nicholas Malbie pursued the in- 
surgents; and two battles were fought in i57g; 

one at Gort-na-tubbrid or Springfield in the county 
Limerick, where Fitzgerald defeated the gov- 
ernment forces; the other near Croon where he 
was defeated by Malbie. Malbie was joined by 
Sir William Pelham the newly appointed lord jus- 
tice, and by the earl of Ormond, general of the 
array: and they goaded Desmond to join the re- 
bellion. The frightful civil war broke out now 
more virulently than before ; and brought the coun- 
try to such a state as had never yet been wit- 
nessed. Several hostile bands belonging to both 
sides traversed the country for months, destroying 
everything and wreaking vengeance on the weak 
and defenceless. Desmond utterly ruined the 
rich and prosperous town of Youghal, leaving not 
one house fit to live in; but in his marches through 
those parts of the country belonging to the Eng- 
lish he did not massacre the inhabitants. Not 
so with Pelham and Ormond. who carried fire 
and sword through the country, sparing no living 
thing that fell in their way. For the rebels it 
was a losing game all through. Pelham and 
Ormond took Desmond's strongholds one by one. 
. . . Meantime the insurrection blazed up m 
I.einster. . . The newly appointed justice. Lord 
Grey of Wilton, who succeeded Pelham. at once 
mustered his men, and in August 1580 marched 
into the heart of Wicklow in pursuit of the in- 
surgent army, who had retired into Glenmalure. 
Here he was suddenly attacked by viscount Bal- 
tinglass and by the great chief Fiach Mac Hugh 
O'Byrne; and his array was alraost annihilated. 
The insurgents had long expected aid from the 
Continent, which at length arrived: 700 Spaniards 
and Italians landed about the ist October 1580 
from four vessels at Smerwick. They took pos- 
session of the ill-oraened old fort of Dunanore. 
and proceeded to fortify it. They expected to 
see the people join them in crowds: but Ormond 
and Pelham had done their work so thoroughly 
that the peasantry held aloof, trembling with fear. 
After about six weeks Lord Grey laid siege to the 
fort ; at the same tirae .•Xdrairal Winter arrived 
early in November with the English fleet, so that 
it was invested both by sea and land, .^fter the 
cannon had battered the fort for some days the 
garrison surrendered. The Irish authorities as- 
sert they had promise of their lives; the English 
say they surrendered at discretion. Anyhow, Grey 
had the whole garrison massacred. . . . During the 
next year, 15S1, Grey and his officers carried on 
the war with relentless barbarity ; till at length 
it began to be felt that instead of quieting Ire- 
land he was rather fanning rebellion; and in 15S2 
the queen recalled him. . . . After many narrow 
escapes . . . [Desmond was] taken and killed in 
1583 by sorae soldiers and peasants in Kerry. This 
ended the great Geraldine rebellion. The war had 
made Munster a desert. In the words of the 
Four Masters: — 'The lowing of a cow or the voice 
of a ploughman could scarcely be heard from 
Dunqueen in the west of Kerry to Cashel.' To 
what a frightful pass the wretched people had 
been brought by the constant destruction and spoil- 
ing of their crops and cattle, may be gathered 
from Edmund Spenser's description of what he 
witnessed with his own eyes: — 'Notwithstanding 
that the same [province of Munster] was a mtftt 
rich and plentiful countrey, full of come and 
cattle, yet ere one yeare and a halfe they [the 
people] were brought to such wretchedness as that 
any stony hart would have rued the same. Out 
of every corner of the woods and glynnes they 
came creeping forth upon their hands, for their 
legges could not beare them, and if they found 
a plot of watercresses or shamrocks there they 


IRELAND, 1559-1603 Ulster Confederacy IRELAND, 1607-1611 

flocked as to a feast for the time: that in short 
space of time there were none [i.e. no people! 
almost left, and a most populous and plentiful 
country suddainely left voide of man and beast.' " 
— P. VV. Joyce, Concise history of Ireland, pp. 148- 
140, 151. — "After the attainder of Shane O'Neill 
more than half of Ulster was confiscated; and 
the attempt to clear off the old natives and plant 
new settlers was commenced without delay. In 
1570 the peninsula of Ardes in Down was granted 
to the queen's secretary Sir Thomas Smith, who 
sent his illepitimate son with a colony to take 
possession. But this plantation was a failure; for 
the owners, the O'XeiUs of Clandeboy, not feeling 
inclined to part with their rights without a 
struggle, attacked and killed the young undertaker 
in 1573. The next undertaker was a more im- 
portant man, Walter Devereux. earl of Essex. In 
1573 he undertook to plant the district now oc- 
cupied by the county .Antrim, together with the 
Island of Rathlin. He waged savage war on 
the natives, stopping short at no amount of slaugh- 
ter and devastation — burning their corn and de- 
populating the country to the best of his ability 
by sword and starvation. He treacherously seized 
young O'Donncll of Tirconnell and Brian O'Neill, 
chief of Clandeboy and sent them prisoners to 
Dublin. And he massacred hundreds of the Scots 
of Clandeboy and of Rathlin Island to gain pos- 
session of their lands. Yet after all this fearful 
work he failed, and he had to return to Dublin 
where he died. .■Xfter the death of the earl of 
Desmond his vast estates, and those of 140 of his 
adherents, nearly a million acres, all in Munster, 
were confiscated by a parliament held in Dublin 
1585. In 15S6 proclamation was made all through 
England, inviting gentlemen to 'undertake' the 
plantation of this great and rich territory. Estates 
were offered at two pence or three pence an 
acre, and no rent at all was to be paid for the 
first five years. Every undertaker who took 12,000 
acres was to settle eighty-six English families as 
tenants on his property, but no Irish ; and so in 
proportion for smaller estates down to 4,000 acres. 
Sir Walter Raleigh got 42,000 acres in Cork and 
Waterford, and resided at Youghal. where his 
house is still to be seen. Edmund Spenser, the 
poet, received 12,000 acres in Cork, and took up 
his residence in one of Desmond's strongholds, 
Kilcolman Castle. ... In the most important par- 
ticulars, however, this great scheme turned out 
a failure. The English farmers and artisans did 
not come over in sufficient numbers; and the 
undertakers received the native Irish everywhere 
as tenants, in violation of the conditions. Some 
English came over indeed; but they were so 
harassed and frightened by the continual attacks 
of the dispossessed owners that many of them re- 
turned to England. And lastly, more than half 
the confiscated lands remained in possession of the 
owners, as no others could be found to take them. 
So the only result of this plantation was to root 
out a large proportion of the old gentry and to 
enrich a few undertakers. There were many other 
plantations during these times and subsequently, 
all resembling in their main features those sketched 
here." — P. W Joyce. Concise history of Ireland, 
p. 154. — During all this Geraldine or Desmond 
rebellion Ulster had remained quiet; but in 1504 
it began to show signs of disturbance. "Hugh 
O'Neil, the grandson of that Con O'Neil whom 
Henry VIII. had made Earl of Tyrone, had been 
brought up at the English court, and confirmed 
in the lordship of Tyrone by the English Govern- 
ment. In the brilliant court of Elizabeth the 
young Irish chief was distinguished for his gifts of 


mind and body. When he came of age he was 
allowed to return to Ireland to his earldom. Once 
within his own country, he assumed his an- 
cestral title of The O'Neil, and revived all the 
customs of independent Irish chieftains. For long 
enough he took no part in any plots or movements 
against the Crown ; but many things, the ties 
of friendship and of love, combined to drive him 
into rebellion. . . . Tyrone in the end coa-^ented 
to give the powerful support of his name and his 
arms to a skilfully planned confederation of the 
tribes. On all sides the Irish chiefs entered into 
the insurrection. O'Neil was certainly the most 
formidable Irish leader the- English had yet en- 
countered. . . . Victory followed victory [that of 
Yellow Ford, 1508, being the most important I. In 
a little while all Ireland, with the exception of 
Dublin and a few garrison towns, was in the 
hands of the rebels. Essex, and the largest army 
ever sent to Ireland, crossed the Channel to cope 
with him ; but Essex made no serious move, and 
after an interview with Tyrone, in which he 
promised more than he could perform, he re- 
turned to England to his death. His place was 
taken by Lord Mountjoy, who, for all his love 
of angling and of Elizabethan 'play-books,' was 
a stronger man. Tyrone met him, was defeated 
[at Kinsale, 1601]. From that hour the rebellion 
was over. ... At last Tyrone was compelled to 
come to terms. He surrendered his estates, re- 
nounced all claim to the title of The O'Neil, ab- 
jured alliance with all foreign pow-ers, and prom- 
ised to introduce English laws and customs into 
Tyrone. In return he received a free pardon and 
a re-grant of his title and lands by letters patent. 
Rory O'Donnell, Red Hugh's brother, also sub- 
mitted, and was allowed to retain the title of Earl 
of Tyrconnel. Elizabeth was already dead, and the 
son of Mary Stuart [James I] was King of 
England when these term? were made; but they 
were not destined to do much good." — J. H. Mc- 
Carthy, Outline of Irish history, ch. 4. — See also 
Ulster: 1584; 1585-1608. 

Also in: T. D. McGee, Popular history of Ire- 
land, V. 1-2, bk. 8, ch. 3-11. — M. Haverty, History 
of Ireland, ch. 32-35. — R. Bagwell, Ireland under 
the Tudors, v. 2. — T. Leland. History of Ireland, 
V. 2, bk. 4, ch. i-s. — \V. E. H. Lecky, Ireland in 
the eighteenth centurv, v. i. pp. 5-18. 

1607-1611.— Flight' of earls and the Plantation 
of Ulster. — "With the submission of the Earl of 
Tyrone terminated the struggle between the Tudor 
princes and the native Celtic tribes. No chieftain 
henceforward claimed to rule his district in in- 
dependence of the Crown of England. The Celtic 
land tenure, the Brehon laws, the language, cus- 
toms, and traditions of the defeated race were 
doomed to gradual yet certain e.xtinction. . . Be- 
fore Elizabeth was laid in the grave, the object 
for which during so many years she had striven 
was thus at length accomplished; . . . but between 
the wars of the Tudors and the civil govern- 
ment of the Stuarts, still remain (the intermediate 
link, as it were, between the two) the fall of 
the able man who had created and so long con- 
ducted an almost national resistance, and the 
colonisation by English settlers of his demesnes 
and the adjoining parts of Ulster." — .\. G. Richey, 
Short history of the Irish people, ch. 20. — "Lord 
Bacon, with whom ideas grew plentifully, had a 
suggestion at the ser\ice of the new king as 
profitable as the 'princelie policie' which he taught 
his predecessor. He was of opinion that a great 
settlement of English husbandmen in Ireland, able 
to guard as well as to till the land, would help 
to secure the interest of the Crown. Till this 

IRELAND, 1607-1611 

Plantation of Ulster 
Graces of Charles I 

IRELAND, 1633-1639 

was done Ireland was not effectually reduced, 
as Sir Edward Coke afterwards declared, 'for there 
was ever a back-door in the north.' The only 
question was where to plant them. O'Neill and 
Tyrconnell had proved dangerous adversaries; they 
possessed a fertile territory, and as their 'loose 
order of inheritance' had been duly changed into 
'an orderly succession,' they were quite ripe for 
confiscation. But they had been ostentatiously 
received into favour at the close of the late war, 
and some decent pretence for destroying them so 
soon was indispensable. It was found in a letter 
conveniently dropped in the precincts of Dublin 
Castle, disclosing a new conspiracy. Of a con- 
spiracy there was not then, and has not been since 
discovered, any evidence worth recording. The 
letter was probably forged, according to the prac- 
tise of the times; but where so noble a booty 
was to be distributed by the Crown, one can 
conceive how ill-timed and disloyal any doubt 
of their treason would have appeared at the Court 
of James, or of the Lord Deputy. They were 
proclaimed traitors, and fled to the Continent to 
solicit aid from the Catholic Powers. Without 
delay James and his counsellors set to work. The 
King applied to the City of London to take up 
the lands of the wild Irish. They were well wa- 
tered, he assured them, plentifully supplied with 
fuel, with good store of all the necessaries for 
man's sustenance; and moreover yielded timber, 
hides, tallow, canvas, and cordage for the purposes 
of commerce. The Companies of Skinners, Fish- 
mongers, Haberdashers, Vintners and the like 
thereupon became Absentee Proprietors. . . Six 
counties in Ulster were confiscated, and not merely 
the chiefs, but the entire population dispossessed. 
The fruitful plains of Armagh, the deep pastoral 
glens that lie between the sheltering hills of 
Donegal, the undulating meadow lands stretch- 
ing by the noble lakes and rivers of Fermanagh, 
passed from the race which had possessed them 
since before the redemption of mankind. . . . The 
alluvial lands were given to English courtiers 
whom the Scotch king found it necessary to placate, 
and to Scotch partisans whom he dared not re- 
ward in England. The peasants driven out of the 
tribal lands to burrow in the hills or bogs were 
not treated according to any law known among 
civilised men. Under Celtic tenure the treason of 
the chief, if he committed treason, affected them 
no more than the offences of a tenant for life af- 
fect a remainder man in our modern practice. 
Under the feudal system they were innocent 
feudatories who would pass with the forfeited land 
to the Crown, with all their personal rights un- 
disturbed. The method of settlement is stated 
with commendable simplicity by the latest his- 
torian. The 'plantators' got all the land worth 
their having; what was not worth their having 
— the barren mountains and trackless morass, 
which after two centuries still in many cases yield 
no human food — were left to those who in the 
language of an Act of Parliament of the period 
were 'natives of the realm of Irish blood, being 
descended from those who did inherit and pos- 
sess the land.' Lest the frugality of the Celts 
should enable them to peacefully regain some 
of their possessions, it was strictly conditioned that 
no plantator or servitor should alienate his por- 
tion, or any part thereof, to the mere Irish. The 
confiscated territory amounted to two millions of 
acres. 'Of these a million and a half says Mr. 
Froude, 'bog, forest, and mountain were restored 
to the Irish. The half million acres of fertile 
land were settled with families of Scottish and 
English Protestants.' It was in this manner that 

the famous Plantation of Ulster was founded." — 
C. G. Duffy, Bird's eye view oj Irish history, pp. 
74-7S (or bk. I, ch. 4, oj "Yoiini Ireland"). — 
"The City of London had taken in hand the 
settlement of Derry, which was now to be re- 
built under the name of Londonderry, and to 
give its name to the county in whicfi it stood, 
and which had hitherto been known as the county 
of Coleraine." — S. R. Gardiner, History oj England, 
V. I, ch. 10. — See also Ulster; 1585-160S; ibog- 

Also in; T. D'A. McGee, Popular history oj 
Ireland, v. 2, bk. 9, ch. i. — J. Harrison, Scot in 
Ulster, ch. 3. — C. P. Meehan, Fate and jortunes 
oj Hugh O'Neill, earl oj Tyrone, and Rory O'Donel, 
earl of Tyrconnel. 

1625. — Graces of Charles I. — On the accession 
of Charles I, "one more effort was made by the 
Irish gentry to persuade, or rather to bribe, the 
Government to allow them to remain undisturbed 
in the possession of their property. They offered 
to raise by voluntary assessment the large sum 
of £120,000 in three annual instalments of £40,000, 
on condition of obtaining certain Graces from the 
King. These Graces, the Irish analogue of the 
Petition of Rights, were of the most moderate 
and equitable description. The most important 
were that undisturbed possession of sixty years 
should secure a landed proprietor from all older 
claims on the part of the Crown, that the in- 
habitants of Connaught should be secured from 
litigation by the enrolment of their patents, and 
that Popish recusants should be permitted, with- 
out taking the Oath of Supremacy, to sue for 
hvery of their estates in the Court of Arches, 
and to practise in the courts of law. The terms 
were accepted. The promise of the King was 
given. The Graces were transmitted by way of 
instruction to the Lord Deputy and Council, 
and the Government also engaged, as a further 
security to all proprietors, that their estates should 
be formally confirmed to them and to their heirs 
by the next Parliament which should be held in 
Ireland. The sequel forms one of the most shame- 
ful passages in the history of English government 
of Ireland. In distinct violation of the King's 
solemn promise, after the subsidies that were 
made on the faith of that promise had been duly 
obtained, without provocation or pretext or ex- 
cuse, Wentworth, who now presided with stern 
despotism over the government of Ireland, an- 
nounced the withdrawal of the two principal art- 
icles of the Graces, the limitation of Crown claims 
by a possession of sixty years and the legalisation 
of the. Connaught titles."— W. E. H. Lecky, His- 
tory oj England in the eighteenth century, v. 
2, ch. 6. 

Also in: W. E. H. Lecky, Ireland in the 
eighteenth ccnturv, v. i, pp. 30-34. 

1633-1639.— Wentworth's system of "Thor- 
ough." — In the summer of 1633, Thomas Went- 
worth, afterwards earl of Strafford, was appointed 
lord-lieutenant of Ireland. "It was during his 
tenure of office as viceroy that he attempted to 
establish absolutism in Ireland, in order that, by 
the thereby enhanced power of the monarchy, 
he might be enabled to turn the scale in favour 
of a despotic government in England. And, never 
at a loss in the choice of his expedients, he con- 
tended for his scheme with an energy and a 
recklessness characteristic of the man. In the prose- 
cution of his ends, he treated some of the most 
influential English noblemen resident in Ireland 
with the utmost indignity, simply with the object 
of intimidating them, at the outset, from any fur- 
ther opposition. One of them, Lord Mountnorris, 


IRELAND, 1633-1639 

Wenfworth's System 
Catholic Rising 

IRELAND, 1641 

was even condemned to death on a charge of 
sedition and mutiny, merely for havinf; made use 
of a disrespectful expression with reference to the 
lord-lieutenant, the representative of the sovereign. 
. . . Every longing of the Irish Protestant Church 
for independence was sujjprcssed by VVentworth. 
According to his views, supreme authority in 
Church matters belonged absolutely and uncon- 
ditionally to the king. He, therefore, abolished, 
in 1634, the 'Irish Articles,' which granted some 
concessions to Puritanism, and which had been 
introduced by Archbishop Usher in the reign of 
James I., and, at the same time, he united the 
Irish Established Church indissolubly with that 
of England. But above all things he considered 
it to be his duty to increase the army, which had 
hitherto been in a disorganised condition, and to 
put it in a state of complete efficiency ; in order 
to do this, however, it was of the first impor- 
tance to augment the revenue of the Crown, and 
in pursuance of this object he disdained no means. 
He e.xtortecl large sums of money from the 
Catholics by reminding them that, in case their 
contributions were too niggardly, there still ex- 
isted laws against the Papists which could easily 
be put into operation again. The City of Lon- 
don Company, which some years before had ef- 
fected the colonization of Londonderry, was sud- 
denly called to account for not having fulfilled the 
stipulations contained in its charter, and con- 
demned to pay a fine of £70,000. In the same 
spirit he conceived the idea of obtaining addi- 
tions to the royal exchequer by a fresh settle- 
ment of Connaught; and, accordingly, he induced 
the Government, regardless of the engagements 
made some years previously at the granting of 
the 'graces,' to re-assert the claims it had for- 
merly advanced to the possession of this province. 
And now, as in the worst days of James I, there 
again prevailed the old system of investigation 
into the validity of the titles by which the landed 
gentry of Connaught held their estates. Such 
persons as w-ere practised in disinterring these un- 
registered titles were looked upon with favour, 
and as a means of inciting to more vigorous ef- 
forts, a premium of 20 per cent, on the receipts 
realized during the first year by the confiscation 
of property thus imperfectly registered was guar- 
anteed to the president of the commission. With 
a cynical frankness, VVentworth declared that no 
money was ever so judiciously expended as this, 
for now the people entered into the business with 
as much ardour and assiduity as if it were their 
own private concern. . . . Just at that time [how- 
ever] the Crown was engaged in a contest with 
Puritanism in Scotland, while, in England, the 
attempts of Charles to make his rule absolute had 
produced a state of public feeling which was in 
the highest degree critical. ... In view of these 
considerations, therefore, Strafford postponed the 
colonization of the western province to a more 
favourable season. While we turn with just 
abhorrence from the contemplation of the reck- 
less and despotic acts of this remarkable man, 
we must not, on the other hand, fail to acknowl- 
edge that his administration has features which 
present a brighter aspect. ... In the exercise of 
a certain toleration, dictated, it is true, only 
by policy, he declined to meddle directly in the 
religious affairs of the Catholics. His greatest 
merit, however, consists in having advanced the 
• material well-being of the country. He took a 
lively interest in agriculture and cattle-rearing, 
and by causing the rude and antiquated methods 
of husbandry which prevailed among the Irish 
agriculturalists to be superseded by more modern 

appliances, he contributed very materially to the 
advancement of this branch of industry. He also 
largely encouraged navigation, in consequence of 
which the number of Irish ships increased from 
year to year; and although it can not be denied 
that he endeavoured to suppress the trade in 
woollen cloth, from an apprehension that it might 
come into dangerous competition with English 
manufactures, he, nevertheless, sought to com- 
pensate the Irish in other ways, and the develop- 
ment of the Irish linen industry in the north 
was essentially his work. [See Ulster: 1635.] . . . 
The Irish revenue annually increased, and the 
customs returns alone were trebled during the 
administration of Lord Strafford. He was, ac- 
cordingly, in a position to place at the disposal 
of his royal master a standing army of 9,000 
men. ... It was, therefore, no idle boast, but 
a statement in strict accordance with the truth, 
which he made when writing to Archbishop Laud 
on i6th December, 1634: ■ 'I can now say that 
the king is here as truly absolute as any sov- 
ereign in the world can be.' " — R. Hasfcncamp, His- 
tory of Ireland, ch. 3. — See also Enxland: 162Q- 

hiso in: S. R. Gardiner, First two Stuarts and 
the Puritan revolution, ch. S, sect. 4. — Idem, His- 
tory of England, v. 8, ch. lb, .v. Q, ch. go. — W. A. 
O'Conor, History of the Irish people, v. 2, bk. 3, 
ch. I.— T. Wright, History of Ireland, bk. 4, ch. 
22-24. — T. Leiand, History of Ireland, bk. 5. ch. i. 
1641. — Catholic rising. — Divergent accounts. 
— "The government which Strafford had established 
in Ireland fell with him, the office of viceroy 
was entrusted to some of the judges, and shorn 
of the powers which gave it authority over the 
whole country. The Irish army, which had been 
formed with so much difficulty, and maintained 
in spite of so much opposition, was disbanded 
without any attention being vouchsafed to the 
King's wish that it should be allowed to enter 
the Spanish service. . . . Under the influence of 
events in England, government based on pre- 
rogative, and on its connexion with the English 
hierarchy, as it had existed in Ireland since Eliza- 
beth's time, fell to the ground. This revolution 
however might entail important results. The 
Irish people was Catholic: while the Protestant 
settlers were split into two hostile factions, and 
thereby the highest authority in the land, which 
bore a really Protestant character, was system- 
atically weakened and almost destroyed, the 
thought of ridding themselves of it altogether 
was sure to arise in the nation. ... It was the 
common object of all Catholics, alike of .^nglo- 
Saxon and of Celtic origin, to restore to the Cath- 
olic Church the possession of the goods and 
houses that had been taken from her, and above 
all to put an end to the colonies established 
since James I in which Puritan tendencies pre- 
vailed. The Catholics of the old settlements 
were as eager for this as the natives. The idea 
originated in a couple of chiefs of old Irish ex- 
traction, Roger O'More and Lord Macguire, who 
had been involved in Tyrone's ruin, but were 
connected by marriage with several English fam- 
ilies. The first man whom O'More won over 
was Lord Mayo, the most powerful magnate of 
old English descent in Connaught, of the house 
of De Burgh. . . . The best military leader in 
the confederacy, Col. Plunkctt, was a Catholic of 
old English origin. . . . .\mong the natives the 
most notable personage was Phelim O'Neil, who, 
after having been long in England, and learn- 
ing Protestantism there, on his return to Ireland 
went back to the old faith and the old customs: 


IRELAND, 1641 


IRELAND, 1641 

he was reckoned the rightful heir of Tyrone, and 
possessed unbounded popular influence. The plan 
for which the Catholics of both Irish and Eng- 
lish extraction now united was a very far-reaching 
one. It involved making the Catholic religion 
altogether dominant in Ireland: even of the old 
nobility none but the Catholics were to be tol- 
erated: all the lands that had been seized for 
the new settlements were to be given back to 
the previous possessors or their heirs. In each 
district a distinguished family was to be answer- 
able for order, and to maintain an armed force 
for the purpose. They would not revolt from the 
King, but still would leave him no real share 
in the government. Two lords justices, both 
Catholic, one of Irish, the other of old English 
family, were to be at the head of the government 
. . . The preparations were made in profound 
silence: a man could travel across the country 
without perceiving any stir or uneasiness. But 
on the appointed day, Oct. 23, the day of St. 
Ignatius, the insurrection everywhere broke out." 
Dublin was saved, by a disclosure of the plot 
to the government, on the evening of the 2 2d, 
by a Protestant Irishman who had gained knowl- 
edge of it. "Several other places also held out, 
as Londonderry and Carrickfergus, and afforded 
places to which the Protestants might fly. But no 
one can paint the rage and cruelty which was 
vented, far and wide over the land, upon the 
unarmed and defenceless. Many thousands per- 
ished: their corpses fdled the land and served as 
food for the kites. . . . Religious abhorrence en- 
tered into a dreadful league with the fury of 
national hatred. The motives of the Sicilian Ves- 
pers and of the night of St. Bartholomew were 
united. Sir Phelim, who at once was proclaimed 
Lord and Master in Ulster, with the title 
of the native princes, as Tyrone had been, and 
who in his proclamations assumed the tone of a 
sovereign, was not at all the man to check these 
cruelties. . . . With all this letting loose of an- 
cient barbarism there was still some holding back. 
The Scottish settlements were spared, although 
they were the most hated of all, for fear of 
incurring the hostility of the Scottish as well as 
of the English nation. Immediately there was a 
rising in the five counties of the old English Pale: 
the gentrv of Louth, under the leadership of the 
sheriff, took the side of the rebels. The younger 
men of Meath assembled on the Boyne, and com- 
menced hostilities against the Protestants: so 
completely had their religious sympathies pre- 
vailed over their patriotism." — L. Von Ranke, His- 
tory of England, seventeenth century, it. 2, bk. 8, 
ch. 7. — "It has been asserted by numerous writ- 
ers, and is still frequently believed, that the Ulster 
rebellion began with a general and indiscriminate 
massacre of the Protestants, who were living 
without suspicion among the Catholics, resembling 
the massacre of the Danes by the English, the 
massacre of the French in the Sicilian Vespers, 
or the massacre of the Huguenots at St Bartholo- 
mew. Clarendon has asserted that 'there were 
40,000 or 50,000 of the English Protestants mur- 
dered before they suspected themselves to be in 
any danger, or could provide for their defence;' 
and other writers have estimated the victims within 
the first two months of the rebellion at 150,000, 
at 200,000, and even at 300,000. It may be 
boldly asserted that this statement of a sudden 
surprise, immediately followed by a general and 
organised massacre, is utterly and absolutely un- 
true. As is almost always the case in a great 
popular rising, there were, in the first outbreak 
of the rebellion, some murders, but they were 

very few; and there was at this time nothing 
whatever of the nature of a massacre." — W. E. H. 
Lecky, History of Ireland in the eighteenth cen- 
tury, V. I, pp. 46, 47. — "As to the number of 
those who actually perished, either from exposure 
or from the hands of assassins, it has been so 
variously estimated that it seems to be all but 
impossible to arrive at anything like exact sta- 
tistics. . . . The real number of the victims grew 
to tenfold in the telling. Four thousand murdered 
swelled to forty thousand; and eight thousand 
who died of exposure to eighty thousand." — E 
Lawless, Ireland, p. 245. — "This great rebellion 
was brought about by the measures taken to 
extirpate the Catholic religion; by the plantations 
of Chichester and Strafford; and by the non- 
confirmation of the graces, which made the peo- 
ple despair of redress. There were complaints 
from every side about religious hardships As 
to the plantations, no one could tell where they 
might stop; and there was a widespread fear that 
the people of the whole country might be cleared 
off to make place for new settlers. Besides all 
this, those who had been dispossessed longed for 
the first opportunity to fall on the settlers and 
re.crain their homes and farms. Some of the Irish 
gentry held meetings to force a redress of these 
hardships by insurrection. . . . They hoped for 
help from abroad ; for many of their banished 
kindred had by this time risen to positions of 
great influence in France, Spain, and the Nether- 
lands. And they sent for Owen Roe O'Neill, a 
soldier who had greatly distinguished nimself in 
the service of Spain, nephew of the great Hugh 
O'Neill, earl of Tyrone, inviting him home to 
lead the insurgent army He replied urging an 
immediate rising and holding out hopes of French 
help from cardinal Richelieu. The 23rd of October 
1641 was the day fixed on tor a simultaneous 
rising. Dublin Castle with its large store uf 
arms, and many of the fortresses and garrisons all 
over the country were to be seized, and the arms 
taken. Instructions were given to make the gentry 
prisoners, but to kill no one except in open 
conflict ; and in general to have as little blood- 
shed as possible. The Ulster settlers from Scot- 
land, being regarded as kinsmen, were not to 
be molested. On the evening of the 22nd of Octo- 
ber, when the preparations had been completed 
in Dublin, a man named Owen O'ConnoUy, to 
whom MacMahon had confided the secret, went 
straight to Sir William Parsons, one of the lords 
justices, and told him of the plot. . . . But though 
Dublin was saved, the rising broke out on the 
23rd all through the north. Sir Phelim O'Neill, 
by a treacherous stratagem, obtained possession 
of Charlemont fort. The rebels gained possession 
of Nawry, Dungannon, Castleblayney, and many 
smaller stations. Sir Phelim exhibited a forged 
commission, giving him authority, which he al- 
leged he had received from king Charles, to which 
was attached the great seal he had found in one 
of the castles. At the end of a week nearly 
all Ulster was in the hands of the rebels, and 
Sir Phelim had an army of 30,000, armed with 
knives, pitchforks, scythes, and every weapon they 
could lay hands on. During the first week of 
the rising the original intention was carried out, 
and there was hardly any bloodshed. But most of 
the people who rose up were persons who had 
been deprived of their lands, and after a time 
they broke loose from all discipline and wreaked 
their vengeance without restraint and without 
mercy on the settlers. The country farm houses 
all over the settlements were attacked by de- 
tached parties. Multitudes were stripped and 


IRELAND, letl 

Catholic Rising 
Cromwell's Campaign 

IRELAND, 1649-1G:0 

turned out half naked from house and home — 
old and younc, men, women, and children; and 
hundreds, vainly trying to make their way to 
Dulilin or others of the Government stations, 
peruihed by the wayside, of exposure, hardship, 
and hunger. But there was even worse: for 
numbers were murdered, often with great cruelty. 
Some of these excesses were carried out by the 
orders of O'Neill himself; but the greatest num- 
ber were the acts ol irresponsible persons wreak- 
ing vengeance for their own private wrongs. The 
numbers of victims have been wildly exaggerated: 
but Dr. Warner, an English writer, a Protestant 
clergyman, who made every effort to come at 
the truth, believes that m the first two years of 
the rebellion, 4.000 were murdered, and that 8,000 
died of ill usage and exposure. But even this is 
probably in excess. There was wholesale murder 
also on the other side. Some of the refugees 
who had fled to Carricklergus, burning with 
their own wrongs, sallied out in November with 
the Scottish garrison, and slaughtered a number 
of harmless people in Island Magee, who had taken 
no part in any disturbance. . . . Towards the end 
of 1641, the old Anglo-Irish nobility of the Pale. 
who were all Catholics and all loyal, hearing 
of some threats uttered by Sir Charles Coote 
to extirpate the whole Catholic population, and 
finding themselves slighted and insulted by the 
lords justices on account of their religion, and 
their houses burned by Coote, combined for their 
own protection; and soon all the Pale was in 
revolt. In a short time the rebellion extended 
through all Ireland. All this time king Charles 
and his parliament were in 'open hostility in 
England: and the Puritans and the Scotch Pres- 
byterians were amongst the mo.'^t successful of 
his opponents. At the opening of 1642 we find 
in the distracted country four distinct parties, 
each with an army: — The old Irish, who aimed 
at complete separation from England ; the old 
Anglo-Irish Catholics, who wanted religious and 
civil liberty, but not separation; the Puritans 
under general Munro, the most determined of 
the king's enemies, including the Scots of Ulster; 
and lastly the Protestant loyalist party in the 
Pale, who held Dublin. The native Irish party, 
led by Rory O'Moore, were the special opponents 
of the Puritans. The war went on during the 
early part of this year, 1642, with varying for- 
tunes, sometimes the rebels victorious, sometimes 
the Government forces. In Ulster the rebels were 
losing ground, and losing heart, chiefly through the 
incompetency of Sir Phelim O'Neill. The Scottish 
army there soon amounted to 20,000 men under 
Munro, w-ho acted and fought as it were for 
themselves, for they were equally opposed to 
both the king and the Catholics of both sec- 
tions. Owen Roe O'Neill arrived in Ireland in 
July 1642, with a single ship and a hundred offi- 
cers, and taking command in place of Sir Phelim, 
immediately set about organising the scattered 
Irish forces. He soon changed the whole aspect 
of affairs. He strongly denounced the past 
cruelties, and severely punished some of the worst 
offenders. Soon afterwards another important 
leader landed to join the confederates, Colonel 
Preston, brother of Lord Gormanstown, with 
500 officers and some stores." — P. W. Joyce, Con- 
cise history of Ireland, pp. 194-198. 

Also in: T. Carte, Life of James, duke of 
Ormond, bk. 3, ch. 1-2.— W. E H. Lecky, History 
of England in the eighteenth century, v. 2, ch. 6. 
— T. Leland, History of Ireland, v. 3, bk. 5, ch. 3-4. 

1643. — Charles I makes peace with the rebels. 
See England: 1643 (June-September;. 

1644. — Loyalists aid Charles at Nantwich. 
See England: 1044 (January-July). 

1645. — Secret treaty between Earl of Glamor- 
gan and confederate Irish Catholics. See Eng- 
land: 1645 (June-December). 

1646-1649. — Rebels become Royalists. — ''The 
truce [offered by King Charles to the rebels in 
1 643 J appears to have been well observed by each 
party, and resulted in a treaty of peace which 
was signed in July, 1046, by which the Roman 
Catholics obtained every demand which they put 
forward. This peace was nevertheless at once 
broken, and Ormond (who had been appointed 
Lord Lieutenant in January, 1643) was closely 
besieged in Dublin by a force, headed by Cardinal 
Rinuccini, the Papal Nuncio, who had assumed 
the command of the Irish Catholics. Finding 
himself in so dangerous a position, Ormond, by 
express direction from the king, offered nis sub- 
mission to the English Parliament, to whom he 
surrendered Dublin, iJrogheda, Dundalk, and such 
other garrisons as remained in his hands. This 
transaction was completed on the 25th of July, 
1647, when Colonel Jones took command of Dub- 
lin for the Parliament, and was made by them 
Commander-in-Chief in Ireland; his total force 
however amounted to but 5,000 men. The war 
now continued with varying success, the com- 
manders for the Parliament being, in addition to 
Jones, Monk in Ulster and Lord Inchiquin in 
Munster. The latter in 1648 joined Ormond, who 
in September, upon the invitation of the Cath- 
olics, returned to Ireland, the Papal Nuncio hav- 
ing been driven from the country by his own 
party, who were alienated from him by his lolly 
and insolence. At the end of 1048 there were 
therefore two parties in Ireland; the Parliamentary, 
which had been the English, holding Dublin and 
a few garrisons, and the Catholics, who, formerly 
rebels, were now held as Royalists, and whose 
new leader Ormond, on the death of Charles I., 
proclaimed the Prince of Wales, on the i6th of 
February. 1649, at Carrick, as King of England, 
Scotland, France, and Ireland The English Par- 
liament now at last resolved to put an end to 
disorder in Ireland, and with this object, in 
March, 1649, appointed Cromwell to the supreme 
command. [Before Cromwell arrived in Ireland, 
however, the Irish Royalists had reduced every 
garrisoned place except Dublin and Londonderry, 
defeating Monk, who held Dundalk, but being 
defeated (Aug. 2) by Jones when they laid siege 
to the capital. Though fought at the gates of 
Dublin, this was called the Battle of Rathmines. 
Ormond retreated with a loss of 4,000 killed and 
2,500 prisoners.]" — N. L. Walford. Parliamentary 
generals of the Great Civil War, ch. 7. 

Also in: T. Carte, Life of James, duke of Or- 
mond, V. 3, bk. 4-5. — D. Murphy, Cromwell in 
Ireland, ch. 1-3. 

1649-1550. — CromweU's campaign. — "Cromwell 
had haidly set foot upon Irish soil before he 
took complete control of the .situation. The en- 
terprise, in his own eyes and in those of many 
who accompanied him, wore all the sacred hue of 
a crusade. 'We are come,' he announced solemnly, 
upon his arrival in Dublin, 'to ask an account of 
the innocent blood that hath been shed, and 
to endeavor to bring to an account all who, by 
appearing in arms, shall justify the same.' . . . 
Three thousand troops, the flower of the English 
cavaliers, with some of the Royalists of the Pale 
. . . had been hastily thrown by Ormond into 
Drogheda, under Sir .\rthur .■Vshton, a gallant 
Royalist officer; and to Drogheda accordingly in 
September Cromwell marched. Summoned to yield, 


IRELAND, 1649-1650 r ^'^''^^ JTjjf.^Z ., 
' Cromwellian bettlement 

IRELAND, 1653 

the garrison refused. They were attacked, and 
fought desperately, driving back their assailants 
at the first assault. At the second, a breach 
was made in the walls, and Ashton and his force 
were driven into the citadel. 'Being thus en- 
tered,' Cromwell's despatch to the Parliament 
runs, 'we refused them quarter.' . . . From Drog- 
heda, the Lord-General turned south to Wexford. 
Here an equally energetic defence was followed 
by an equally successful assault, and this also 
by a similar drama of slaughter. . . . The effect 
of these two examples was instantaneous. Most 
of the other towns surrendered upon the first 
summons. The Irish army fell back in all direc- 
tions. An attempt was made to save Kilkenny, 
but after a week's defence it was surrendered. 
The same thing happened at Clonmel, and within 
a few months of his arrival nearly every strong 
place, except Waterford and Limerick, were in. 
the Lord-General's hands. That Cromwell, from 
his own point of view, was justified in these pro- 
ceedings, and that he held himself — even when 
slaughtering English Royalists in revenge for the 
acts of Irish rebels — a divinely-appointed agent 
sent to execute justice upon the ungodly, there 
can be Uttle doubt. As regards ordinary justice 
his conduct was exemplary. Unlike most of the 
armies that had from time to time ravaged Ire- 
land, he allowed no disorder. . . . The final steps 
by which the struggle was crushed out were com- 
paratively tedious. Cromwell's men were at- 
tacked by that 'country sickness' which seems 
at that time to have been inseparable from 
Irish campaigns. . . . His own presence, too, was 
urgently required in England, so that he was forced 
before long to set sail, leaving the completion 
of the campaign in the hands of others. In the 
Royalist camp, the state of affairs was mean- 
while absolutely desperate. The Munster colo- 
nists had gone over almost to a man to the 
enemy. The 'panther Inchiquin' had taken another 
bound in the same direction. The quarrels be- 
tween Orraond and the old Irish party had grown 
bitterer than ever. The hatred of the extreme 
Catholic party towards him appears to have been 
if anything rather deeper than their hatred to 
Cromwell', and all the recent disasters were charged 
by them to his want of generalship. The young 
king had been announced at one moment to 
be upon the point of arriving in person in Ire- 
land. . . . He got as far as Jersey, but there 
paused. Ireland under Cromwell's rule was not 
exactly a pleasant royal residence, and, on the 
whole, he appears to have thought it wiser to 
go no further. His signature, a year later, of 
the Covenant, in return for the Scotch allegiance, 
brought about a final collapse of the always 
thinly cemented pact in Ireland. The old Cath- 
olic party thereupon broke wholly away from 
Ormond, and after a short struggle he was again 
driven into exile. From this time forward, there 
was no longer a royal party of any sort left in 
the country. Under Hugh O'Neill, a cousin of 
Owen Roe, .who . . . had died shortly after Crom- 
well's arrival, the struggle was carried on for some 
time longer. As in later times, Limerick was 
one of the last places to yield. Despite the 
evident hopelessness of the struggle, Hugh O'Neill 
and his half-starved men held it with a courage 
which awoke admiration even amongst the Crom- 
wellians. When it was surrendered the Irish of- 
ficers received permission to take service abroad. 
Galway, with a few other towns and castles, 
which still held out, now surrendered. The eight 
years' civil war was at last over, and nothing re- 
mained for the victors to do but to stamp out 

the last sparks, and call upon the survivors to pay 
the forfeit." — E. Lawless, Story of Ireland, pp. 261- 

Also in: D. Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland. 

1651. — Massachusetts colonists invited to Ire- 
land by Cromwell. See MAssAcnusEns: 1649- 

1652. — Kilkenny articles. — "On 12th May, 1652, 
the Leinster army of the Irish surrendered on 
terms signed at Kilkenny, which were adopted 
successively by the other principal armies between 
that time and the September following, when the 
Ulster forces surrendered. By these Kilkenny 
articles, all except those who were guilty of the 
first blood were received into protection, on. lay- 
ing down their arms; those who should not be 
satisfied with the conclusions the Parliament might 
come to concerning the Irish nation, and should 
desire to transport themselves with their men to 
serve any foreign state in amity with the Parlia- 
ment, should have liberty to treat with their agents 
for that purpose." — J. P. Prendergast, Cromwellmn 
settlement of Ireland, pt. i, sect. 2. 

1653. — Cromwellian settlement. — "The war 
ended at last in 1652. According to the calcula- 
tion of Sir W. Petty, out of a population of 
1,466,000, 616,000 had in eleven years perished 
by the sword, by plague, or by famine artificially 
produced. 504,000, according to this estimate, 
were Irish, 112,000 of English extraction. A third 
part of the population had been thus blotted out, 
and Petty tells us that according to some calcula- 
tions the number of the victims was much greater. 
Human food had been so successfully destroyed 
that Ireland, which had been one of the great 
pasture countries of Europe, was obliged to import 
cattle from Wales for consumption in Dublin. 
The stock, which at the beginning of the war 
was valued at four millions, had sunk to an 
eighth of that value, while the price of corn had 
risen from 12s. to sos. a bushel. Famme and 
the sword had so done their work that in. some 
districts the traveller rode twenty or thirty miles 
without seeing one trace of human life, and fierce 
wolves . . . multiplied with startling rapidity 
through the deserted land, and might be seen 
prowling in numbers within a few miles of Dub- 
lin. Liberty was given to able-bodied men to 
abandon the country and enlist m foreign service, 
and from 30,000 to 40,000 availed themselves of 
the permission. . . . Slave-dealers were let loose 
upon the land, and many hundreds of destitute or 
vagrant boys and young women were torn away 
from their country, shipped to Barbadoes, and sold 
for terms of years to the planters. Merchants from 
Bristol entered keenly into the traffic." — W. E. H. 
Lecky, History of Ireland in the eighteenth cen- 
tury, V. I, p. 104. — "The of&cers of the army were 
eager to take Irish lands in lieu of their arrears. 
. . . But the adventurers . . . must be first set- 
tled with, as they had a claim to about one million 
of acres, to satisfy the sums advanced for putting 
down the rebellion on the faith of the .■Kct of 17 
Charles I. (1642), and subsequent Acts and Ordi- 
nances, commonly called 'The Acts of Subscription.' 
By these, lands for the adventurers must be first 
ascertained, before the rest of the country could 
be free for disposal by the Parliament to the 
army. . . On the 26th of September . . . [1653] 
the Parhament passed an Act for the new plant- 
ing of Ireland with English. The government 
reserved for themselves all the towns, all the church 
lands and tithes. . . . They reserved also for them- 
selves the four counties of Dublin, Kildare, Carlow, 
and Cork. Out of the lands and tithes thus re- 
served, the government were to satisfy public 


IRELAND, 1653 

Cromwelliart Settlement ttii^t ai>tt^ 

Restored Stuarts IRELAND, 1600-1665 

debts, private favourites, eminent friends of the 
rejjublican cause in Parliament, regicides, and the 
most active ol the English rebels, not being of the 
army. . . . The amount due to the adventurers 
was £360,000. Thus they divided into three lots, 
of which £1 10,000 was to be satisfied in Munster, 
£205,000 in Lcinster, and £45,000 in Ulster, and 
the moiety of ten counties was charged with their 
payment:— Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary, in 
Munster; Meath, VVestmeath, King's and Queen's 
Counties, in Leinster; and .\ntrim, Down, and 
Armagh, in Ulster. liut, as all was required by 
the Adventurers Act to be done by lot, a lottery 
was appointed to be held in Grocers' Hall, Lon- 
don, for the 20th July, 1653. ... A lot was then 
to be drawn by the adventurers, and by some 
officer appointed by the Lord General Cromwell on 
behalf of the soldiery, to ascertain which baronies 
in the ten counties should be for the adventurers, 
and which for the soldiers."— J. P. Prendergast, 
Cromwellian scttlctnent of Ireland, preface, pi. 1-2. 
— "The Irish who were considered least guilty 
were assigned land in Connaught, and that prov- 
ince, which rock and morass have doomed to a 
perpetual poverty, and which was at this time 
almost desolated by famine and by massacre, was 
assigned as the home of the Irish race. The 
confiscations were arranged under different cate- 
gories; but they were of such a nature that scarcely 
any Catholic or even old Protestant landlord could 
escape. All persons who had taken part in the 
rebellion before November 10, 1642, all who had 
before that date assisted the rebels with food 
or in any other way, and also about one hundred 
specified persons, including Ormond, Bishop Bram- 
hall, and a great part of the aristocracy of Ire- 
land, were condemned to death and to the absolute 
forfeiture of their estates. All other landowners 
who had at any period borne arms against 
the Parliament, either for the rebels or for the 
King, were to be deprived of their estates, but 
were promised land of a third of the value in 
Connaught. If, however, they had held a higher 
rank than major, they were to be banished from 
Ireland. Papists who during the whole of the 
long war had never borne arms against the Parlia- 
ment, but who had not manifested a 'constant 
good affection' towards it, were to be deprived 
of their estates, but were to receive two-thirds 
of the value in Connaught. Under this head were 
included all who lived quietly in their houses 
in quarters occupied by the rebels or by the 
King's troops, who had paid taxes to the rebels or 
to the King after his rupture with the Parlia- 
ment, who had abstained from actively supporting 
the cause of the Parliament. Such a confiscation 
was practically universal. The ploughmen and 
labourers who w^ere necessary for the cultivation 
of the soil were suffered to remain, but all the 
old proprietors, all the best and greatest names 
in Ireland were compelled to abandon their old 
possessions, to seek a home in Connaught, or in 
some happier land beyond the .sea." — W. E. H. 
Lccky, History of Ireland in Ihe eighleenth cen- 
tury, V. I, pp. 105-106. — "Connaught was selected 
for the habitation of all the Irish nation by reason 
of its being surrounded by the sea and the Shan- 
non, all but ten miles, and the whole easily made 
into one line by a few forts. To further secure 
the imprisonment of the nation, and cut them 
off from relief by sea, a belt four miles wide, 
commencing one mile to the west of Sligo, and 
io winding along the coast and Shannon, was re- 
served by the .Act of 2;th September, 1653, from 
being set out to the Irish, and was given to the 
soldiery to plant. Thither all the Irish were to 

remove at latest by the first day of May, 16S4, 
except Irish women married to English Protestants 
before the 2d December, 1650, provided they be- 
came Protestants; except, also, boys under four- 
teen and girls under twelve, in Protestant service 
and to be brought up Protestants; and, lastly, 
those who had shown during the ten years' war 
in Ireland their constant good affection to the 
Parliament of England in preference to the king. 
There they were to dwell without entering a 
walled town, or coming within five miles of same, 
on pain of death. All were to remove thither by 
the ist of May, 1654, at latest, under pain of 
being put to death by sentence of d court of 
military officers, if found after that date on the 
English side of the Shannon." In the actual en- 
forcement of the law — found impracticable in all 
its rigor — there were many special dispensations 
granted, and extensions of time.— J. P. Prender- 
gast, Cromwellian settlement of Ireland, preface, 
pt. 1-2. — See also Engla.vd: 1653 (December). 

Also in: J. A. Froude, English in Ireland in 
llie eighteenth century, v. i, bk. i, ch. 2.— J. 
Lingard, History of England, v. 10, ch. 6.— Earl of 
Dunraven, Legacy of past years, pp. 58-65. 

1655. — Cromwell's deportation of girls to Ja- 
maica. See Jamaica: 1655. 

1660-1665.— Restored Stuarts and their Act of 
Settlement.— "On the fall of Richard Cromwell, 
a council of officers was established in Dublin; 
these summoned a convention of deputies from 
the proteslant proprietors; and the convention 
tendered to Charles the obedience of his ancient 
kingdom of Ireland. ... To secure the royal pro- 
tection, they made the king an offer of a con- 
siderable sum of money, assured him, though 
falsely, that the Irish catholics meditated a general 
insurrection, and prayed him to summon a protes- 
tant parliament in Ireland, which might confirm 
the existing proprietors in the undisturbed pos- 
session of their estates. The present was graciously 
accepted, and the penal laws against the Irish 
catholics were ordered to be strictly enforced; but 
Charles was unwilling to call a parliament, because 
it would necessarily consist of men whose prin- 
ciples, both civil and religious, he had been taught 
to distrust. The first measure recommended to 
him by his English advisers, with respect to Ire- 
land, was the re-establishment of episcopacy. For 
this no legislative enactment was requisite. His 
return had given to the ancient laws their pristine 
authority. ... In a short time the episcopal 
hierarchy was quietly restored to the enjoyment 
of its former rights, and the exercise of its for- 
mer jurisdiction. To this, a work of easy ac- 
complishment, succeeded a much more difficult 
attempt, — the settlement of landed property in 
Ireland. The military, whom it was dangerous to 
disoblige, and the adventurers, whose pretensions 
had been sanctioned by Charles I., demanded the 
royal confirmation of the titles by which they 
held their estates; and the demand was opposed 
by a multitude of petitioners claiming restitu- 
tion or compensation [proteslant royalists, loyal 
catholics, &c.]. . . . [Humanity, gratitude, and 
justice, called on the king to listen to many of 
these claims. . . . From an estimate delivered to 
the king, it appeared that there still remained 
at his disposal forfeited lands of the yearly rental 
of from eighty to one hundred thousand pounds; 
a fund sufficiently ample, it was contended, to 
'reprize' or compensate all the Irish really de- 
serving of the royal favour. Under this impres- 
sion, Charles published his celebrated declar:ition 
for the settlement of Ireland. It provided that 
no person deriving bis title from the adventurers 


IRELAND, 1660-1665 

Act of Settlement 

IRELAND, 1685-1688 

under the parliament, or the soldiers under the 
commonwealth, should be disturbed in the pos- 
session of his lands, without receiving an equiva- 
lent from the fund for reprisals; that all 
innocents, whether protestants or catholics, that is, 
persons who had never adhered either to the 
parliament or the confederates, should be restored 
to their rightful estates." After much contention 
between deputations from both sides sent to the 
king, an act was passed through the Irish parlia- 
ment substantially according to the royal declara- 
tion. "But to execute this act was found to be 
a task of considerable difficulty. By improvident 
grants of lands to the church, the dukes of York, 
Ormond, and Albemarle, the earls of Orrery, 
Montrath, Kingston, Massarene, and several others, 
the fund for reprisals had been almost exhausted." 
New controversies- and agitations arose, which 
finally induced the soldiers, adventurers, and 
grantees of the crown to surrender one third of 
their acquisitions, for the augmenting of the fund 
for reprisals. "The king, by this measure, was 
placed in a situation [August, 1665], not indeed 
to do justice, but to silence the most importunate 
or most deserving among the petitioners. . . . But 
■when compensation had thus been made to a few 
of the sufferers, what, it may be asked, became 
of the officers who had followed the royal for- 
tune abroad, or of the 3,000 catholics who had 
entered their claims of innocence? To all these, 
the promises which had been made by the act 
of settlement were broken ; the unfortunate claim- 
ants were deprived of their rights, and debarred 
from all hope of future relief. A measure of 
such sweeping and appalling oppression is per- 
haps without a parallel in the history of civilized 
nations. Its injustice could not be denied; and 
the only apology offered in its behalf was the 
stern necessity of quieting the fears and jealousies 
of the Cromwellian settlers, and of establishing on 
a permanent basis the protestant ascendancy in 
Ireland. . . . The following is the general result. 
The protestants were previously [i. e., before the 
Cromwellian Settlement] in possession of about 
one moiety of all the profitable lands in the 
island; of the second moiety, which had been 
forfeited under the commonwealth, something less 
than two-thirds was by the act confirmed to 
the protestants; and of the remainder a portion 
almost equal in quantity, but not in quality, to 
one-third, was appropriated to the catholics." — J. 
Lingard, History of England, v. 11, cli. 4. 

Also in: J. A. Froude, The English in Ire- 
land, V. I, bk. I, ch. 3. — T. Carte, Lije of James, 
duke of Ormond', v. 4, bk. 6. 

1667-1780. — Effect of mercantile policy. — Ruin 
of wool trade. — Silk and cotton manufactures. — 
"When her cattle trade was ruined by the Act of 
1667, Ireland turned to the promotion of her 
woollen manufactures. In this she made good 
progress and developed a considerable foreign 
trade. . . , The English traders grew alarmed, and 
began to send petitions to the King, declaring their 
fears lest the Irish, owing to the lowness of taxa- 
tion and the cheapness of labour in Ireland, might 
be able to undersell them. ... In September, 1698, 
the Lord Justices put before the Irish Houses, at 
his Majesty's command, a bill entitled 'An Act 
for laying an additional Duty upon Woollen Man- 
ufactures exported out of this Kingdom.' The 
servile Parliament passed the Bill, though the 
majority in its favour was very narrow in the 
Lords, and not large even in the Commons. The 
duties imposed on fine cloths were so heavy as 
almost to ruin the trade; but friezes were, for the 
present, exempt. In 1699, however, an English 

Act was passed, prohibiting absolutely the export 
of Irish woollen or mixed woollen goods to any 
country whatever, except England, and there the 
high duties were retained. At the same time, Eng- 
Ush woollen stuffs coming to Ireland paid only a 
very small tax. Terrible distress resulted in Ire- 
land from these regulations. Thousands of fam- 
ilies, for the most part Protestants, had subsisted 
by the woollen trade. Then a great tide of emi- 
gration flowed, especially from Ulster. . . . The 
European countries began, often with the help of 
the expatriated Irish weavers, to set up manufac- 
tures of woollen cloth for themselves, or to im- 
prove those which they already possessed. . . . 
The woollen trade was by no means the only Irish 
industry which was ruined by the selfish commer- 
cial jealousy of England. An infant cotton indus- 
try was crushed by the imposition of heavy duties 
in the reigns of William and of Anne. . . . After 
the Williamite wars, Ireland had started the man- 
ufacture of glass, for which the good quality of 
her kelp gave her special facilities. An Act of 
1737 forbade Ireland to import glass from any 
country but Great Britain; one of 1746 prohibited 
her from exporting her own glass at all. ... A 
series of embargoes on the export of provisions 
from Ireland abroad, imposed from 1770 to 1780, 
was ruinous to the trade and caused great dis- 
tress. After 1780 it revived. . . . King William 
made some efforts himself to promote the Irish 
linen manufactures, and induced Louis Crommelin, 
a Huguenot refugee, who had been head of a linen 
factory in France, to settle in Lisburn, giving him 
an annual salary (1608). . . . Irish linens were 
admitted freely to England, but the colonial mar- 
ket was closed to her till 1705. ... In 1743, 1746 
and 1770, the British Parliament passed Acts by 
w-hich bounties were given for the export to foreign 
countries of all classes of British linens, and of 
plain Irish linens, coarse and fine. Thus, in her 
foreign markets, Ireland had to contend in regard 
to her fancy linens with the bounty-fed products 
of Great Britain, for she was not permitted by 
England to give bounties on her own." — M. T. 
Hayden and G. A. Moonan, Short history of the 
Irish people, pp. 37-'-374- 

1685-1688. — Reign of James 11. — Domination 
of Tyrconnel and Catholics. — ".\t the accession 
of James II., in 1685, he found the native Irish, 
all of whom were Catholics, opposed to 
the English rule, as to that of a conquering 
minority. ... Of the settlers, the Scotch Presby- 
terians shared the feelings of their brethren in their 
native country, and hated Episcopalians with the 
true religious fury. In the Irish Parliament the 
Presbyterians and Episcopalians were nearly bal- 
anced, whilst the Protestant Nonconformists, in 
numbers almost equalling the other two parties, 
had but few seats in the Parliament. The Episco- 
palians alone were hearty supporters of the house 
of Stuart; the Presbyterians and Nonconformists 
were Whigs. James was in a most favourable 
position for tranquilising Ireland, for, as a Roman 
Catholic, he was much more acceptable to the 
native Irish than his predecessors had been. Had 
he followed his true interests, he would have 
endeavoured, firstly, to unite together, as firmly 
as possible, the English settlers in Ireland, and 
secondly, by wise acts of mediation, to bridge 
over the differences between the English and Irish. 
Thus he might have welded them into one peo- 
ple. James, however, followed a directly opposite 
policy, and the results of this misgovernment of 
Ireland are visible at the present day. The 
Duke of Ormond was at the time of the death of 
Charles II. both lord lieutenant and commander 


IRELAND, 1685-1688 

James II 

IRELAND, 1689 

of the forces. . . . Soon after his accession James 
recalled him, and the office of lord lieutenant was 
bestowed on his own brother-in-law, Lord Claren- 
don, whilst the post of general of the troops 
was given to Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconncl. 
Talbot . . . was a coarse, vulgar, truculent ruf- 
fian,- greedy and unprincipled; but in the eyes of 
James he had great virtues, for he was devoted 
to the Romish Church and to his sovereign. 'Lying 
Dick Talbot,' as he was called, was raised by 
James to the [xjurapc as Earl of Tyrconnel. Lord 
Clarendon was, from the time of his appointment, 
hampered by his associate," who, finally, in 1687, 
supplanted him, gathering the reins of government 
into his own hands, "not indeed as lord lieutenant, 
but with the power which Ormond had formerly 
held, although under a new title, that of lord 
deputy. The rule of Tyrconnel entirely subverted 
the old order of things. Protestants were disarmed 
and Protestant soldiers were disbanded. The mili- 
tia was composed wholly of Roman Catholics. 
The dispensing power in the royal prerogative set 
aside the statutes of the kingdom, and the bench 
and privy council w'ere occuiiied by Roman Catho- 
lics. Vacant bishoprics of the Established Church 
remained unfilled, and their revenues were devoted 
to Romish priests. Tithes were with impunity 
withheld from the clergy of the Establishment. . . . 
The hatred of the Irish Roman Catholics towards 
the Protestant settlers was excited to the utmost 
under Tyrconnel's rule. The former now hoped 
to mete out to the latter a full measure of retalia- 
tion. The breach was widened owing to the fear 
and distrust openly showed by the Protestants, and 
has never since been effectually repaired." Before 
the occurrence of the Revolution which drove 
James from his throne, in 1688, "Tyrconnel had 
disarmed all the Protestants, e.xcept those in the 
North. He had a large force of 20,000 men under 
arms, and of this force all the officers were trust- 
worthy and Papists. He had filled the corpora- 
tions of the towns with adherents of James." — 
E. Hale, Fall of the Stuarts, ch. 10, 13. 

1689. — James II in Ireland. — Parliament in 
Dublin. — Acts of Settlement repealed. — Act of 
Attainder. — Battle of the Boyne. — Siege of Lim- 
erick. — ".As a war with England was inevitable, 
all the military authorities agreed that a diversion 
in Ireland would be invaluable. The forces of 
England and Holland would be drawn off there, 
and Ireland would in the lirst stages of the war 
prove of the utmost service in preventing William 
from acting vigorously in any other quarter, and 
eventually would serve as a basis for a more seri- 
ous undertaking against England. In March, i6qo, 
a corps consisting of six regiments, 6300 men under 
Count Lauzan and several officers, and supported 
by a line train of artillery and abundant stores 
of ammunition, was sent to Ireland. The Count 
of Avaux with a large sum of money had been in 
Ireland for some months as diplomatic representa- 
tive of the French government. He was a man 
of considerable acutencss, but lacked the power 
of conciliation and took up a position of hostility 
to all Protestants in Ireland. Both James and 
Louis hoped to pacify Ireland and to give the 
country a government under which Protestants 
could exist. But the anti-English views of the 
Catholic Irish were too strong for them and 
helped to bring about the chaos which followed 
the arrival of James in the country. To Seignelay 
it was of the utmost importance that James II. 
should be maintained in Ireland. Cork and Kin- 
sale he regarded as French ports. Tourville was 
made Commander-in-chief of the united French 
fleet, and was ordered to seek out the English 

ships in their harbours, to inflict as much damage 
as possible and then to station himself off the 
mouth of the Thames to prevent communication 
between the Dutch and English, and to destroy the 
trade between England and the North. The suc- 
cess of James II. was therefore all-important for 
the military, naval, and commercial undertakings 
of the French government. But William III. was 
equally conscious of the absolute necessity on 
the one hand of a loyal, or at any rate, of an 
Ireland powerless for harm, and on the other of 
th,, command of the Channel. The way in which 
he grappled with the combined forces of France 
and of Catholic Ireland and the orders given to the 
English Admiral showed that he was well aware 
of the peril to which England was exposed. . . . 
Precise orders were sent to ."Vdmiral Torrington 
... to attack Tourville wherever he could be 
found. Through Torrington'.s leaving the Dutch 
unsupported the French won a naval battle off 
Bcachy Head on July loth. . . . The contest for 
the supremacy of the Channel remained for the 
moment undecided but ^the schemes of Louis in 
Ireland had already suffered an irreparable blow. 
James had left France early in 1689. 'The best 
thing,' said Louis, on wishing him farewell, 'that 
I can wish for you is that I may never see you 
again.' But the principles which w'ere defended 
by the greatest monarchy of the age were not 
destined to take root in Ireland. The political 
and religious controversy which was being fought 
out in Europe was to be decided in Ireland in a 
sense hostile to the wishes and ideas of Louis XIV." 
— .\. Hassall, Louis XIV and the zenith of the 
French monarchy, pp. 271-274. — "James's appear- 
ance in Ireland was hailed w^ith a little deserved 
burst of enthusiasm. As a king, as a Catholic, 
and as a man in deep misfortune, he had a triple 
claim upon the kincily feeling of a race never 
slow to respond to such appeals. . . . Accom- 
panied by the French ambassador, amid a group 
of English exiles, . . . the least worthy of the 
Stuarts arrived in Dubhn, and took up his resi- 
dence at the castle. ... In the interests of his 
own master, D'.Avaux, the French envoy, strongly 
supported Tyrconnel and the Irish leaders. The 
game of France was less to replace James on 
the English throne than to make of Ireland a 
permanent thorn in the side of England. With 
this view he urged James to remain in Dublin, 
where he would necessarily be more under the di- 
rect control of the parliament. James, however, 
declined this advice, and persisted in going north, 
where he would be within a few hours' sail of 
Great Britain. Once Londonderry had fallen 
(and it was agreed upon all hands that London- 
derry could not hold out much longer), he could 
at any moment cross to Scotland, where it was 
believed that his friends would at once rally 
around him. But Londonderry showed no symp- 
toms of yielding. In April, 1689, James appeared 
before its walls, believing that he had only to do 
so to receive its submission. He soon found his 
mistake. Lundy, its governor, was ready indeed 
to .surrender it into his hands, but the townsfolk 
declined the bargain, and shut their gates reso- 
lutely in the king's face. Lundy escaped for his 
life over the walls, and James, in disgust, re- 
turned to Dublin, leaving the conduct of the siege 
in the hands of Richard Hamilton, who was after- 
wards superseded in the command by De Rosen, a 
Muscovite in the pay of France, who prosecuted 
it with a barbarity unknown to the annals of 
civilized warfare. . . . [Finally] De Rosen broke 
up his camp and moved off in disgust, leaving be- 
hind him the little city exhausted but triumphant, 


IRELAND, 1689 

Dublin Parliament 
Act of Attainder 

IRELAND, 1689 

having saved the honour of its walls and won 
itself imperishable fame. [See also Londonderry: 
ibS9; Ulster; 1687-1689.] -. While all this was 
going on in the north, James in Dublin had been 
busily employed in deluging the country with base 
money to supply his own necessities, with the 
natural result of ruining all who were forced to 
accept it. At the same time the Parliament under 
his nominal superintendence had settled down to 
the congenial task of reversing most of the earlier 
Acts and putting everything upon an entirely new 
footing. It was a Parliament composed, as was 
natural, almost wholly of Roman Cathohcs, only 
si.x Protestants having been returned. ... [It at 
once moved to] establish freedom of worship, giv- 
ing the Roman Catholic tithes to the priests. So 
far no objections could reasonably be raised. Next, 
however, followed the question of forfeitures." — • 
E. Lawless, Story of Ireland, pp. 284-287. — "An 
assembly of men impoverished by war and by the 
legislation of the victors, and long excluded from 
public life, found themselves in power, and were 
above all things anxious to regain the possessions 
of their ancestors. JameS opened the proceedings 
with a speech in which he thanked the Irish na- 
tion for their loyalty, and declared for liberty 
of conscience. . . He was anxious to relieve suf- 
ferers by the Act of Settlement 'as far forth as 
may be consistent with reason, justice, and the 
public good of my people.' . . . The great work 
of the session was the repeal of the Acts of Set- 
tlement and Explanation. James saw that such 
a revolution would destroy his chances in Eng- 
land; but he was in the hands of the Irish, who 
would not hear of any compromise. Not only 
members of Parliament, but the soldiers in the 
street, said that if he would not restore them to 
their own, they would not light to restore him to 
his. The Commons insisted on total repeal, but 
there was opposition on one point. Since the 
Parliament of 1661 much property had changed 
hands for value, and it was now proposed to con- 
fiscate the land and all the improvements. . . . 
The Commons would listen to nothing. Those 
who bought forfeited lands, they said, bought 
stolen goods, and had no rights at all. Within 
a few days of the opening of Parliament, and 
while the Repeal Bill was as yet not quite ready, 
an address to the King was presented by Lord 
Granard on behalf of the purchasers. It was 
written by Chief Justice Keating, who showed 
that the credit of the country and the royal reve- 
nues would be destroyed if property legally ac- 
quired were to be confiscated without regard to 
two solemn Acts of Parliament or to the promises 
of two Kings. The Protestants had already been 
deprived of their movable goods by the Rapparees, 
'that is, the armed multitude,' and would be 
completely and finally ruined if they lost their 
lands also. 'The thriving Catholics who were pur- 
chasers (as most of the province of Connaught 
are) are likewise to be turned out of their estates 
and possessions, and their own and the improve- 
ments of those who hold under them utterly lost.' 
... A Bill for recognition of the King's title re- 
ceived the royal assent on the fourth day of the 
session. No difficulty was made about declaring 
the Irish Parliament independent, nor about an- 
nulling all patents conferring office during life or 
good behaviour, but the Commons would do noth- 
ing further until the Act of Settlement had been 
repealed ; and many of the old proprietors seized 
upon land without waiting for the legal sanc- 
tion. . . . 

"James saw clearly enough that to annul the 
legislation of his father and brother would be 

fatal to his chances in England. After consulting 
Avaux, who saw how Ireland, which he hoped to 
make a dependency of France, would be im- 
poverished, the King conferred privately with some 
members of both Houses, and found that he could 
struggle no longer, but it was agreed that pur- 
chases under the Settlement should have reprisals 
out of forfeited land. Bishop Dopping made a 
gallant but vain effort to stem the tide. The 
King, he said, would have no regular revenue, for 
the Protestants were already stripped by the Rap- 
parees of all but the bare walls. It was now 
proposed to take them also, and improving Catho- 
lics would be in no better case. ... 'In many 
parts of the kingdom the land is hardly able to 
pay the King's quit-rent by reason of the universal 
depredations that reign everywhere; and can it 
be imagined but that things will grow far worse 
when the ablest Catholic merchants, and the most 
wealthy purchasers of that communion are ruined 
and undone?' . . . [Nevertheless] thg Acts of Set- 
tlement and Explanation, and every transaction 
growing out of them, were 'absolutely repealed, an- 
nulled, and made void to all intents, constructions, 
and purposes whatever, as if the same had never 
been made or passed,' and the land restored to the 
representatives of those who possessed it on October 
22, 1641, the day before the rebellion broke out. 
Real property belonging to anyone who had been 
in rebellion since August i, 1688, or in communi- 
cation with those who had, was forfeited without 
trial and vested in the King. The property of 
the London companies in Ulster was confiscated. 
. . . [This was followed by an] Act of Attaindei, 
passed before the end of June. . . . The Act af- 
fected some 2400 persons, of whom more than 
half, from the Primate and the Duke of Ormonde 
down to yeomen and shopkeepers, whether "dead 
or alive, or killed in open rebellion, or now in 
arms against Your Majesty or otherwise,' were 
attainted of high treason, and subjected to all its 
penalties, unless they voluntarily surrendered by 
the loth of August. ... In considering the deal- 
ings of England with Ireland, nothing has been 
more justly blamed than the commercial restraints 
imposed by the stronger country upon the weaker. 
Trade from Ireland to the plantations was for- 
bidden except through England. The Irish Par- 
liament now abolished this restriction, but it was 
not forgotten that James was still nominally King 
of England, and therefore colonial goods might 
be transported in Irish bottoms to Great Britain 
as well as to Ireland, thus dispensing with Eng- 
lish legislation to the contrary. It was recognised 
that Ireland possessed but few merchant vessels, 
and the building of more was encouraged by large 
premiums, . . . and schools of navisation were to 
be established at Dublin, Belfast, Waterford, Cork, 
Limerick, and Galway. But while thus moving in 
the direction of free trade the Irish Parliament 
passed another Act prohibiting the importation 
of English, Scotch, or Welsh coal. ... On the 
last day of the session an Act was passed at the 
instance of the Commissioners, vesting in the King 
all the personalty, including arrears of rent, left 
by absentees mentioned in the .'\ct of Attainder, or 
who aided and abetted the Prince of Orange. In 
August, when Parliament had risen, the Commis- 
sioners extended their operations to Dublin, but 
they were instructed not to strip houses or injure 
trade. The business was so mismanaged, and there 
was so much dishonesty, that His Majesty had 
little profit from the widespread ruin. Six months 
after the passing of the Act, Avaux reported that 
the King had not received, and he believed never 
would receive, more than one thousand crowns out 


IRELAND, 1689 

of the Boyne 

IRELAND, 1689 

of confiscated property worth two millions, . . . 
The penal laws that followed are accounted for, 
though not excused, by the conduct of the native 
Irish Parliament during its short tenure of power. 
The treatment of the French Protestants by 
James's patron had also done much to embitter 
the feelings of the victors. Clever men saw at 
the time, and everyone can sec now, that James's 
Irish adventure was ho[)eless. He thought of Ire- 
land only as a stepping-stone to England, and 
his French supporters thought only of diverting 
William's attention from the Continent, and thus 
strengthening the position of their own King. The 
Irish very naturally thought first of regaining their 
lands, and hoped, with the aid of French power, to 
hold the country in spite oi England, The Eng- 

Acts passed by them in the hour of their triumph. 
Acts, by means of which it was fondly hoped that 
their enemies would be thrown into such position 
of dependence and humiliation that they could 
never again rise up to be a peril." — E. Lawless, 
Ireland, p. 287. — "It is not alleged that a single 
person was executed under the Act; and though 
the common soldiers on the side of William, and 
the rapparces on the side of James, were guilty 
of much violence, it cannot be said that the leaders 
on either side showed in their actions any dispo- 
sition to add unnecessarily to the tragedy of the 
struggle. If the Irish .•\ct of .attainder was almost 
unparalleled in its magnitude, it was at least free 
from one of the worst faults of this description 
of legislation, for it did not undertake to supersede 

(After painting by Benjamin West) 

lish colony would have been destroyed if James 
had been victorious, and the Protestant landown- 
ers, who received no mercy from an Irish Par- 
liament, were not likely to show much when 
their turn came." — R. Bagwell, Ireland un4er the 
Stuarts and during the interregnum, v. ?,, pp. 224- 
228, 233, 236, 238. — "These acts were perhaps 
what is called only natural, but it must be owned 
that they were also terribly unfortunate. Up to 
that date those directly penal laws against Catho- 
lics which afterwards disfigured the statute book 
were practically unknown. \ Catholic could sit 
in either Irish House of Parliament; he could in- 
herit lands, and bequeath them to whom he 
would; he could educate hi.s children how and 
where he liked. The terror planted in the breast 
of the Protestant colony by that inoperative piece 
of legislation found its voice in the equally 
violent, but unfortunately nqt pcjually inoperative 


the action of the law courts. It was a conditional 
attainder, launched in the m;dst of a civil war. 
against men who, having recently disregarded the 
summons of their sovereign, were beyond the range 
of the law, in case they refused to appear during 
an assigned interval before the law courts for 
trial. The real aim of the .\ct was confiscation; 
and, in this respect at least, it was by no means 
unexampled. Every political trouble in Ireland 
had long been followed by a confiscation of Irish 
soil."— W. E. H. Lecky, History of Ireland in the 
eighteenth century, v. i, p. I3i- 

"In the north a brilliant little victory had mean- 
while been won by the Enniskillen troops under 
Colonel Wolseley, at Newtown Butler, where they 
attacked a much larger force of the enemy and 
defeated them, killing a large number and driving 
the rest back in confusion. William was still de- 
tained in England, but had despatched the Duke 

IRELAND, 1689 

of Limerick 

IRELAND, 1691 

of Schomberg with a considerable force. Schom- 
berg's men were mostly raw recruits, and the cli- 
mate tried them severely. He arrived in the 
autumn, but not venturing to take the field, es- 
tablished himself at Dundalk, where his men 
misbehaved and all but mutinied and where a 
pestilence, shortly afterwards breaking out, swept 
them [off] in multitudes. On both sides, indeed, 
the disorganization of the armies was great. 
Fresh reinforcements had arrived for James, under 
the Comte de Lauzun, in return for which an equal 
number of Irish soldiers under Colonel Macarthy 
had been drafted for service to France. In June, 
i6qo, William himself landed at Carrickfergus with 
an army of 35,000 men, composed of nearly every 
nationality in Europe — Swedes, Dutch, Swiss, Ba- 
tavians, French Huguenots, Finns, with about 
15,000 English soldiers. He came up to James's 
army upon the banks of the Boyne, about twenty 
miles from Dublin, and here it was that the turning 
battle of the campaign was fought [July i, i6qo]. 
. . . The Irish foot, upon whom the brunt of the 
action fell, were untrained, indifferently armed, 
and had never before been in action ; their oppo- 
nents were veterans trained in European wars. 
They were driven back, fled, and a considerable 
number of them slaughtered. The Irish cavalry 
stood firm, but their valour was powerless to turn 
the day. Schomberg was killed, but William re- 
mained absolute and undisputed master of the 
field. At the first shock of reverse James flew 
down the hill and betook himself to Dublin. . . . 
He fled south, ordering the bridges to be broken 
down behind him; took boat at Waterford, and 
never rested until he found himself once more 
safe upon French soil. His flight at least left the 
field clear for better men. Patrick Sarsfield now 
took the principal command and prosecuted the 
campaign with a vigour of which it had hitherto 
shown no symptoms. . . . William, now estab- 
lished in Dublin, issued a proclamation offering 
full and free pardon to all who would lay down 
their arms. He was genuinely anxious to avoid 
pushing the struggle to the bitter end, and to hinder 
further bloodsheij. Though deserted by their 
king, and fresh from overwhelming defeat, the 
Irish troops showed no disposition, however, of 
yielding. Athlone, Galway, Cork, Kinsale and 
Limerick still held out, and behind the walls of 
the last named the remains of James's broken 
army was now chiefly collected. Those walls, how- 
ever, were miserably weak and the French gen- 
erals utterly scouted the possibility of their being 
held. Tyrconnel, too, advised a capitulation, but 
Sarsfield insisted upon holding the town, and the 
Iri?h soldiers — burning to wipe out the shame of 
the Boyne — supported him like one man. William 
was known to be moving south to the attack, and 
accotdingly Lauzun and Tyrconnel, with the rest 
of the French troops, moved hastily away to Gal- 
way, leaving Sarsfield to defend Limerick as he 
could. They had hardly left before William's 
army appeared in sight with the king himself 
at their head, and drew up before the walls. A 
formidable siege train, sent after him from Dub- 
lin, was to follow in a day or two. Had it ar- 
rived it would ha\c finished the siege at once. 
Sarsfield accordingly slipped out of the town under 
cover of ni.Tht, fell upon it while it was on its 
way through the Silvermine Hills in Tipperary, 
killed some sixty of the men who were in charge, 
and filling the cannons with powder, burst them 
with an explosion, which startled the country round 
for miles, and the roar of which is said to have 
reached William in his camp before Limerick. 
This brilliant little feat delayed the siege. Never- 

theless it was pressed on with great vigour. . . . 
It was now autumn, the rainy season was setting 
in, and William's presence was urgently wanted in 
England. After another violent attempt, there- 
fore, to take the town, which was resisted with 
the most desperate valour, the very women joining 
in the fight, and remaining under the hottest fire, 
the besiegers drew off, and William shortly after- 
wards sailed for England, leaving the command 
in the hands of Ginkel, the ablest of his Dutch 
generals. ... In Galway, meanwhile, violent quar- 
rels had broken out. The French troops were 
sick, naturally enough, of the campaign, and not 
long afterwards sailed for France. Their places 
were taken later on by another body of French 
soldiers under General St. Ruth." — E. Lawless, 
Story of Ireland, pp. 288-292. — "The third and 
last campaign began late in 1691. The Irish re- 
ceived many promises of assistance from Louis 
XIV., but his ministers fulfilled few or none of 
them. With scarcely any loss of men, and with 
a small expenditure of stores and money, the Irish 
war enabled Louis to keep William and a veteran 
army of 40,000 men out of his way. . . . The 
campaign opened in the beginning of June with 
the advance of Ginkel on .'\thlone. The chief de- 
fence of the place was the River Shannon, the 
works being weak, and mounting only a few field- 
pieces; yet so obstinately was the place defended 
that, but for the discovery of a ford, and some 
neglect on the part of D'Usson, who commanded, 
it is probable that the siege would have been 
raised. As it was, Ginkel became master of the 
heap of ruins. ... St. Ruth [the French officer 
commanding the Irish] moved his camp to Augh- 
rim [or Aghrim], and there was fought the final 
battle of the war on Sunday, July 12, i6qi. . . . 
St. Ruth was killed at a critical moment, and his 
army defeated, with a loss of about 4,000 men, 
the English loss being about half that number. 
Part of the defeated Irish infantry retreated to 
Galway; but the bulk of the troops, including 
the whole of the cavalry, fell back on Limerick, 
which surrendered, after a gallant resistance, in 
October, 1691." — W. K. Sullivan, Two centuries of 
Irish history, pt. i, ch. i. 

Also in: T. B. Macaulay, History of England, 
ch. 12, 16, 17. — W. H. Torriano, William the Third, 
ch. 5, 21-23. — J- A. Froude, English in Ireland, 
V. I, ch. 3. — W. A. O'Conor, History of the Irish 
people, V. 2, bli. 3, ch. 3. — J. Dalrymple, Memoirs 
of Great Britain and Ireland, v. 2, pt. 2, bk. 2-5. 

1691. — Treaty of Limerick and its violation. — 
The surrender of Limerick was under the terms of 
a treaty — or of two treaties, one militan.-, the 
other civil — formally negotiated for the terminating 
of the war. This Treaty of Limerick was signed, 
Oct. 3, 1691, by Baron De Ginkel, William's gen- 
eral, and by the lords justices of Ireland, on be- 
half of the English, and by Sarsfield and other 
chieftains on behalf of the Irish. "Its chief pro- 
visions were: 'The Roman Catholics of this king- 
dom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise 
of their religion as are consistent with the laws 
of Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the reign 
of King Charles II. ; and their Majesties, as soon 
as their affairs will permit them to summon a 
Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to pro- 
cure the said Roman Catholics such further se- 
curity in that particular as may preserve them 
from any disturbance upon the account of their 
said religion. All the inhabitants or residents of 
Limerick, or any other garrison now in the pos- 
session of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers 
now in arms under any commission of King James, 
or those authorized by him to grant the same in 




At beginning ut English conquot 

English plantation of Ireland 


After Cromwcllian settlement 

, <,<J^J U N I O tJ i "i T "v 

■-S,''4»-C ULSTER ■•^rViJ'; „ 

S T>.>\ T^uET' 


Irish Free State and Ulster 

IRELAND FROM 1172 TO 1923 


IRELAND, 1691 

Treaty of Limerick 
Its Violation 

IRELAND, 1691-1782 

the several counties of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, 
Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, and all the 
commissioned officers in their Majesties' quarters 
that belong to the Irish regiments now in being 
that are treated with and who are not prisoners 
of war, or having taken protection, and who shall 
return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, 
and their and every of their heirs shall hold, 
possess, and enjoy all and every their estates of 
freehold and inheritance; and all the rights, titles, 
and interest, privileges and immunities, which they, 
or every or any of them, held, enjoyed, and were 
rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the reign 
of King Charles II.' ... A general pardon w'as 
to be granted to all persons comprised within the 
treaty, and the Lords Justices and the generals 
commanding King William's army were to use their 
best endeavours to get the attainders of any of 
them attainted repealed. ... In the copy of the 
rough draft engrossed for signature the following 
words, 'and all such as are under their protection 
in the said counties,' which immediately followed 
the enumeration of the several counties in the sec- 
ond article, were omitted. This omission, whether 
the result of design or accident, was, however, 
rectified by King William when contirming the 
treaty in February, 1692. The confirming instru- 
ment stated that the words had been casually 
omitted ; that the omission was not discovered 
till the articles were signed, but was taken notice 
of before the town was surrendered; and that the 
Lords Justices or General Ginkel, or one of them, 
had promised that the clause should be made good, 
since It was within the intention of the capitula- 
tion, and had been inserted in the rough draft. 
William then for himself did 'ratify and confirm 
the said omitted words.' The colonists, or at all 
events the 'new interests' — that is, those who shared 
or expected to share in the confiscations — were 
indignant at the concessions made to the native 
race." — W. K. Sullivan, Two centuries of Irish 
history, pt. i, ch. i. — "The advantages secured 
to Catholics by the Treaty of Limerick were mod- 
erate. But when the flower of the Irish army had 
withdrawn to France, and the remnant could be 
hanged without ceremony, they began to look in- 
ordinate. The parliament of Cromwellian settlers 
and Government officials in Dublin having ex- 
cluded Catholic members, by requiring from them 
an oath of abjuration, in direct infringement of 
one of the articles of surrender, were free to 
proceed at their discretion. They first passed a 
stringent statute depriving Catholics of arms, and 
another ordering all 'Popish archbishops, bishops, 
vicars-general, deans, Jesuits, monks, friars, and 
regulars of whatever condition to depart from the 
kingdom on pain of transportation,' and then pro- 
ceeded to consider the treaty. They . . . resolved 
by a decisive majority not to keep the conditions 
affecting the Catholics. WilUam . . . struggled for 
a time to preserve his honour; but it is not con- 
venient for a new king to be in conflict with 
his friends, and after a time he gave way." — C. G. 
Duffy, Bird's-eye view of Irish history, pp. 155-156 
(or bk. I, ch. 4, of "Young Ireland"). — "The 
Protestant rancour of parliament was more power- 
ful than the good will of the prince. The most 
vital articles of the capitulation were ignored, 
especially in all cases where the Catholic religion 
and the liberties granted to its professors were 
concerned ; and 4,000 Irish were denounced as 
traitors and rebels, — by which declaration a fresh 
confiscation of 1,060,000 acres was immediately 
effected. ... It has been calculated that in 1692 
the Irish Catholics, who quadrupled the Protestants 
in number, owned only one-eleventh of the soil. 

and that the most wretched and unproductive 
portion," — A. Perraud, Ireland under English ride, 
introduction, sect. 8. 

1691-1782. — Peace of despair. — Century of na- 
tional death. — Oppression of penal laws. — "By 
the military treaty [of Limerick], those of Sars- 
field's soldiers who would were suffered to follow 
him to France; and 10,000 men, the whole of 
his force, chose exile rather than life in a land 
where all hope of national freedom was lost. 
When the wild cry of the women who stood watch- 
ing their departure was hushed, the silence of 
death settled down upon Ireland. For a hundred 
years the country remained at peace, but the 
peace was a peace of despair. The most terrible 
legal tyranny under which a nation has ever 
groaned avenged the rising under Tyrconnell. The 
conquered people, in Swift's bitter words of con- 
tempt, became 'hewers of wood and drawers of 
water' to their conquerors; but till the very 
eve of the French Revolution Ireland ceased to 
be a souice of terror and anxiety to England." — • 
J. R. Green, Short history of England, ch, g, 
sect. 8. — "An act of 1695 'deprived the Roman 
Catholics of the means of educating their chil- 
dren, either at home or abroad, and of the privilege 
of being guardians either of their own or of 
any other person's children.' Another Act of 
the same year deprived the Roman Catholics of 
the right of bearing arms, or of keeping any 
horse which was worth more than £5. An Act of 
1697 ordered the expulsion of every Roman Catho- 
lic priest from Ireland. The Parliament, which 
had imposed these disabilities on Irish Roman 
Catholics, proceeded to confirm the Articles of 
Limerick, or 'so much of them as may consist with 
the safety and welfare of your Majesty's subjects 
of this kingdom,' and by a gross act of injustice 
omitted the whole of the first of these articles, 
and, the important paragraph in the second article 
which had been accidentally omitted from the 
original copy of the Treaty, and subsequently re- 
stored to it by letters patent under the Great 
Seal. Reasonable men may differ on the propriety 
or impropriety of the conditions on which the 
surrender of Limerick was secured; but it is diffi- 
cult to read the story of tjieir repudiation without 
a deep sense of shame. Three other acts relating 
to the Roman Catholics were passed during the 
reign of William. An .^ct of 1607 forbade the 
intermarriage of Protestants and Papists. An Act 
of 1698 prevented Papists from being solicitors. 
Another Act of the same year stopped their em- 
ployment as gamekeepers. William died; and the 
breach of faith which he had countenanced was 
forgotten amidst the pressure of the legislation 
which disgraced the reign of his successor. Two 
Acts passed m this reign, for preventing the fur- 
ther growth of Popery, were styled by Burke the 
'ferocious .\cts of Anne.' By the first of these Acts 
a Papist having a Protestant son was debarred 
from selling, mortgaging, or devising any portion 
of his estate: however young the son might be, 
he was to be taken from his father's hands and 
confided to the care of a Protestant relation. 
The estate of a Papist who had no Protestant 
heir was to be divided equally among his sons. 
The Papist was declared incapable of purchasing 
real estate or of taking land on lease for more 
than thirty-one years. A Papist was declared in- 
capable of inheriting real estate from a Protestant. 
He was disqualified from holding any office, civil 
or military. With twenty exceptions, a Papist was 
forbidden to reside in Limerick or Galway. Ad- 
vowsons the property of Papists were vested in 
the Crown. Religious intolerance had now ap- 


IRELAND, 1691-1782 

Wood's Halfpence 

IRELAND, 1722-1724 

parently done its uttermost. . . . But the laws 
failed. Their severity insured their failure. . . . 
The first of the ferocious Acts of Anne was almost 
openly disregarded. ... Its failure only induced 
the intolerant advisers of Anne to supplement 
it with harsher legislation. The Act of 1704 had 
deprived the Papist of the guardianship of his 
apostate child. An Act of 1709 empowered the 
Court of Chancery to oblige the Papist to discover 
his estate, and authorized the Court to make an 
order for the maintenance of the apostate child 
out of the proceeds of it. The Act of 1704 had 
made it illegal lor a Papist to take lands on 
lease; the Act of 1709 disabled him from receixing 
a life annuity. An Act of 1704 had compelled the 
registry of priests. The .'Vet 01 170Q forbade their 
officiating in any parish except that in which they 
Were registered. The.-e, however, were the least 
reprehensible features in the Act of 1709. Its 
worst features were the encouragement which it 
gave to the meaner vices of human nature. The 
wife of a Papist, if she became a Protestant, was 
to receive a jointure out of her husband's estate. 
A Popish priest abandoning his religion w-as to 
receive an annuity of £30 a year. Rewards were 
to be paid for 'discovering' Popish prelates, priests, 
and schooima^lcrs. Two justices might compel any 
Papist to state on oath where and when he 
had heard mass, who had oSiciated at it, and who 
had been present at it. Encouragement was thus 
given to informers; bribes were thus held out to 
apostates; and Parliament trusted to the com- 
bined effects of bribery and intimidation to stamp 
out the last remnant of Popery. The penal code, 
however, was not yet complete. The armoury 
of intolerance was not yet exhausted. An Act of 
George I. disabled Papists from serving in the 
Irish militia, but compelled them to find Protestant 
substitutes; to pay double towards the support 
of the militia, and rendered their horses liable 
to seizure for militia purposes. By Acts of George 
II. the Papists were disfranchised; barristers or 
solicitors marrying Papists were deemed Papists; 
all marriages between Protestants and Papists were 
annulled ; and Popish priests celebrating any ille- 
gal marri-ges w^ere condemned to be hanged. By 
an Act of George III. Papists refusing to deliver 
up or declare their arms were liable to be placed 
in the [iillory or to be whipped, as the Court 
should think proper. Such were the laws which 
the intolerance of a minority imposed on the ma- 
jority of their fellow-subjects. Utterly unjust, they 
had not even the bare merit of success. . . . 'The 
great body of the people,' wrote Arthur Young 
[1780], 'stripped of their all, were more enraged 
than converted: they adhered to the persuasion 
of their forefathers with the steadiest and the 
most determined zeal; while the priests, actuated 
by the spirit of a thousand inducements, made 
proselytes among the common Protestants in de- 
fiance of every danger. . . . Those laws have 
crushed all the industry and wrested most of 
the property from the Catholics; but the religion 
triumphs; it is thought to increase.'" — S. Wal- 
pole. History of England from 18 is, v. 2, ch. 8. 
Also in: R. R. Madden, Iliilorical notice of 
penal lau-s against Roman Catholics. — A. Perraud, 
Ireland under English rule, introduction. — E. 
Burke, Letter to a peer of Ireland on the penal 
laws (Works, v. 4). — Idem, Fragments of a tract 
on the popery laws (Works, v. 6). — A. J. Thebaud, 
Irish race. ch. 12. 

18th century. — Lack of education. — Charter 
schools. See Edvc.mion: Modern: iSth century: 

1703-1838. — Public poor relief. — Houses of in- 

dustry and foundling hospitals. — Early work- 
houses. — Infirmaries. — Fever hospitals. See 

CiiAKiiiEs; Ireland: 1 703-1838, 

1710. — Colonization of Palatines in Munster. 
See P.\i.ATiNEs: 1709-1710. 

17J2-1724.— Wood's halfpence. — Drapier's let- 
ters. — ".\ patent had been given [1722, l)y the 
VValpole administration I to a certain William 
Wood for supplying Ireland with a copper coinage. 
Many complaints had been made, and in Septem- 
ber, 1723, addresses were voted by the Irish Houses 
of Parliament, declaring that the patent had been 
obtained by clandestine and false representations; 
that it was mischievous to the country; and that 
Wood had been guilty of frauds in his coinage. 
They were pacified by vague promises; but W'al- 
pole went on with the scheme on the strength of 
a favourable report of a committee of the Privy 
Council; and the excitement was already serious 
when (in 1724) Swift published the Drapier's Let- 
ters, which gave him his chief title to eminence 
as a patriotic agitator. Swift either shared or 
took advantage of the general belief that the mys- 
teries of the currency are unfathomable to the 
human intelligence. . . . There is, however, no 
real mystery about the halfpence. The small coins 
which do not form ()art of the legal tender may 
be considered primarily as counters. A penny 
is a penny, so long as twelve arc change for a 
shilling. It is not in the least necessary for this 
purpose that the copper contained in the twelve 
penny pieces should be worth or nearly worth a 
shilling. ... .At the present day bronze worth only 
twopence is coined into twelve penny pieces. . . . 
The effect of Wood's patent was that a mass of 
copper worth about became worth £100,800 
in the shape of halfpenny pieces. There was, 
therefore, a balance of about £40,000 to pay for 
the expenses of coinage. It would have been waste 
to get rid of this by putting more copper in the 
coins; but if so large a profit arose from the 
transaction, it would go to somebody. At the pres- 
ent day it would be brought into the national 
treasury. This was not the way in which business 
was done in Ireland. Wood was to pay £1,000 a 
year foi fourteen years to the Crown. But 
£14,000 still leaves a large margin for profit. What 
was to become of it? .-Xccording to the admiring 
biographer of Sir R. W'alpole the patent had been 
originally given by Lord Sunderland to the Duchess 
of Kendal, a lady whom the King delighted to 
honour. ... It was right and proper that a profit 
should be made on the transaction, but shameful 
that it should be divided between the King's mis- 
tress and William Wood, and that the bargain 
should be struck without consulting the Irish 
representatiws, and maintained in spite of their 
protests. The Duchess of Kendal was to be al- 
lowed to take a share of the wretched halfpence 
in the pocket of every Irish beggar. A more 
disgraceful transaction could hardly be imagined, 
or one more calculated to justify Swift's view 
of the selfishness and corruption of the English 
rulers. Swift saw his chance and went to work 
in characteristic fashion, with unscrupulous au- 
dacity of statement [in the Drapier Letters), guided 
by the keenest strategical instinct. . . . The patent 
was surrendered, and Swift might congratulate 
himself upon a complete victory. . . . The Irish 
succeeded in rejecting a real benefit at the cost of 
paying Wood the profit which he would have 
made, had he been allowed to confer it." — L. 
Stephen, Swift (English men of letters), ch. 7. 

Also in: Dean Swift, Works, v. 6. — Lord Mahon, 
History of England, v. 2, ch. 13. — J. McCarthy, 
History of the four Georges, ch. 15. 


IRELAND, 1759 

Whiieboys; Oakboys 
Steel Boys; Peep of Day Boys 

IRELAND, 1760-1798 

1759. — Hostility of Dublin to union with Eng- 
land. See Dublin": i 700-1 ygS, 

1760-1798. — Whiteboys. — Oakboys. — Steel 
Boys. — Peep of Day Boys. — Catholic Defenders. 

— "The peasantry continued to regard the land as 
their own ; and with the general faith that wrong 
cannot last forever, they waited for the time when 
they would once more have possession of it. 'The 
lineal descendants of the old families,' wrote Ar- 
thur Young in 1774, 'are now to be found all over 
the kingdom, working as cottiers on the lands 
which weie once their own.' . . . With the growth 
of what was called civilization, absenteeism, the 
worst disorder of the country, had increased. . . . 
The rise in prices, the demand for salt beef and 
salt butter for exportation and for the fleets, were 
revolutionizing the agriculture of Munster. The 
great limestone pastures of Limerick and Tip- 
perary, the fertile meadow universally, was falling 
into the hands of capitalist graziers, in whose 
favour the landlords, or the landlords' agents, were 
evicting the smaller tenants." — J. A. Froude, Ktig- 
lish in Ireland, v. 2, bk. s, ch. i. — "The suffering 
was not confined to the original expropriated own- 
ers and tillers of the soil ; it was universal. The 
Plantation of Ulster was thoroughly accomplished. 
The province became 'shire' land. The Crown 
[had] 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 de- 
fence diminished and leases fell in, a tendency to 
ignore the original tenure, and to treat the de- 
scendants of the original planters as tenants at 
will, manifested itself. Rents were raised, farms 
were let to the highest bidder, and the highest 
bidder was a poor 'Papist' descendant of the origi- 
nal occupier of the land. The expropriating 
planter became expropriated in his turn, and in 
his turn resorted to burning the goods and driv- 
ing 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 Ire- 
land 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 con- 
siderable 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 
either event, the poor Catholic peasant, starving 
on his little holding, paid compulsorily for the 
support of the religion in which he did not be- 
lieve, and contributed voluntarily out of his pov- 
erty 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 peo- 
ple miserable in the extreme. Such circumstances 
produced their inevitable results. Where desperate 
men can get no redress for legitimate grievances 

they resort to illegitimate combination and out- 
rage. Secret societies, 'Whiteboys,' '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 con- 
version of tillage into pasture; others, again, 
against tithes and other wrongs. The secret socie- 
ties became very formidable, and committed many 
atrocities of a brutal kind. The Whiteboys be- 
came for a time powerful 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 
forcing obedience by brutal punishment. The 
Hearts of Steel became equally formidable in the 
North. 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." — Earl of Dunravcn, Legacy oj past 
years, pp. 69-71. — The Whiteboys took their name 
from the practice of wearing a white shirt drawn 
over their other clothing, when they were out 
upon their nocturnal expeditions. "The Oak Boy 
movement took place about 1761-2. . . . The in- 
justice which lecl to the formation of the 'Oak 
Boys,' one of the best known of the colonial so- 
cieties, was duty work on roads. Every house- 
holder was bound to give six days' labour in mak- 
ing and repairing the public roads; and if he had 
a horse, six days' labour of his horse. It was 
complained that this duty work was only levied on 
the poor, and that they were compelled to work 
on private job roads, and even upon what were 
the avenues and farm roads of the gentry. The 
name Oak Boys, or Hearts of Oak Boys, was de- 
rived from the members in their raids wearing an 
oak branch in their hats. The organization spread 
rapidly over the greater part of Ulster. Although 
the grievances were common to Protestant and 
Catholic workmen, and there was nothing religious 
in the objects or constitution of the Oak Boys, 
the society was an exclusively Protestant bociy, 
owing to the total absence at the period of any 
association between the Protestants and Catho- 
lics. . . . The Steel Boys, or Hearts of Steel Boys, 
followed the Oak Boys [about 1771]. They also 
were exclusively Protestant ; the origin of this or- 
ganization was the ■ extravagance and profligacy 
of a bad landlord, the representative of the great 
land thief, Chichester, of the Plantation of King 
James I. . . . The Oak Boys and Steel Boys did 
not last long." — W. K. Sullivan, Tzco centuries of 
Irish history, pt. i, ch. s, li-'ith foot-note. — "The 
Marquis of Donegal was one of the largest pro- 
prietors in the North of Ireland. He was an 
absentee, and when his leases fell in, instead of 
adopting the usual plan of renewing them at a 
moderate increase of rent, he determined to raise 
a sum which was stated at no less than ioo,ooo£ 
in fines upon his tenants, and as they were utterly 
unable to pay them, two or three rich merchants 
of Belfast were preferred to them. The improve- 
ments were confiscated, the land was turned into 
pasture, and the whole population of a vast district 
were driven from their homes. This case, though 
the most flagrant, was by no means the only one, 
and on several estates in the North, during the 
last ten or fifteen years, rents had been in- 
creased to such a point that the tenants were 
unable to pay them. They alleged that it was a 
frequent custom for landlords, when leases fell 
in, to 'publish in newspapers or otherwise that 
such a parcel of land is to be set, and that pro- 
posals in writing will be received for it.' . . . The 
conduct of Lord Donegal brought the misery of 


IRELAND, 1760-1798 

Volunteers' Movement 
Legislative Independence 

IRELAND, 1778-1782 

the Ulster peasantry to a climax, and in :i short 
time many thousands of ejected tenants, banded 
together under the name of Steelboys, were in 
arms. They were mainly, at first almost ex- 
clusively, Presbyterians. Their distress was much 
greater than that of the Oakboys, who preceded 
them, and, as is usually the case, their violence 
was proportioned to their distress. They de- 
stroyed or maimed great numbers of cattle. They 
attacked many houses, and were guilty of many 
kinds of violence, and they soon administered ille- 
gal oaths, and undertook the part of general re- 
formers. . . . The com|)iete subsidence of this for- 
midable insurrection in the North forms a re- 
markable contrast to the persistence with which 
the Whiteboy disturbances in the South continued 
to smoulder during many generations. It is to be 
largely attributed to the great Protestant emi- 
gration which had long been taking place in Ulster. 
The way had been opened, and the ejected tenantry 
who formed the Steelboy bands and who escaped 
the sword and the gallows, fled by thousands to 
America. They were soon heard of again. In a 
few years the cloud of civil war which was 
already gathering over the colonies burst, and the 
ejected tenants of Lord Donegal formed a large 
part of the revolutionary armies which severed 
the New World from the British Crown." — VV. E. 
H. Lecky, History of Ireland in the eighteenth 
century, v. 2, pp. 47-48, 50-51. — "A violent sec- 
tarian spirit was beginning to show itself afresh. 
... A furious faction war had broken out in the 
north of Ireland, between Protestants and Roman 
Catholics. The former had made an association 
known as the 'Peep-of-day boys,' to which the 
latter had responded by one called the ['Catholic] 
Defenders.' In 1795, a regular battle was fought 
between the two, and the 'Defenders' were de- 
feated with the loss of many lives. The same 
year saw the institution of Orange lodges spring 
into existence, and spread rapidly over the north." 
— E. Lawless, Ireland, p. 345. — See also Ulster: 

1765-1921. — Care of poor. — Dispensaries and 
hospitals. See Cii.\ritils: Ireland: 1765-1921. 

1778-1782. — Volunteers' movement.— Conces- 
sion of legislative independence by the Act of 
1782. — "England's difficulty w-as Ireland's oppor- 
tunity. ... On the hither side of the .Atlantic the 
American flag was scarcely less dreaded than at 
Yorktown and Saratoga. . . . Ireland, drained of 
troops, lay open to invasion. The terrible Paul 
Jones was drifting about the seas; descents upon 
Ireland were dreaded; if such descents had been 
made the island was practically defenceless. . . . 
Ireland must look to itself. "Thereupon Ireland, 
very promptly and decisively, did look to itself. 
A MiUtia .-Act was passed empowering the forma- 
tion of volunteer corps — consisting, of course, solely 
of Protestants — for the defence of the island, k 
fever of military enthusiasm swept over the coun- 
try ; north and south and east and west men 
caught up arms, nominally to resist the French, 
really, though they knew it not, to effect one of 
the greatest constitutional revolutions in history. 
Before a startled Government could realise what 
was occurring 60,000 men were under arms. For 
the first time since the surrender of Limerick 
there was an armed force in Ireland able and will- 
ing to support a national cause. Suddenly, al- 
most in the twinkling of an eye, Iieland found 
herself for the first time for generations in the 
possession of a well-armed, well-disciplined, and 
well-generalled military force. The armament that 
was organised to insure the safety of England 
was destined to achieve the liberties of Ireland. 

. . . .Ml talk of organisation to resist foreign in- 
vasion was silenced ; in its place the voice of the 
nation was heard loudly calling for the redress 
of its domestic grievances. Their leader was 
Charlemont ; Grattan and Flood were their prin^ 
cipal colonels." — J. H. McCarthy, Ireland since the 
union, ch. 3. — "When the Parliament met, Grat- 
tan moved as an amendment to the .Address, 'that 
it wasZby free export and import only that the 
Nation was to be saved from imiiending ruin'; and 
a corps of X'olunteers, commanded by the Duke 
of Leinster, lined Dame Street as the Speaker and 
the Commons walked in procession to the Castle. 
.Another demonstration of X'olunteers in College 
Green excited Dublin a little later on, and (15th 
November, 1779) a riotous mob clamoured for 
Free Trade at the very doors of the House. . . . 
These events resulted in immediate success. Lord 
North proposed in the British Parliament three 
articles of relief to Irish trade — (i) to allow free 
export of wool, woollens, and wool-flocks; (2) to 
allow a free export of glass; {3) to allow, under 
certain conditions, a free trade to all the British 
colonies. When the news reached Ireland excessive 
joy prevailed. . . . But this was only a beginning. 
Poynings' Law, and the 6th of George I., re- 
quired to be swept away too, so that Ireland 
might enjoy not only Free Trade, but also Self- 
government. Grattan moved his two famous reso- 
lutions: — I. That the King, with the consent of 
the Lords and Commons of Ireland, is alone com- 
petent to enact laws to bind Ireland. 2. That 
Great Britain and Ireland are inseparably united 
under one Sovereign. In supporting these reso- 
lutions, Grattan cited England's dealings with 
America, to show what Ireland too might effect 
by claiming her just rights. . . . The Earl of Car- 
lisle became Viceroy in 1781, with Mr. Eden as 
Secretary, Viewing England's embroilment in war 
— in .America, in India, with France, and Spain, 
and Holland — the Irish Volunteers, whose num- 
bers had swelled, Grattan said, to well-nigh 100,000 
men, held meetings and reviews in various parts 
of the country. . . . The i6th of April, 1782, was 
a memorable day for Dublin. On that date, in a 
city thronged with Volunteers, with bands playing, 
and banners blazoned with gilded harps fluttering 
in the wind, Grattan, in an amendment to the 
-Address which was always presented to the King 
at the opening of Parliament, moved, 'That Ireland 
is a distinct Kingdom, with a separate Parliament, 
and that this Parliament alone has a right to make 
laws for hei.' On the 17th of May, the two Sec- 
retaries of State, Lord Shelburne in the Lords, and 
Charles James Fox in the Commons of Great Brit- 
ain — proposed the repeal of the 6th of George I., a 
statute which declared the right of the English 
Parliament to make laws for Ireland. The Eng- 
lish Government frankly and fully acceded to the 
demands of Ireland. Four points were granted — 
(1) an Independent Irish Parliament; (2) the 
abrogation of Poynings' Law, empowering the 
English Privy Council to alter Irish Bills; (3) the 
introduction of a Biennial Mutiny Bill; (4) the 
abolition of the right of appeal to England from 
the Irish law courts. These concessions were an- 
nounced to the Irish Parliament at once: in their 
joy the Irish Houses voted £100,000, and 20,000 
men to the navy of Great Britain. Ireland had 
at last achieved political freedom. Peace and pros- 
perity seemed about to bless the land. . . . That 
there might be no misunderstanding as to the 
deliberate intention of the English Parliament in 
granting Irish legislative independence. Lord Shel- 
burne had passed an Act of Renunciation, declar- 
ing that 'the Right claimed by the people of Ire- 


IRELAND, 1778-1782 

Relief Bills 

IRELAND, 1793 

land, to be bound only by laws enacted by His 
Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, is 
hereby declared to be established and ascertained 
for ever, and shall at no time hereafter be ques- 
tioned or questionable.' During the same session 
(1782), the two Catholic Relief Bills proposed by 
Luke Gardiner, who afterwards became Viscount 
Mountjoy, were passed. These measures gave 
catholics the right to buy freeholds, ts leach 
schools, and to educate their children as they 
pleased. The Habeas Corpus Act was now ex- 
tended to Ireland ; and marriages by presbyterian 
ministers were made legal." — W. F. Collier, His- 
tory oj Ireland for schools, period 5, ch. 3. — "A 
feeling of warm attachment to England rapidly 
took the place of distrust. There never existed in 
Ireland so sincere and friendly a spirit of spon- 
taneous union with England as at this moment, 
when the formal bond of union was almost wholly 
dissolved. From the moment when England made 
a formal surrender of her claim to govern Ire- 
land a series of inroads commenced on the various 
interests supposed to be left to their own free 
development by that surrender. Ireland had not, 
like England, a body of Cabinet Ministers respon- 
sible to her Parliament. The Lord Lieutenant 
and the Irish Secretary held their offices and re- 
ceived their instructions from the English minister. 
There was greater need than ever before for a 
bribed majority in the Irish Commons, and the ma- 
chinery for securing and managing it remained in- 
tact." — W. A. O'Conor, History of the Irish peo- 
ple, V. 2, bk. 4, ch. 2, sect. 2. — "At one time the 
Irish Parliament could not be summoned till the 
Bills it was called upon to pass were approved 
under the Great Seal of England; and, although 
it afterwards obtained the power of originating 
heads of Bills, it was necessary before they became 
law that they should be submitted to the English 
Privy Council, which had the right either of 
rejecting or of altering them, and the Irish Par- 
liament, though it might reject, could not alter 
a Bill returned in an amended form from Eng- 
land. The appellate jurisdiction of the Irish House 
of Lords was withdrawn from it by a mere act 
of power in the Annesley case in 1719. The con- 
stitution of the House of Commons was such 
that it lay almost wholly beyond the control of 
public opinion. By an English law passed at a 
time when the Irish Parliament was not sitting, 
the Catholics were precluded from sitting among 
its members, and as they were afterwards deprived 
of the suffrage, the national legislature was thus 
absolutely cut off from the Bulk of the Irish 
people. The Nonconformists were not formally 
excluded, but the test clause, which was also of 
English origin, shut them out from the cor- 
porations by which a large proportion of the 
members were elected. At the same time the royal 
prerogalive of creating boroughs was exerted to 
an extent unparalleled in England. No less than 
forty boroughs had been created by James I., 
thirty-six by the other sovereigns of his house, 
and eleven more boroughs were for the first time 
represented in the Parliament which met in 1692. 
The county representation appears to have been 
tolerably sound; but out of the 300 members of 
the Irish House of Commons, 216 were elected 
by boroughs and manors, and of these members 
176, according to the lowest estimate, were elected 
by individual patrons, while very few of the 
remainder had really popular constituencies. It 
was stated in 1784 that fifty Members of Par- 
liament were then elected by ten individuals." — 
W. E. H. Lecky, History of Ireland in the eight- 
eenth century, v. i, pp. 194-195. — "The Legisla- 

ture of Ireland before the Union had the same 
title as that of Great Britain. There was no 
juridical distinction to be drawn between them. 
Even in point of antiquity they were as nearly 
as possible on a par, for the Parliament of Ireland 
had subsisted for 500 years. It had asserted its 
exclusive right to make laws for the people of 
Ireland. That right was never denied, for gen- 
tlemen ought to recollect, but all do not, perhaps, 
remember, that Poynings's Law was an Irish Law 
imposed by Ireland on herself. That claim of 
the Parliament of Ireland never was denied until 
the reign of George I, and that claim denied in 
the reign of George I was admitted in the reign 
of George III. The Parliament — the great Par- 
liainent of Great Britain — had to retract its words 
and to withdraw its claiin, and the Legislature 
which goes by the name of Grattan's Parliament 
was as independent in point of authority as any 
Legislature over the wide world. ... It is im- 
possible not to say this word for the Protestant 
Parliament of Ireland. Founded as it was upon 
narrow suffrage, exclusive in religion, crowded with 
pensioners and place-holders holding every advan- 
tage, it yet had in it the spaik, at least, and the 
spirit of true patriotism. It emancipated the 
Roman Catholics of Ireland when the Roman 
Catholics of England were not yet emancipated. 
It received Lord Fitzwilliam with open arms; and 
when Lord Fitzwilliam promoted to the best of 
his ability the introduction of Roman Catholics 
into Parliament, and when his brief career was 
unhappily intercepted by a peremptory recall from 
England, what happened? Why, sir, in both 
Houses of the Irish Parliament votes were at once 
passed by those Protestants, by those men, mixed 
as they were, with so large an infusion of pen- 
sioners and of placemen, registering their confi- 
dence in that nobleman and desiring that he should 
still be left to administer the government of 
Ireland. What the Irish Parliament did when 
Lord Fitzwilliam was promoting the admission of 
Roman Catholics into Parliament justifies me in 
saying there was a spirit there which, if free 
scope had been left to it, would in all probability 
have been enabled to work out a happy solution 
for every Irish problem and difficulty, and would 
have saved to the coming generation an infinity 
of controversy and trouble." — Speeches of the Rt. 
Hon. W. E. Gladstone (A. W. Hutton and H. J. 
Cohen, ed.), v. 9, pp. 13-14, 20. 

1783. — Founding of Bank of Ireland. See 
Baxk of Irel,-\n'd. 

1793.— Passage of the Catholic Relief Bill. 
— "On February 4 (1793) Hobart (chief secre- 
tary] moved for leave to bring in his Catholic 
Relief Bill, and stated the nature of its provisions. 
It was of a kind which only a year before would 
have appeared utterly impossible, and which was 
in the most glaring opposition to all the doctrines 
which the Government and its partisans had of 
late been urging. . . . This great measure was be- 
fore Parliament, with several intermissions, for 
rather more than five weeks. . . . The vast pre- 
ponderance of speakers were in favour of relief to 
Catholics, though there were grave differences as 
to the degree, and speakers of the highest authority 
represented the genuine Protestant feeling of the 
country as being in its favour. . . . Few things in 
Irish parliamentary history are more remarkable 
than the facility with which this great measure 
was carried, though it was in all its aspects thor- 
oughly debated. . . . The Bill became law almost 
exactly in the form in which it was originally 
designed. It swept away the few remaining dis- 
abilities relating to property which grew out of 



IRELAND, 1793 

French Invasion 

IRELAND, 1793-1798 

the penal code. It enabled Catholics to vote like 
Protestants for members of Parhament and magis- 
trates in cities or boroughs; to become elected 
members of all corporations except Trinity Col- 
lege; to keep arms subject to some specified condi- 
tions; to hold all civil and military offices in the 
kingdom from which they were not specifically ex- 
cluded; to hold the medical professorships on the 
foundation of Sir Patrick Dun; to take degrees 
and hold offices in any mixed college connected 
with the University of Dublin that might here- 
after be founded. It also threw open to them the 
degrees of the University, enabling the King to 
alter its statutes to that effect. A long clause 
enumerated the prizes which were still withheld. 
Catholics might not sit in either House of Par- 
liament; they were excluded from almost all Gov- 
ernment and judicial positions; they could not 
be Privy Councillors, King's Counsel, Fellows of 
Trinity College, sheriffs or sub-sheriffs, or generals 
of the staff. Nearly every post of ambition was 
still reserved for Protestants, and the restrictions 
weighed most heavily on the Catholics who were 
most educated and most able. In the House 
of Lords as in the House of Commons the Bill 
passed with little open opposition, but a protest, 
signed among other peers by Charlemont, was 
drawn up against it. . . . The Catholic Relief Bill 
received the royal assent in April, I7g3, and in the 
same month the Catholic Convention dissolved 
itself. Before doing so it passed a resolution rec- 
ommending the Catholics 'to co-operate in all loyal 
and constitutional means' to obtain parliamentary 
reform. . . . The Catholic prelates in their pas- 
torals expressed their gratitude for the Relief Bill. 
The United Irishmen on their side issued a procla- 
mation warmly congratulating the Catholics on the 
measure for their relief, but also urging in pas- 
sionate strains that parliamentary reform was the 
first of needs." — W. E. H. Lecky, History of Eng- 
land in the eighteenth century, v. 6, ck. 2$. 

1793-1798. — Organization of the united Irish- 
men. — Attempted French invasions. — Rising of 
'98. — "Nothing could be less sinister than the origi- 
nal aims and methods of the Society of United 
Irishmen, which was conceived in the idea of 
uniting Catholics and Protestants 'in pursuit of the 
same object — a repeal of the penal laws, and a 
(parliamentary) reform including in itself an ex- 
tension of the right of suffrage.' This union was 
founded at Belfast, in 1701, by Theobald Wolfe 
Tone, a young barrister of English descent, and, 
like the majority of the United Irishmen, a Protes- 
tant. (See also Ulster: 1791-1797.] Some months 
later a Dublin branch was founded . . . and 
branches were formed throughout Ulster and 
Leinster. The religious strife of the Orange boys 
and Defenders was a great trouble to the United 
men, who felt that these creed animosities among 
Irishmen were more ruinous to the national cause 
than, any corruption of parliament or coercion 
of government could possibly be. Ireland, united, 
would be quite capable of fighting her own bat- 
tles, but these party factions rendered her con- 
temptible and weak. The society accordingly set 
itself the impossible task of drawing together the 
Defenders and the Orangemen. Catholic emanci- 
pation . . . was the great wish of the Defenders, 
the chief dread of the Orangemen. . . . The United 
Irishmen devoted themselves to the regeneration of 
both parties, but the Orangemen would have none 
of them, and the Protestant United men found 
themselves drifting into partnership with the 
Catholic Defenders . . . who, like the Orange boys, 
were merely a party of outrage. . . . One night in 
the May of '94 a government raid was made 

upon the premises of the union. The officers of 
the society were arrested, their papers seized, the 
type of their newspaper destroyed, and the United 
Irish Society was proclaimed as an illegal organi- 
sation. Towards the close of this year all need 
for a reform society seemed to have passed. Fitz- 
william was made viceroy, and emancipation and 
reform seemed assured. His sudden recall, the re- 
versal of his appointments, the rejection of Grat- 
tan's Reform Bill, and the renewal of the old 
coercive system, convinced the United men of 
the powerlessness of peaceful agitation to check 
the growth of the system of government by cor- 
ruption. They accordingly reorganised the union, 
but as a secret society, and with the avowed 
aim of separating Ireland from the British empire. 
The Fitzwilliam affair had greatly strengthened the 
union, which was joined by many men of high 
birth and position, among them lord Edward Fitz- 
gerald, brother of the duke of Leinster, and 
Arthur O'Connor, nephew to lord Longueville, 
both of whom had been members of the House of 
Commons. . . . But the ablest man of the party 
was Thomas Addis Emmet, a barrister, and the 
elder brother of Robert Emmet. The society 
gradually swelled to the number of 5,000 mem- 
bers, but throughout its existence it was perfectly 
riddled with spies and informers, by whom gov- 
ernment was supplied with a thorough knowledge 
of its doings. It became known to Pitt that 
the French government had sent an Englishman, 
named Jackson, as an emissary to Ireland. Jack- 
son was convicted of treason, and hanged, and 
Wolfe Tone was sufficiently implicated in his guilt 
... to find it prudent to fly to America. But 
before leaving Ireland he arranged with the di- 
rectors of the union to go from .'\merica to France, 
and to try to persuade the French government 
to assist Ireland in a struggle for separation. While 
Tone was taking his circuitous route to Paris, gov- 
ernment, to meet the military development of the 
society, placed Ulster and Leinster under a strin- 
gent Insurrection Act; torture was employed to 
wring confession from suspected persons, and the 
Protestant militia and yeomanry were drafted at 
free quarters on the wretched Catholic peasantry. 
The barbarity of the soldiers lashed the people 
of the northern provinces into a state of fury. . . . 
In the meantime the indomitable Tone — unknown, 
without credentials, without influence, and ignorant 
of the French language — had persuaded the French 
government to lend him a fleet, 10,000 men, and 
40,000 stand of arms, which armament left Brest 
for Bantry Bay on the 16th December, 1796 . . . 
but just as the ships put in to Bantry Bay, so wild 
a wind sprang up that they were driven out to sea, 
and blown and buffetted' about. For a month Ihey 
tossed about within sight of land, but the storm 
did not subside, and. all chance of landing seeming 
as far off as ever, they put back into the French 
port." — W. S. Gregg, Irish history for English 
readers, ch. 23. — "After the failure of Hoche's 
expedition, another great armament was fitted out 
in th" Texel, where it long lay ready to come 
forth, while the English fleet, . . . was crippled by 
the mutiny at the Nore. But the wind once 
more fought for England, and the Batavian fleet 
came out at last only to be destroyed at Camper- 
down. Tone was personally engaged in both 
expeditions, and his lively Diary, the image of 
his character, gives us vivid accounts of both. 
The third effort of the French Government was 
feeble, and ended in the futile landing of a small 
force under Humbert. ... In the last expedition 
Tone himself was taken prisoner, and, having 
been condemned to death, committed suicide in 


IRELAND, 1793-1798 

Rising of '98 
Orange Society 

IRELAND, 1795-1796 

prison. . . . From the Republicans the disturbance 
spread, as in 1641, to that mass of blind dis- 
affection and hatred, national, social, agrarian, 
and religious, which was always smouldering among 
the Catholic peasantry. With these sufferers the 
political theories of the French Revolutionists 
had no influence; they looked to French invasion, 
as well as to domestic insurrection, merely as a 
deliverance from the oppression under which they 
groaned. . . . The leading Roman Catholics, both 
clerical and lay, were on the side of the gov- 
ernment. The mass of the Catholic priesthood were 
well inclined to take the same side. ... If some 
of the order were concerned in the movement, 
it was as demagogues, sympathizing with their 
peasant brethren, not as priests. Yet the Prot- 
estants insisted on treating the Catholic clergy 
as rebels by nature. They had assuredly done 
their best to make them so. . . . The suspected 
conspirators were intimidated, and confessions, 
or pretended confessions, were e.\torted by loos- 
ing upon tne homes of the peasantry the license 
and barbarity of an irregular soldiery more cruel 
than a regular invader. Flogging, half-hanging, 
pitch-capping, picketing, went on over a large dis- 
trict, and the most barbarous scourgings, without 
triiil, were inflicted in the Riding-house at Dublin, 
in the very seat of government and justice. This 
was styled, 'e.\erting a vigour beyond the law'; 
and to become the object of such vigour, it was 
enough, as under Robespierre, to be suspected of 
being suspect. . . . The murders and other atroc- 
ities committed by the Jacobins were more numer- 
ous than those committed by the Orangemen, and 
as the victims were of higher rank they excited 
more indignation and pity ; but in the use of 
torture the Orangemen seem to have reached a 
pitch of fiendish cruelty which was scarcely at- 
tained by the Jacobins. . . . The Jacobin party 
was almost entirely composed of men taken from 
the lowest of the people, whereas among the Irish 
terrorists were found men of high social position 
and good education." — G. Smith, Iriili history and 
Irish character, pp. 166-175. — "The accounts of the 
Rebellion occupy a page of Irish history un- 
exampled in horror, and upon which no Irishman 
can wish to dwell. Vet it had its redeeming fea- 
tures, 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 re- 
legion was the object of the rising. Catholics were 
as firmly convinced of the existence of a fabulous 
Orange oath to massacre all Catholics and ex- 
tirpate 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 ScuUabogue 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 .Ameri- 
can War, was left in command of Wexford when 
the rebel army quitted it. The chapels in Wexford 
and the neighbourhood were crowded with Protes- 
tants seeking refuge, and priests in Wexford were 
'employed from morning to night' endeavouring to 
secure Protestants who came to them for pro- 
tection. . . . The truth is that in the Rebellion of 
'98, as in all former rebellions, wars, and ex- 

terminations, religion was inextricably mixed up 
with pontics and land. Below everything else 
the idea of repossessing themselves of land their 
forefathers had held, and getting back Ireland 
for themselves, possessed the minds 01 the poor 
peasantry who filled the rebel ranks." — Earl of 
Dunravcn, Legacy oj past years, pp. 90-92. — Sec 
also Ulster: 1791-1797. 

Also in: R. R. Madden, Untied Irishmen, titeir 
lives and times. — T. W. Tone, Memoirs. — Marquis 
Cornwallis, Correspondence, v. 2, ch. 19. — A. 
Griffiths, Frctuh revolutionary generals, ch. 16. 
— Viscount Castlereagh, Memoirs and correspond- 
ence, V. I. — W. H. Maxwell, History of tlie Irish 
rebellion in 1798. — E. Lawless, Ireland, pp. 354- 
366. — E. R. Turner, English in Ireland. 

1795-1796. — Formation of Orange Society. — 
Battle of the Diamond. — Persecution of Catho- 
lics by Protestant mobs. — "The year 1795 is very 
memorable in Irish history, as the year of the 
formation of the Orange Society, and the begin- 
ning of the most serious disturbances in the county 
of .Armagh. . . . The old popular feud between 
the lower ranks of Papists and Presbyterians in 
the northern counties is easy to understand, and 
it is not less easy to see how the recent course of 
Irish pohtics had increased it. A class which had 
enjoyed and gloried in uncontested ascendency, 
found this ascendency passing from its hands. A 
class which had formerly been in subjection was 
elated by new privileges, and looked forward to 
a complete abolition of political disabilities. 
Catholic and Protestant tenants came into a new 
competition, and the demeanour of Catholics to- 
wards Protestants was sensibly changed. There 
w-ere boasts in taverns and at fairs, that the 
Protestants would speedily be swept away from 
the land and the descendants of the old proprietors 
restored, and it was soon known that Catholics 
all over the country were forming themselves 
into committees or societies, and were electing 
representatives .for a great Catholic convention 
at Dublin. The riots and outrages of the Peep 
of Day Boys and Defenders had embittered the 
feeling on both sides. . . . Members of one or 
other creed were attacked and insulted as they 
went to their places of worship. There were 
fights on the high roads, at fairs, wakes, markets, 
and country sports, and there were occasionally 
crimes of a much deeper dye. ... In September 
1795 riots broke out in this county [.Armaghl, 
which continued for some days, but at length 
the parish priest on the one side, and a gentle- 
man named Atkinson on the other, succeeded in 
so far appeasing the quarrel that the combatants 
formally agreed to a truce, and were about to 
retire to their homes, when a new party of De- 
fenders, who had marched from the adjoining 
counties to the assistance of their brethren, ap- 
peared upon the scene, and on September 21 they 
attacked the Protestants at a place called the 
Diamond. The Catholics on this occasion were 
certainly the aggressors, and they appear to have 
considerably outnumbered their antagonists, but 
the Protestants were better posted, better armed, 
and better organised. A serious conflict ensued, 
and the Catholics were completely defeated, leav- 
ing a large number — probably twenty or thirty 
— dead upon the field. It was on the evening 
of the day on which the battle of the Diamond 
was fought, that the Orange Society w.-is formed. 
It was at first a league of mutual defence, bind- 
ing its members to maintain the laws and the 
peace of the country, and also the Protestant 
Constitution. No Catholic was to be admitted into 
the society, and the members were bound by oath 


IRELAND, 1799-1800 

Legiiiative Union 
with Greai Britain 

IRELAND, 1799-1800 

not to reveal its secrets. The doctrine of Fitz- 
gibbon, that the King, by assenting to CathoUc 
emancipation, would invaUdate his title to the 
throne, was remarkably reflected in the oath of 
the Oiangemen, which bound them to defend 
the King and his heirs, 'so long as he or they 
support the Protestant ascendency.' The society 
took its name from William of Orange, the con- 
queror of the Catholics, and it agreed to celebrate 
annually the battle of the Boyne. . . . The ani- 
mosities between the lower orders of the two re- 
ligions, which had long be^-n little bridled, burst 
out afresh, and after the battle of the Diamond 
the Protestant rabble of the county of .'\rmagh, 
and of part of the adjoining counties, determined 
by continuous outrages to drive the Catholics 
from the country. Their cabins were placarded, 
or, as it was termed, 'papered,' with the words, 
'To hell or Connaught,' and if the occupants did 
not at once abandon them, they were attacked at 
night by an armed mob. The webs and looms 
of the poor Catholic weavers were cut and de- 
stroyed Every article of furniture was shat- 
tered or burnt. The houses were often set on 
hre, and the inmates were driven homeless into 
the world. The rioters met with scarcely any 
resistance or disturbance. Twelve or fourteen 
houses were sometimes wrecked in a single night. 
Several Catholic chapels were burnt, and the per- 
secution, which began in the county of Armagh, 
soon extended over a wide area in the counties 
of Tyrone, Down, .^ntrim, and Derry. . . . The 
outrages continued with little abatement through 
a great part of the following year." — W. E. H. 
Lecky, History of England in the eighteenth cen- 
tury, V. 7, ch. 27. — ^See also Ulster: 1791- 


1799-1800. — Legislative union with Great 
Britain.^"No sooner had the rebellion been sup- 
pressed than the Government proposed, to the 
Parliament of each country, the union of Great 
Britain and Ireland under a common legislature. 
This was no new idea. It had frequently been 
in the minds of successive generations of statesmen 
on both sides of the Channel; but had not yet 
been seriously discussed with a view to immediate 
action. Nothing could have been more safely 
predicted than that Ireland must, sooner or later, 
follow the precedent of Scotland, and yield her 
pretensions to a separate legislation. The meas- 
ures of 1782, which appeared to establish the leg- 
islative independence of Ireland, really proved the 
vanity of such a pretension. ... On the assen:>- 
bling of the British Parliament at the commence- 
ment of the year [r7g9], the question of the 
Union was recommended by a message from the 
Crown; and the address, after some opposition, 
was carried without a division. Pitt, at this, 
the earliest stage, pronounced the decision at which 
the Government had arrived to be positive and 
irrevocable. . . . Lord Cornwallis [then lord lieu- 
tenant of Ireland] also expressed his conviction 
that union was the only measure which could 
preser\'e the country. . . . the Irish Houses as- 
sembled; and the Viceroy's speech, of course, con- 
tained a paragraph relative to the project. The 
House of Lords, completely under the control 
of the Castle, agreed to an address in conformity 
with the speech, after a short and languid debate, 
by a large majority; but the Commons were 
violently agitated. ... An amendment to the ad- 
dress pledging the House to maintain the Union 
was lost by one vote, after the House had sat 
twenty-one hours; but, on the report, the amend- 
ment to omit the paragraph referring to the 
ynion was carried by a majority of four. . . . 

When it was understood that the Government 

was in earnest . . . there was little difficulty in 
alarming a people among whom the machinery 
of pohtical agitation had, for some years, been 
extensively organised. The bar of Dublin took 
the lead, and it at once became evident that the 
policy of the Government had effected a union 
among Irishmen far more formidable than that 
which all the efforts of sedition had been able 
to accomplish. The meeting of the bar included 
not merely men of different religious persuasions, 
but, what was of more importance in Ireland, 
men of different sides in politics. . . . However 
conclusive the argument in favour of Union may 
appear to Englishmen, it was difficult for an Irish- 
man to regard the Union in any other view than, 
as a measure to deprive his country of her in- 
dependent constitution, and to extinguish her na- 
tional existence. Mr. Foster, the Speaker, took 
this view. . . . Sir John Parnell, the Chancellor of 
the Exchequer, followed the Speaker. Mr. Fitz- 
gerald, the Prime Sergeant, a law officer of the 
Crown, was on the same side. Ponsonby, the 
leader of the Whigs, was vehement against the 
scheme; so was Grattan ; so was Curran. Great 
efforts were made by the Government to quiet 
the Protestants, and to engage the Catholics to 
support the Union. These efforts were so far 
successful that most of the Orange lodges were 
persuaded to refrain from expressing any opinion 
on the subject. The Catholic hierarchy were con- 
ciliated by the promise of a provision for the 
clergy, and of an adjustment of the Tithe ques- 
tion. Hopes were held out, if promises were not 
actually made, to the Catholic community, that 
their civil disabilities would be removed. ... If 
the Union was to be accomplished by constitutional 
means, it could be effected only by a vote of 
the Irish Parliament, concurring with a vote of 
the English Parliament. . . . The vote on the ad- 
dress was followed, in a few days, by an address 
to the Crown, in which the Commons pledged 
themselves to maintain the constitution of 1782. 
The majority in favour of national independence 
had already increased from five to twenty. . . . 
The votes of the Irish Commons had disposed of 
the question for the current session ; but prepara- 
tions were immediately made for its future pas- 
sage through the Irish Houses. The foremost 
men in Ireland . . . had first been tempted, but 
had indignantly refused ever>- offer to betray the 
independence of their country. Another class 
of leading persons w-as then tried, and from these, 
for the most part, evasive answers were received. 
The minister understood the meaning of these 
dubious utterances. There was one mode of 
carrying the Union, and one mode only. Bribery 
of every kind must be employed without hesita- 
tion and without stint." — W. Massey, History of 
England, reign of George III, v. 4, ch. 38. — "Lord 
Cornwallis had to work the system of 'negotiating 
and jobbing,' by promising an Irish Peerage, or 
a hft in that Peerage, or even an English Peer- 
age, to a crowd of eager competitors for honours. 
The other specific for making converts was not 
yet in complete operation. Lord Castlereagh [the 
Irish chief secretary] had the plan in his port- 
folio: — borough proprietors to be compensated; 
. . . fifty barristers in parliament, who always 
considered a seat as the road to preferment, to be 
compensated ; the purchasers of seats to be com- 
pensated; individuals connected either by residence 
of property with Dublin to be compensated. 'Lord 
Castlereagh considered that £1,500,000 would be 
required to effect all these compensations.' The 
sum actually paid to the borough-mongers alone 


IRELAND, 1799-1800 


IRELAND, 1801-1803 

was ii, 260,000. Fifteen thousand pounds were 
allotted to each borough; and 'was apportioned 
amongst the various patrons.' ... It had become 
a contest of bribery on both sides. There was 
an 'Opposition stock-purse,' as Lord Castlereagh 
describes the fund against which he was to 
struggle with the deeper purse at Whitehall. 
. . . During the administration of Lord Corn- 
wallis, 29 Irish Peerages were created; of which 
seven only were unconnected with the question 
of Union. Si.x English Peerages were granted on 
account of IrLsh services; and there were ig pro- 
motions in the Irish Peerage, earned by similar 
assistance." The question of Union was virtually 
decided in the Irish House of Commons on the 
0th of February, 1800. Lord Castlereagh, on the 
previous day, had read a message from the Lord 
Lieutenant, communicating resolutions adopted by 
the Parliament of Great Britain in the previous 
year. "The question was debated from four o'clock 
in the afternoon of 'the 5th to one o'clock in 
the afternoon of the 6th. During that time the 
streets of Dublin were the scene of a great riot, 
and the peace of the city was maintained only by 
troops of cavalry. ... On the division of the 
oth there was a majority of 43 in favour of the 
Union." It was not, however, until the 7th of 
June, that the final legislative enactment — the 
Union Bill — was passed in the Irish House of 
Commons. The first article provided "that the 
kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland should, 
upon the 1st of Januar>', 1801, be united into 
one kingdom, by the name of The United King- 
ilom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United 
Kingdom was to be represented in one and the 
same parliament. In the United Parliament there 
were to be 28 temporal Peers, elected for life 
by the Irish Peerage; and four spiritual Peers, 
Inking their places in rotation. There were to 
be 100 members of the Lower House ; each county 
returning two, as well as the cities of Dublin 
and Cork. The University returned one, and 
31 boroughs each returned one. Of these 
boroughs 23 remained close boroughs till the Re- 
form Bill of 1831. . . . The Churches of England 
and Ireland were to be united. The proportion 
of revenue to be leviecT was fi.\ed at fifteen for 
Great Britain and two for Ireland, for the suc- 
ceeding twenty years. Countervailing duties upon 
imports to each country were fixed by a minute 
tariff, but some commercial restrictions were to 
be removed." — C. BCnight, Popular history oj Eng- 
land. V. 7, ch. 21. — "If the Irish Parliament had 
consisted mainly, or to any appreciable extent, 
of men who were disloyal to the connection, and 
whose sympathies were on the side of rebellion 
or with the enemies of England, the English Min- 
isters would, I think, have been amply justified 
in employing almost any means to abolish it. . . . 
But it cannot be too clearly understood or too 
emphatically stated, that the legislative Union 
was not an act of this nature. The Parliament 
which was abolished was a Parliament of the 
most unqualified loyalists; it had shown itself 
ready to make every sacrifice in its power for 
the maintenance of the Empire, and from the 
time when Arthur O'Connor and Lord Edward 
Fitzgerald passed beyond its walls, it probably 
did not contain a single man who was really 
disaffected. ... It must be added, that it was 
becoming evident that the relation between the 
two countries established by the Constitution of 
1782 could not have continued unchanged. . . . 
Even with the best dispositions, the Consti- 
tution of 1782 involved many and grave probabil- 
ities of difference. . . . Sooner or later the corrupt 

borough ascendency must have broken down, and 
it was a grave question what was to succeed it. 
... An enormous increase of disloyalty and re- 
ligious animosity had taken place during the last 
years of the century, and it added immensely 
to the danger of the democratic Catholic suffrage, 
which the Act of 1793 had called into existence. 
This was the strongest argument for hurrying 
on the Union; but when all due weight is as- 
signed to it, it does not appear to me to have 
justified the policy of Pitt. "— VV. E. H. Lecky, 
History oj England in the eighteenth century, v. 
8, ch. 32. 

Also in: T. D. Ingram, History of the legisla- 
tive union. — R. Hassencamp, History of Ireland, 
ch. 14. — Marquis Cornwallis, Correspondence, v. 
2-3, ch. 19-21. — Viscount Castlereagh, Memoirs and 
correspondence, v. 2-3. 

1801. — Pitt's promise of Catholic emancipa- 
tion broken by the king. See England; 1801- 

1801-1803. — Emmet's insurrection. — "Lord 
Hardwicke succeeded Lord Cornwallis as viceroy 
in May [1801]; and for two years, so far as the 
British public knew, Ireland was undisturbed. 
The harvest of 1801 was abundant. The island 
was occupied by a military force of 125,000 men. 
Distant rumours of disturbances in Limerick, Tip- 
perary, and Waterford were faintly audible. 
Imports and exports increased. The debt increased 
hkewise, but, as it was met by loans and un- 
controlled by any public a.ssembly, no one pre- 
tested, and few were aware of the fact. Landlords 
and middlemen throve on high rents, and peasants 
as yet could live. . . . Early in 1803 the murmurs 
in the southwest became louder. Visions of a 
fixed price for potatoes began to shape them- 
selves, and the invasion of 'strangers' ready to 
take land from which tenants had been ejected 
was resisted. The magistrates urged the viceroy 
to obtain and e.xercise the powers of the Insur- 
rection Act; but the evil was not thought of 
sufficient magnitude, and their request was refused. 
Amidst the general calm, the insurrection of Rob- 
ert Emmctt in July broke like a bolt from the 
blue. .\ young republican visionary, whose 
brother had taken an active part in the rebellion, 
he had inspired a few score comrades with the 
quixotic hope of rekindling Irish nationality by 
setting up a factory of pikes on a back street of 
Dublin. On the eve of St. James's Day, Quigley, 
one of his associates, who had been sowing vague 
hopes among the villagers of Kildare, brought 
a mixed crowd into Dublin. When the evening 
fell, a sky-rocket was fired. Emmctt and his little 
band sallied from Marshalsea Lane into St. 
James's Street, and distributed pikes to all who 
would take them. The disorderly mob thus 
armed proceeded to the debtors' prison, which 
they attacked, killing the officer who defend^'d 
it. Emmett urged them on to the Castle. They 
followed, in a confused column, utterly beyond 
his power to control. On their way they fell in 
with the carriage of the Chief Justice, Lord Kil- 
warden, dragged him out, and killed him. By 
this time a few- handjuls of troops had been col- 
lected. In half an hour two subalterns, with 
fifty soldiers each, had dispersed the whole gather- 
ing. By ten o'clock all was over, with the loss 
of 20 soldiers and 50 insurgents. Emmctt and 
Russell, another of the leaders who had under- 
taken the agitation of Down and .\ntrim. were 
shortly afterwards taken and executed ; Quigley 
escaped. . . . Emmett died as Shelley would have 
died, a martyr and an enthusiast; but he knew 
little of bis countrymen's condition, little of their 


IRELAND, 1811-1829 

O'Connell and 
Catholic Emancipation 

IRELAND, 1811-1829 

aspirations, nothing of their needs." — J. H. Bridges, 
Two ceiiluries of Irish history, pt. 3, ch. 2. 

Also in: R. R. Madden, United Irishmen, their 
lives and times, v. 3. — J. Wills, History of Ireland 
in the lives of Irishmen, v. 6, pp. 68-80. 

1811-1829. — O'Connell and agitation for 
Catholic emancipation and repeal of Union. — 
Catholic disabilities removed. — "There is much 
reason to believe that almost from the commence- 
ment of his career" Daniel O'Connell, the great 
Irish agitator, "formed one vast scheme of policy 
which he pursued through life with little devia- 
tion, and, it must be added, with little scruple. 
This scheme was to create and lead a public spirit 
among the Roman Catholics; to wrest emanci- 
pation by this means from the Government; to 
perpetuate the agitation created for that pur- 
pose till the Irish Parliament had been restored; 
to disendow the Established Church; and thus 
to open in Ireland a new era, with a separate 
and independent Parliament and perfect religious 
equality. It would be difficult to conceive a 
scheme of policy exhibiting more daring. . . . 
Several times the movement was menaced by 

ernment. These early societies, however, all sink 
into insignificance compared with that great 
Catholic Association which was formed in 1824. 
The avowed objects of this society were to pro- 
mote religious education, to ascertain the nu- 
merical strength of the different religions, and 
to answer the charges against the Roman Cath- 
olics ernbodied in the hostile petitions. It also 
'recommended' petitions (unconnected with the 
society) from every parish, and aggregate meet- 
ings in every county. The real object was to 
form a gigantic system of organisation, ramifying 
over the entire country, and directed in every 
parish by the priests, for the purpose of petition- 
ing and in every other way agitating in favour 
of emancipation. The Catholic Rent [a system 
of small subscriptions — as small as a penny a 
month — collected from the poorest contributors, 
throughout Ireland] was instituted at this time, 
and it formed at once a ppwerful instrument of 
cohesion and a faithful barometer of the popular 
feeling. . . . The success of the Catholic Associa- 
tion became every week more striking. The rent 
rose with an extraordinary rapidity [from £350 

■^^^ ;:■ ■ 


M ^ ' 

■ %;0%^ 


^HvkN^SK^x , S^ 

Km\^ '^^^Sjtfy tB^. 

^BBL \ "-^ ^^BJ^ktt 

flB^^ '>^ ' '--' MKHUk 

^Hfl^^^HlH ^■HH^HIHS 

^^^B^ ^''' -i^^^^H^I 




Government proclamations and prosecutions. Its 
great difficulty was to bring the public opinion 
of the whole body of the Roman Catholics actively 
and habitually into the question. . . . All pre- 
ceding movements since the Revolution (except 
the passing excitement about Wood's halfpence) 
had been chiefly among the Protestants or among 
the higher order of the Catholics. The mass of 
the people had taken no real interest in politics, 
had felt no real pain at their disabilities, and 
were politically the willing slaves of their land- 
lords. For the first time, under the influence of 
O'Connell, the great swell of a really democratic 
movement was felt. The simplest way of con- 
centrating the new enthusiasm would have been 
by a system of delegates, but this had been ren- 
dered illegal by the Convention Act. On the 
other hand, the right of petitioning was one of 
the fundamental privileges of the constitution. 
By availing himself of this right O'Connell con- 
trived, with the dexterity of a practised lawyer, 
to violate continually the spirit of the Conven- 
tion Act, while keeping within the letter of the 
law. Proclamation after proclamation was 
launched against his society, but by continually 
changing its name and its form he generally suc- 
ceeded in evading the prosecutions of the Gov- 

a week in October to £700 a week in December, 
1824]. The meetings in every county grew more 
and more enthusiastic, the triumph of priestly 
influence more and more certain. The Gov- 
ernment made a feeble and abortive effort to 
arrest the storm by threatening both O'Connell and 
Shell [Richard Lalor] with prosecution for cer- 
tain passages in their speeches. . . . The forma- 
tion, of the Wellington Ministry [Wellington and 
Peel, 1828] seemed effectually to crush the present 
hopes of the Catholics, for the stubborn resolu- 
tion of its leader was as well known as his Tory 
opinions. Yet this Ministry was destined to termi- 
nate the contest by establishing the principle of 
religious equality. ... On the accession of the 
Wellington Ministry to power the Catholic As- 
sociation passed a resolution to the effect that 
they would oppose with their whole energy any 
Irish member who consented to accept office under 
it. . . . .\n oportunity for carrying the resolution 
into effect soon occurred. Mr. Fitzgerald, the 
member for Clare, accepted the office of Presi- 
dent of the Board of Trade, and was consequently 
obliged to go to his constituents for re-election." 
O'Connell entered the lists against him. "The 
excitement at this announcement rose at once 
to fever height. It extended over every part of 


IRELAND, 1811-1829 ;va,,w"/c/f "alt" ^c, IRELAND. 1840-1841 

Ireland, and penetrated every class of society. The 
whole mass of the Roman Catholics prepared 
to support him, and the vast system ol organisa- 
tion which he had framed acted effectually in 
every direction." For the first time, the land- 
lords found that the voting of their tenants 
could not be controlled. Fitzgerald withdrew 
from the contest and O'Connell was elected. 
"Ireland was now on the very verge of revolu- 
tion, The whole mass of the people had been 
organised like a regular army, and taught to act 
with the most perfect unanimity. . . . The Min- 
isters, feeling further resistance to be hopeless, 
brought in the Emancipation Bill, confessedly be- 
cause to withhold it would be to kindle a rebel- 
lion that would extend over the length and 
breadth of the land." — W. E. H. Lecky, Leaders of 
public opinion in Ireland: O'Connell. — "Peel in- 
troduced the Relief Bill on the slh March [1S29]. 
... In its main provisions it was thorough and 
far-reaching. It admitted the Roman Catholic 
to Parliament, and to all lay offices under the 
Crown, except those of Regent, Lord Chancellor, 
whether of England or of Ireland, and Lord Lieu- 
tenant. It repealed the oath of abjuration, it 
modil'ied the oath of supremacy. ... It appro.xi- 
matcd the Irish to the English county franchise 
by abolishing the forty-shilling freeholder, and 
raising the voters' ciualifications to iio. All 
monasteries and institutions of Jesuits were sup- 
pressed; and Roman Catholic bishops were forbid- 
den to a.'^ume titles of sees already held by bishops 
of the Church of Ireland. Municipal and other 
officials were forbidden to wear the insignia 
of their office at Roman Catholic ceremonies. 
Lastly, the new Oath of Supremacy was available 
only for persons thereafter to be elected to Par- 
liament" — which nullified O'Connell's election at 
Clare. This petty stroke of malice is said to have 
been introduced in the bill for the gratification 
of the king. The vote in the Commons on the 
Bill wai 353 against 180, and in the Lords 217 
to 112. It received the Royal assent on the 13th 
of April. — J. A. Hamilton, Life of Daniel O'Connell, 
ch. s. 

Also in: J. McCarthy, Sir Robert Peel, ch. 2-7. 
— VV. J. Fitzpatrick, Correspondence of Daniel 
O'Connell, with notices of his life and times, v. 
I, ch. 1-5. — W. J. .Xmherst, History of Catholic 
emancipation. — W. C, Taylor, Life and times of 
Sir Robert Peel, v. i, cti. 16-18, v. 2, ch. 1-2. 

1820-1870. — Rise of Ribbon Society. — 
"Throughout the half-century extending from 1820 
to 1870, a secret oath-bound agrarian confederacy, 
known as the 'Ribbon Society,' was the constant 
affliction and recurring terror of the landed classes 
of Ireland. ... In Ulster it professed to be a de- 
fensive or retaliatory league against Orangeism. 
In Munster it was at first a combination against 
tithe-proctors. In Connaught it was an organi- 
sation against rack-renting and evictions. In 
Leinster it often was mere trade-unionism. . . . 
The Ribbon Society seems to have been wholly 
confined to small farmers, cottiers, labourers, and, 
in the towns, petty shop-keepers, in whose houses 
the 'lodges' were held. . . . Although from the in- 
ception, or first appearance, of Ribbonism the Cath- 
olic clergy waged a determined war upon it . . . the 
society was exclusively Catholic. Under no cir- 
cumstances would a Protestant be admitted to 
membership. . . . The name Ribbon Society' was 
not attached to it until about 1826. It was pre- 
viously known as 'Liberty Men'; the 'Religious 
Liberty System'; the 'United Sons of Irish Free- 
dom"; 'Sons of the Shamrock'; and by other 
names. . . . There was a period when Ribbon out- 

rages had, at all events, a conceivable provoca- 
tion; but there came a time when they sickened 
the public conscience by their wantonness. The 
vengeance of the society was ruthless and terrible. 
. . . From 183s to 1855 the Ribbon organisation 
was at its greatest strength. . . . With the emigra- 
tion of the labouring classes it was carried abroad, 
to England and to America. At one time the 
most formidable lodges were in Lancashire." — A. 
M. Sullivan, A'eui Ireland, ch. 4. 

1830-1836. — Poor relief. — Infirmary system. — 
Dispensaries. — Spring Rice Committee. — Dub- 
lin Mendicity Institution. Sec Cii.\ninEs: Ire- 
land; 1S30-1836. 

1831. — National Education Act.— "In 1830 
Stanley, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, drew 
up a very extensive plan for Primary Education. 
A central Board was to be established in Dub- 
lin, consisting of Commissioners, of whom a third 
were to be Catholics. (This was sub.sequently 
changed to one half.) These were to administer 
the Government grant, and arrange all details 
regarding the schools. Primao' schools were to 
be built all over the country. The cost of these, 
as well as the salary of the teachers, should be 
paid by the State. Children of all creeds should 
be received in the schools (it was not, however, 
till 1892 that the Compulsory Attendance Act was 
passed), and taught secular subjects together. 
At stated times, the ministers of each religion 
should attend and give religious instruction apart 
to the pupils of their own persuasion. These 
proposals were embodied in a Bill, which passed 
successfully through Parhament (1831). On the 
whole it was well received, both by the author- 
ities of the Catholic Church and by the laity. . . . 
There can be no doubt that 'National Education' 
has done much good in Ireland. The propor- 
tion of illiterates amongst the population has 
steadily diminished, and the poor Irishman seek- 
ing employment no longer finds his chances of 
obtaining it diminished by his inability to read, 
write, or cypher. On the other hand, the system 
had grave defects. The most serious of all was, 
not the lack merely to encourage, but the sys- 
tematic attempt to discourage Nationality, and 
Patriotism amongst the pupils." — M. T. Hayden 
and G. A. Moonan, Short history of the Irish 
people, pp. 487-488. — See also Education; Modern; 
19th century: Ireland. 

1832. — Parliamentary representation increased 
by Reform Bill. See En-gl.\nu; 1830-1832. 

1838. — Poor law. See Charities: Ireland: 1838- 

1838. — First agricultural college. See Educa- 
tion, Agricultural: Ireland. 

1840-1841. — Discontent with results of the 
Union. — Condition of people. — National Schools. 
— Teetotalism. — O'Connell's revival of agitation 
for repeal. — "The Catholics were at length eman- 
cipated in 1829. ... On the passing of the Eman- 
cipation -Act not a single Catholic was admitted to 
an office of authority, great or small. . . . The 
Catholic Association, which had won the vic- 
tory, was rewarded for its public spirit by being 
dissolved by Act of Parliament. iLs leader, who 
had been elected to the House of Commons, 
had his election declared void by a phrase im- 
ported into the Emancipation .Act for this special 
purpose. The forty-shilling freeholders, whose 
courage and magnanimity had made the cause 
irresistible, were immediately deprived of the fran- 
chise. By means of a high qualification and an 
ingeniously complicated system of registry, the 
electors in twelve counties were reduced from up- 
wards of 100,000 to less than 10,000. . . . Emanci- 


IRELAND, 1840-1841 

Agitation for 
Repeal of Union 

IRELAND, 1841-1848 

pation was speedily followed by a Reform of 
the House of Commons. In England a sweep- 
ing and salutary change was made both in the 
franchise, and in the distribution of seats; but 
Ireland did not obtain either the number of 
representatives she was demonstrably entitled to 
by population and resources, or such a reduction 
of the franchise as had been conceded to England. 
The Whigs were in power, and Ireland was well- 
disposed to the party. . , . But the idea of treat- 
ing Ireland on perfectly equal terms, and giving her 
the full advantage of the Union which had been 
forced on her, did not exist in the mind of a 
single statesman of that epoch. In 1840-1 
O'Connell revived the question of Repeal, on the 
ground that the Union had wholly failed to ac- 
complish the end for which it was said to be 
designed. Instead of bringing Ireland prosperity, 
it had brought her ruin. The social condition of 
the country during the half-century, then draw- 
ing to a close was, indeed, without parallel in 
Europe. The whole population were dependent 
on agriculture. There were minerals, but none 
found in what miners call 'paying quantities.' 
There was no manufacture except linen, and the 
remnant of a woollen trade, slowly dying out 
before the pitiless competition of Yorkshire. What 
the island chiefly produced was food; which was 
exported to richer countries to enable the culti- 
vator to pay an inordinate rent. ... In 1842 
half a million of children were receiving education 
in the National Schools under a system designed to 
establish religious equality, and administered by 
Catholic and Protestant Commissioners. And 
the Teetotal movement was at its height. Thou- 
sands were accepting every week a pledge of total 
abstinence from Father Mathew, a young priest 
whom the gifts of nature and the accidents of 
fortune combined to qualify for the mission of a 
Reformer. . . There was the beginning of politi- 
cal reforms also The Whigs sent a Lord Lieu- 
tenant and Chief Secretary to Ireland who, for 
the first time since the fall of Limerick, treated 
the bulk of the nation as the social and political 
equals of the minority. The minority had been 
so long accustomed to make and administer the 
laws, and to occupy the places of authority and 
distinction, that they regarded the change as a 
revolt ; and Lord Mulgrave and Thomas Drum- 
mond as the successors of Tyrconnel and Nugent. 
In the interval, since Emancipation, a few Cath- 
olics were elected to Parliament, two Catholic 
lawyers were raised to the bench, and smaller 
appointments distributed among laymen. . . . The 
exclusion of Catholics from juries was restrained, 
and the practice of appointing partisans of too 
shameful antecedents to public functions was in- 
terrupted. ... It was under these circumstances 
that O'Connell for the second time summoned the 
Irish people to demand a Repeal of the Union" 
— C. G. Duffy, Bird's-eye view of Irish history, pp. 

Also in: E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield, 
Two centuries of Irish history, pt. 4. ch. 1-2. — 
R. M. Martin, Ireland before and after the Union. 

1841-1848.— O'Connell's last agitation.— His 
trial, imprisonment and release. — His death. — 
"Young Ireland" party and its rebellion. — In 
1841, O'Connell "left England and went to Ireland, 
and devoted himself there to the work of organi- 
zation. A succession of monster meetings were 
held all over the country, the far-famed one 
on Tara Hill being, as is credibly as,serted, attended 
by no less than a quarter of a million of people. 
. . . Resistance he had always steadily denounced, 
yet every day his own words seemed to be bring- 

ing the inevitable moment of collision nearer and 
nearer. The crisis came on October the 5th. A 
meeting had been summoned to meet at Clontarf, 
near Dublin, and on the afternoon of the 4th the 
Government suddenly came to the resolution of 
issuing a proclamation forbidding it to assemble. 
The risk was a formidable one for responsible 
men to run. Many of the people were already 
on their way, and only O'Connell's own rapid 
and vigorous measures in sending out in all di- 
rections to intercept them hindered the actual 
shedding of blood. His prosecution and that of 
some of his principal adherents was the next im- 
portant event. By a Dublin jury he was found 
guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, 
and conveyed to prison, still earnestly entreating 
the people to remain quiet, an order which they 
strictly obeyed. The jury by which he had 
been condemned was known to be strongly 
biassed against him, and an appeal had been for- 
warded against his sentence to the House of 
Lords. So strong there, too, was the feeling 
against O'Connell, that little expectation was en- 
tertained of its being favourably received. Greatly 
to its honour, however, the sentence was re-' 
versed and he was set free. , . . The enthusiasm 
shown at his release was frantic and delirious. 
None the less those months in Richmond prison 
proved the death-knell of his power. He was 
an old man by this time; he was already weak- 
ened in health, and that buoyancy which had 
hitherto carried him over any and every obstacle 
never again revived. The 'Young Ireland' party, 
the members of which had in the first instance 
been his allies and lieutenants, had now formed 
a distinct section, and upon the vital question of 
resistance were in fierce hostility to all his most 
cherished principles. The state of the country, 
too, preyed visibly upon his mind. By 1846 had 
begun that succession of disastrous seasons which, 
by destroying the feeble barrier which stood 
between the peasant and a cruel death, brought 
about a national tragedy. . . . This tragedy, 
though he did not live to see the whole of it, 
O'Connell — himself the incarnation of the people — 
felt acutely. Deep despondency took hold of 
him. He retired, to a great degree, from public 
life, leaving the conduct of his organization in 
the hands of others. ... In 1847 he resolved to 
leave Ireland, and to end his days in Rome. His 
last public appearance was in the House of Com- 
mons. ... In a few deeply moving words he 
appealed for aid and sympathy for his suffering 
countrymen, and left the House. 

"The camp and council chamber of the 'Young 
Ireland' party was the editor's room of 'The 
Nation' newspaper. There it found its inspiration, 
and there its plans were matured — so far, that is, as 
they can be said to have been ever matured. . . . 
The whole movement in fact was, in the first in- 
stance, a literary quite as much as a political one. 
Nearly all who took part in it — Gavan Duffy, John 
Mitchell, Meagher, Dillon, Davis himself — were very 
young men, many fresh from college, all filled 
with zeal for the cause of liberty and nationality. 
The graver side of the movement only showed 
itself when the struggle with O'Connell began. 
At first no idea of deposing, or even seriously 
opposing the great leader seems to have been 
intended. The attempt on O'Connell's part to 
carry a formal declaration against the employment 
under any circumstances of physical force was the 
origin of that division; and what the younger 
spirits considered 'truckling to the Whigs' helped 
to widen the breach. When, too, O'Connell had 
partially retired into the background, his place 


IRELAND, 1841-1848 

"Yonni; Ireland" 
Devon Commission 

IRELAND, 1844 

was filled by his son, John O'Conncll, the 'Head 
conciliator,' between whom and the 'Younj; Ire- 
landers' there waged a fierce war, which in the 
end led to the indignant withdrawal of the latter 
from the kei>eal council. Before matters reached 
this point, the younger camp had been strength- 
ened by the adhesion of Smith O'Brien, who, 
though not a man of much intellectual calibre, 
carried no little weight in Ireland. . . . Early in 
January, 1S47, O'Connell left on that journey of 
his which was never completed, and by the mid- 
dle of May Ireland was suddenly startled by the 
news hjr great leader was dead. The effect 
of his death was to produce a sudden and im- 
mense reaction. . . . Upon the 'Young Ireland' 
party, as was inevitable, the weight of that anger 
fell chiefly, and from the moment of O'Connell's 
death whatever claim they had to call themselves 
a national party vanished utterly. The men 
'who killed the Liberator' could never again hope 
to carry with them the suffrages of any number 
of their countrymen. This contumely, to a great 
degree undeserved, naturally reacted upon the 
subjects of it The taunt of treachery and in- 
gratitude flung at them wherever they went stung 
and nettled. In the general reaction of gratitude 
and affection for O'Connell, his son John suc- 
ceeded easily to the position of leader. The 
older members of the Repeal Association there- 
upon rallied about him, and the split between 
them and the younger men grew deeper and 
wider. A wild, impracticable visionary now came 
to play a part in the movement. A deformed 
misanthrope, called James Lalor, endowed with 
a considerable command of vague, passionate 
rhetoric, began to write incentives to revolt in 
'The Nation.' These growing more and more 
violent were by the editor at length prudently 
suppressed. The seed, however, had already sown 
itself in another mind. John Mitchell . . . broke 
away from his connection with 'The Nation,' and 
started a new organ under the name of 'The 
United Irishmen,' one definitely pledged from the 
first to the policy of action. . . . Mitchell's news- 
paper proceeded to fling out challenge after chal- 
lenge to the Government, calling upon the people 
to gather and to 'sweep this island clear of the 
English name and nation.' For some months 
these challenges remained unanswered. It was 
now, however, ' '48,' and nearly all Europe was 
in revolution. The necessity of taking some step 
began to be evident, and a Bill making all writ- 
ten incitement of insurrection felony was hurried 
through the House of Commons, and almost im- 
mediately after Mitchell was arrested He 

was tried in Dublin, found guilty, sentenced to 
fourteen years' transportation, and a few days 
afterwards put on board a vessel in the harbour 
and conveyed to Spike Island, whence he was 
sent to Bermuda, and the following April in a 
convict vessel to the Cape, and finally to Tas- 
mania. The other 'Young Irelanders,' stung ap- 
parently by their own previous inaction, thereupon 
rushed frantically into rebellion. The leaders — 
Smith O'Brien, Meagher, Dillon, and others — went 
about the country holding reviews of 'Confeder- 
ates,' as they now called themselves, a proceed- 
ing which caused the Government to suspend 
the Habeas Corpus Act, and to issue a warrant 
for their arrest. A few more gatherings took 
place in different parts of the country, a few 
more ineffectual attempts were made to induce 
the people to rise, one very small collision with 
the police occurred, and then the whole thing 
was over .All the leaders in the course of a 
few days were arrested and Smith O'Brien and 

Meagher were sentenced to death, a sentence 
which was speedily changed into transportation. 
Gavan Duffy was arrested and several times tried, 
but the jury always disagreed, and in the end 
his prosecution was abandoned. The 'Yoi'ig Ire- 
land' movement, however, was dead, and never 
again revived." — E. Lawless, Story oj Ireland, ch. 

Also in: C. G. Duffy, Young Ireland. — Idem, 
Four years of Irish history . — Idem, Thomas Davis: 
Memoirs oj an Irish patriot. 

1843-1848. — Devon Commission. — Encumbered 
Estates Act.- -In 1S43, Mr. Sharman Crawford 
"succeeded in obtaining the appointment of a 
Royal Commission to investigate the 'occupation 
of land in Ireland.' This Commission, known 
from its chairman, Lord Devon, as the Devon 
Commission, marks a great epoch in the Irish land 
question. The Commissioners, in their Report, 
brought out strongly the facts that great misery 
existed in Ireland, and that the cause of the 
misery was the system of land tenure. . . . .And 
the remedy for the evil is to be found, con- 
tinues the Report, in 'an increased and improved 
cultivation of the soil," to be gained by securing 
for the tenant 'fair remuneration for the outlay 
of his capital and labour.' N'o sooner was this 
Report issued than great numbers of petitions 
were presented to the House of Lords, and sup- 
ported by Lord Devon, praying for legislative 
reform of the land evils; and in June, 1845, a 
bill was introduced into the House of Lords by 
Lord Stanley, on behalf of the government of 
Sir Robert Peel, for 'the purpose of providing 
compensation to tenants in Ireland, in certain 
cases, on being dispossessed of their holdings, 
for such improvements as they may have made 
during their tenancy.' By the selfish opposition 
of the Irish landlords this bill was thrown out. 
Two days after its rejection in the House of 
Lords Mr. Sharman Crawford brought into the 
House of Commons a Tenant Right Bill, and 
met with as little success. [See also England: 
1846.] In 1846 a government bill was introduced, 
bearing a strong resemblance to that of Lord 
Stanley ; but the ministry was overthrown, and 
the bill was dropped. ... In 1847 the inde- 
fatigable Mr. Crawford brought in a bill, whose 
purpose was to extend the Ulster custom to the 
whole of Ireland; it was thrown out. .\ well- 
meant but in the end unsucce.ssful attempt to 
relieve the burdens of embarras.sed landlords with- 
out redressing the grievances of rack-rented ten- 
ants, was made in 1848 by the measure well known 
as the Encumbered Estates Act. This .Act had for 
its object to restore capital to the land ; but with 
capital it brought in a class of proprietors who 
lacked the virtues as well as the vices of their 
predecessors, and were even more oppressive to 
the tenantry." — E. Thursfield, England and Ireland, 
ch. 10. 

Also in: H. L. Jephson, Notes on Irish ques- 
tions, ch. 15. — D. B. King, Irish question, ch. g. 

1844. — Maynooth grant.— Towards the close of 
the session of Parliament in 1844, Sir Robert 
Peel undertook a measure "dealing With higher 
education in Ireland. Means were to be found, 
in some way, for the education of the upper classes 
of the Irish, and for the more efficient education 
of candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood. 
. . . Trinity College retained most of its advan- 
tages for the benefit of its Protestant students, 
and the 395,000 scholars, whom the National Board 
was educating, did not, after all, include one 
person in every twenty alive in Ireland. The 
Roman Catholic, since 1793, had been allowed to 


IRELAND, 1844 

Maynooth Grant 

IRELAND, 1845-1847 

graduate at Trinity ; but he could hold neither 
scholarship nor professorship. . . . Some steps had, 
indeed, been taken for the education of the Roman 
Catholic priesthood. In 1795, Fitzwilliam had 
proposed, and his successor, Camden, had ap- 
proved, the appropriation of an annual sum of 
money to a college formed at iVIaynooth for the 
education of Roman Catholic priests. The Irish 
parliament had readily sanctioned the scheme ; the 
payment of the grant had been continued, after the 
Union, by the Parhament of the United Kingdom, 
and, though the sums voted had been re- 
duced to £9,000 a year in 1808, this amount had 
been, thenceforward regularly allotted to Maynooth. 
In some respects the grant was actually disad- 
vantageous to the college ; it was too small to 
maintain the institution; it was large enough to 
discourage voluntary contributions. The sur- 
roundings of the college were squalid ; its pro- 
fessors were wretchedly paid; it was even im- 
possible to assign to each of the 440 students a 
separate room ; it was dubbed by Macaulay, in a 
memorable speech, a 'miserable Dotheboys' Hall,' 
and it was Peel's deliberate opinion that the 
absolute withdrawal of the grant would be better 
than the continuance of the niggardly allowance." 
The Government "asked Parliament to vote a 
sum of £30,000 to improve the buildings at May- 
nooth; it proposed that the Board of Works should 
in future be responsible for keeping them in 
repair; it suggested that the salaries of pro- 
fessors should be more than doubled ; that the 
position of the students should be improved; that 
the annual grant should be raised from about 
£9,000 to about £26,000, and that this sum, in- 
stead of being subject to the approval of the 
legislature once a year, should be placed on the 
Consolidated Fund. Then arose a series of de- 
bates which have no parallel in the history of 
the British Parliament. . . . Yet, vast as was the 
storm which the Minister had provoked, the is- 
sues which he had directly raised were of the 
smallest proportions. Hardly anyone ventured to 
propose that the original vote to Maynooth should 
be withdrawn. A grant, indeed, which had been 
sanctioned by George III., which had been fixed 
by Perceval, which had been voted in an un- 
reformcd Parliament, almost without debate, and 
which had been continued for fifty years, could not 
be withdrawn. ... A majority in both Houses 
steadily supported the Minister, and zealous Protes- 
tants and old-fashioned Tories were unable to 
defeat a scheme which was proposed by Peel and 
supported by Russell." — S. Walpole, History of 
England jrom iSi;, v. 4, ch. 19. 

Also in: H. Martineau, History of the thirty 
years' peace, bk. 6, ch. 8. 

1845-1847. — Famine. — Emigration to America. 
— "In 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,175,124 
souls. By 184s it had probably reached to nearly 
nine millions. ... To any one looking beneath 
the surface the condition of the country was 
painfully precarious. Nine millions of a popula- 
tion living at best in a light-hearted and hopeful 
hand-to-mouth contentment, totally dependent on 
the hazards of one crop, destitute of manufac- 
turing industries, and utterly without reserve 
or resource to fall back upon in time of reverse; 
what did all this mean but a state of things 
critical and alarming in the extreme? Yet no 
one seemed conscious of danger. The potato 
crop had been abundant for four or five years, 
and respite from dearth and distress was com- 
parative happiness and prosperity. Moreover, the 
temperance movement [of Father Mathew] had 
come to make the 'good times' still better. Every- 

thing looked bright. No one concerned himself 
to discover how slender and treacherous was the 
foundation for this general hopefulness and con- 
fidence. Yet signs of the coming storm had been 
given. Partial famine caused by failing har- 
vests had indeed been intermittent in Ireland [1822, 
1831, 1835, 1S30, 1S37J, and, quite recently, warn- 
ings that ought not to have been mistaken or 
neglected had given notice that the esculent which 
formed the sole dependence of the peasant mil- 
lions was subject to some mysterious blight. In 
1844 it was stricken in America, but in Ireland 
the yield was healthy and plentiful as ever. . . . 
When first in the autumn of 1845 the partial blight 
appeared, wise voices were raised in warning to 
the Government that a frightful catastrophe was 
at hand; yet even then began that fatal cir- 
cumlocution and inaptness which it maddens one 
to think of. It would be utter injustice to deny 
that the Government made exertions which judged 
by ordinary emergencies would be prompt and 
considerable. But judged by the awful magnitude 
of the evil then at hand or actually befallen, 
they were fatally tardy and inadequate. When 
at length the executive did hurry, the blunders of 
precipitancy outdid the disasters of excessive de- 
liberation. ... In October 1845 the Irish Man- 
sion House Relief Committee implored the Gov- 
ernment to call Parliament together and throw 
open the ports. The Government refused. Again 
and again the terrible urgency of the case, the 
magnitude of the disaster at hand, was pressed 
on the executive. It was the obstinate refusal of 
Lord John Russell to listen to these remonstrances 
and entreaties, and the sad verification subse- 
quently of these apprehensions, that implanted 
in the Irish mind the bitter memories which still 
occasionally find vent in passionate accusation of 
'England.' Not but the Government had many 
and weighty arguments in behalf of the course 
they took. . . . The situation bristled with diffi- 
culties. ... At first the establishment of public 
soup-kitchens under local relief committees, sub- 
sidised by Government, was relied upon to arrest 
the famine." — A. M. Sullivan, New Ireland, ch. 6. 
— "America sent two ships of war, the 'James- 
town' and the 'Macedonian,' full of provisions; and 
the Irish residents in the United States sent up- 
wards of £200,000 to their relatives, to allow 
them to emigrate." — L. Levi, History of British 
commerce, pt. 4, ch. 4.^"By the end of 1847 
cheap supplies of food began to be brought into 
the country by the ordinary operation of the laws 
of supply and demand, at far cheaper rates, owing 
to an abundant harvest abroad, than if the Gov- 
ernment had tried to constitute itself the sole dis- 
tributor. The potato harvest of 1847, if not 
bountiful, was at least comparatively good. . . . 
By March, 1848, the third and last period of the 
famine may be said to have terminated. But, 
though the direct period of distress was over, the 
economic problems which remained for solution 
were of overwhelming magnitude. ... A million 
and a half of the people had disappeared. The 
land was devastated with fever and the diseases 
which dog the steps of famine." — E. Fitzmaurice 
and J. R. Thursfield, Two centuries of Irish his- 
tory, pt. 4, ch. 4. — "This was the era of the Corn 
Laws, which had first been passed in 1815 by 
a parliament of English landlords, for the purpose 
of excluding wheat from abroad unless it sold 
at very high prices at home; and now it was 
difficult to bring in supplies of food which the 
impoverished Irish could buy. Under the leader- 
ship of Peel there was indeed a great revolution 
in British economic policy, marked by the re- 


IRELAND, 1845-1847 


IRELAND, 1845-1847 

pcal of the Corn Laws in the summer of 1846, 
[see Taiuit; 1845-1846J but meanwhile condi- 
tions in Ireland were far more grave. In 1846 
the potato crop totally failed. The Hritish au- 
thorities . . . [were] hampered by belief in the 
prevailing economic thcor>' of laissez-jaire, and in- 
clined to leave things to work themselves out; 
and when they found it necessary to do some- 
thing nevertheless, they were hampered by in- 
experience in dealing with such matters, so that 
what they did was afterwards seen to be partial 
and unwise. The government bought up large 
quantities of Indian corn to sell in Ireland at 
low price, and established relief works for the 
purpose of giving employment. But the food 
that was brought in came too late to save the 
multitudes who were starving, and the public 
woiks undertaken were largely temporary or use- 
less. . . . Pestilence, the wan sister of hunger, ap- 
peared to complete the destruction. In 1846-7 a 
virulent plague, the 'road-fever,' fell upon the 
land. People died as they craw-led out for as- 
sistance; or were abandoned by their friends who 
fled from the pest. There had fallen upon Ire- 
land a calamity which was owing to numerous 
causes, for some of which contemporary England 
was certainly not to blame. Population had in- 
creased so fast that in a purely agricultural country 
it could scarce be supported any longer. But the 
disaster was largely due to the ignorance and lowly 
condition into which most of the people had 
been forced by circumstances over which they had 
no control, and especially to the fact that Ire- 
land was still owned by the landlords, many of 
whom lived outside the island and took' no pains 
to have care for the peasants who toiled on their 
lands. And it seemed a grievous thing that the 
e.xportation of corn [grain] from Ireland was 
not forbidden, for the blight had not affected 
the other crops of the island, and grain that 
w-ent out to pay rents was to a considerable ex- 
tent exported to England at the very time that 
Sir Robert Peel was partly assuaging the famine 
by importing Indian meal from places far off. 
The public works undertaken to give employ- 
ment to the starving were done largely with 
money considered as a loan to Ireland, to be 
repaid later on. [Repayment, however, was after- 
ward remitted.] Hills were cut down, and then 
filled up; and roads were built in useless places. 
In after days it was said that the famine itself 
could not indeed have been averted, as things 
then were, with the failure of the staple crop 
of food, but if there had been Home Rule with 
an Irish parliament, cognizant of Irish needs and 
sympathetic with them, much could have been 
done to prevent the dreadful things which ensued; 
and that if there had been such a famine in Eng- 
land, the measures taken would have been very 
different also. Much of this may be true. Cer- 
tainly nothing that happened in the nineteenth 
century did so much to arouse the world to 
the belief that something was wrong with Irish 
conditions. Xot that the suffering was viewed 
with indifference. There was genuine compassion 
in England when the calamity was really com- 
prehended; and it is a mistake to think that 
in Ireland landlords continued to reap profits 
from starving tenants with cool inclifferencc. 
Actually many of them, who had been wont to 
reap profit from the land, now went down into 
ruin along with the peasants. Middlemen and 
landlords gav'C what they could until often they 
were reduced to destitution themselves." — E. R. 
Turner, Ireland and England, pp. 13S-136, 138- 

"The famine had at least one good effect. It 
drew attention to the main source of the evil 
in Ireland, which was agrarian and social, not 
political and religious. But now it was sup- 
posed that the mischief lay in the inability of the 
landlords, overwhelmed with debt, burdened with 
family settlements, and crushed by the demands 
of the Poor Law, to perform their duty to their 
tenants. [See Charities: Ireland: 1838-1849.] To 
remedy this evil was created the Encumbered 
Estates Court, with power to order the sale of 
encumbered properly on the petition of the cred- 
itors and give a clear title to the purchas;er. [See 
above: 1843-184S.] The policy seemed sound, yet 
the result was not good. The court cleared out 
the old proprietors who lacked means to do 
their duty ; it put in their place a new chiss 
of proprietors who, having been induced to buy 
the land on pure speculation, felt that they had 
no duty to do, and who, unlike their predecessors, 
had no kindly tie to the people. The new owners 
naturally proceeded to make the most of their 
purchase; and the way to make the most of 
their purchase clearly was to sweep out the cotter 
tenants and throw the land into large holdings. 
This some of them proceeded to do, and the con- 
sequence was a period of evictions almost vying 
in cruelly with the famine. Whole districts 
were cleared and relet in large holdings. Cabins 
were being throw'n down in all directions. A 
thousand of them were levelled in one union 
within a few months, and the inmates were cast 
out helpless, half-naked, starving, to go to the 
union or perish. The cabins were burned that 
the people might not return to them. The suffer- 
ing and misery, says a reporter, attendant upon 
these wholesale evictions, is indescribable. . . . Re- 
lief works were no cure, [see also Charities: Ire- 
land: 1S4S-1852] nor were they in themselves very 
rational, since the people, unfed, half-clothed, 
and living in pestilential mud-holes, were really 
too weak to work. Parliament so far interfered 
as to pass an act requiring forty-eight hours' 
notice of eviction to the reheving officers, pro- 
hibiting evictions two hours before sunset or sun- 
rise, and on Christma.s Day and Good Friday, and 
prohibiting the demolition of the house of a tenant 
about to be evicted. But this rather throws a 
lurid light on the state of things than effects a 
cure. The public even might have some reason 
to complain of the land-owner who recklessly cast 
upon the poor rates or public charity the human 
encumbrances of his land. Apart from over- 
population and its effects, the Irish land-law 
unquestionably needed reform. The people, strug- 
gling with each other for their sole means of 
subsistence, undertook to pay exorbitant rents, 
and their improvements, if they made any, be- 
came without compensation the property of the 
landlord. In Ulster, always exceptional, there pre- 
vailed a certain measure of tenant-right, some- 
thing like the English copyhold. In Ireland (as 
a whole] the demand for tenant-right now began 
to be loudly heard. . . . [But] on the Irish side 
there was no leader of worth or force. Patriotism 
was in a trance, and the chronicler of the Na- 
tionalist party indignantly proclaims that the 
cause was betrayed by a series of low ads'enturers 
who embraced it as the way to preferment. 'The 
most common type of Irish politician,' he says in 
his anguish, 'in these days was the man who 
entered Parliamentary life solely for the purpose of 
selling himself for place and salary.'" — G. Smith, 
Irish histor\ and llic Irish question, pp. 183-184, 
186-187. — Following on the passage of the En- 
cumbered Estates .^ct began the unexampled emi- 


IRELAND, 1846-1922 

'The Clearances" 

IRELAND, 1847-1860 

gration from Ireland which made of the Irish a 
dispersed nation, and gave the Irish question its 
world wide significance. "It is absolutely neces- 
sary to bear this [exodus] strictly in mind, if we 
would judge of the intense hatred which pre- 
vails amongst the Irish in America to Great 
Britain. The children of many of those who 
were e.xiled then have raised themselves to posi- 
tions of affluence and prosperity in the United 
States. But they have often heard from their 
fathers, and some of them may perhaps recall, 
the circumstances under which they were driven 
from their old homes in Ireland. . . . But there 
is a further and awful memory connected with 
that time. The people who had been suffering 
from fever carried the plague with them on 
board, and the vessels sometimes became floating 
charnel-houses. During the year 1S47, out of 
106,000 emigrants who crossed the .Atlantic for 
Canada and New Brunswick, 6,100 perished on 
the ocean, 4,100 immediately on landing, 5,200 
subsequently in the hospitals, and 1,900 in the 
towns to which they repaired. . . . Undoubtedly, 
historical circumstances have . . . had much to 
do with the political hatred to Great Britam, 
but its newly acquired intensity is owing to the 
still fresh remembrances of what took place after 
the famine, and to the fact that the wholesale 
clearances of Irish estates were, to say the least, 
not discouraged in the writings and speeches of 
English lawgivers, economists and statesmen." — 
R. Blennerhassett, Ireland (T. H. Ward, ed., Reign 
of Queen Victoria, v. i, pp. 563-565). — See also 

1846-1922. — Lack of conservation of natural 
resources. — Land Purchase Act of 1903. — Reck- 
less denudation. See CoNSERVAnoN of natural 
resources: Ireland. 

1847-1860. — "The Clearances" and continued 
emigration the causes of Fenian rising. — Ulster 
custom. — Tenant League. — Ecclesiastical Titles 
Act. — "The Phoenix." — "The famine of the year 
1846 had left as its legacy a new and tragic 
Ireland. Three quarters of a million of the popu- 
lation had died of hunger. The famine was 
followed by two consequences. One was the Clear- 
ances; the other was emigration. The Clearances, 
or evictions, had some economic justification. The 
small extent of the peasant's holding, inadequate, 
in a bad year, to supply the minimum needs of 
subsistence, had been one of the causes of famine ; 
and some consolidation of holdings was an eco- 
nomic necessity. But whatever its economic jus- 
tification, the grievance of eviction rankled bitterly 
in the hearts of the peasantry, who, losing their 
holdings, lost everything, since they had no al- 
ternative occupation to which they could turn. 
The scale on which eviction was practised made 
the misery which it involved still more bitter. 
From 1840 to 1856 over 50,000 families were evict- 
ed. In 1S63 and again in 1864 the number of fam- 
ilies evicted was little short of 2,000; in 1865 and 
1866 it sank, but it still remained at the rate of 
nearly 1,000. Meanwhile the flood of emigration 
flowed high. Between 1846 and 185 1 a quarter 
of a million of the population emigrated in each 
year. Between 185 1 and 1861 over 100,000 were 
annually leaving Ireland. Famine, eviction, emi- 
gration — this was a triple wave of woes before 
which men's spirits quailed. They have left their 
mark deep in Irish memory. . . . Causes so dire 
were likely to produce a dire effect. That effect 
was Fenianism The Fenians were a separatist 
and revolutionary party, whose motto, it may be 
said, was il faid jaire peur, and whose methods 

were those of physical force. They drew their 
name of Fenians from the legends of old Irish 
history, but their origin was comparatively re- 
cent." — E. Barker, Ireland in the last fifty years, 
pp. 14, 15, 16. — " 'By the end of 1840 it was 
said the Irish tenants looked as if they had just 
come out ot their graves, and the landlords as 
if they were going into theirs.' It is true that 
at this very time, what with tenants leaving 
their farms in despair, and the whole system of 
things seeming to crumble to ruin, clearance went 
on, and consolidation of small pieces of land into 
larger holdings. Yet this is the time when the 
middlemen disappeared, and many of the proprie- 
tors never recovered from the effects of their 
charity and the crushing burden of poor relief 
imposed by the state. Some things there are so 
complicated and extended that it is difficult to 
be certain, and no proofs can be given with 
respect to assertions about them ; but it would 
seem that the famine and pestilence of these fatal 
years changed the character of the Irish people. 
. . . There was universal pessimism, hatred, and 
despair, and although times were to change be- 
fore very long, by no means is all of it gone in 
Ireland at present. A million and a half per- 
sons, it is thought, were stricken with the fever; 
a half million, it may be a million, perished 
from the hunger and sickne:.s. But this was not 
all. From the stricken land Irishmen began to 
flee in a mighty e.xodus which drained the island 
of its people. ... In the decade 1851-1860 it is 
said that a million and a half Irishmen emigrated, 
fleeing from the old home to a new and greater 
Ireland, g^ing most of them to the United States 
of America. ... By the end of 1847 cheap food 
was being brought into Ireland and a good potato 
crop had been gathered. By next spring the 
famine was largely past. . . . But Ireland did not 
recover. Again a great economic change was at 
work to her disadvantage. At the beginning 
of the famine the Corn Laws had been repealed in 
England. ... In England now manufacturers ex- 
panded with cheaper food for the artisans, and 
great prosperity resulted; but in Ireland, where 
farming and grazing continued to be the princi- 
pal occupations, agriculture declined in compe- 
tition with the greater grain lands abroad. 'The 
Irish export trade in cereals was largely de- 
stroyed, and wheat growing decayed at the same 
time that such small manufactures as lingered on 
in Ireland were extinguished in competition with 
the greater ones across the Channel in Britain. 
Population was . declining and continued to de- 
cline, for every class saw ruin staring in the 
face. The laborers who had fled from the 
famine found far greater chances in America, and 
sent back intelligence of what they had found. 
At first the emigrants fled from the famine and 
fever and desolation of their land, but as years 
went by and conditions were better, they went 
over the ocean nevertheless, answering the call 
of them who had gone before." — E. R. Turner, 
Ireland and England, pp. 139-143. — ".'\s the new 
legislation . . . [Encumtjered Estates Act] scarcely 
at all diminished the grievances under which the 
people suffered, the discontent continued to grow, 
and soon a great outcry arose all over the country 
against the injustice of the Land Laws, accom- 
panied by an insistent demand for their altera- 
tion. In the Northern Province a custom pre- 
vailed by which a tenant acquired what was called 
an 'interest' in the land which he cultivated, and 
could dispose of this when he vacated the farm. 
The value of this 'Interest' varied largely, accord- 
ing chiefly to the amount of 'unexhausted im- 


IRELAND, 1847-1860 

Tenant League 
Ecclesiastical Titles Act 

IRELAND, 1850-1856 

provcmcnts' made by the seller, but even when 
no improvement? had been made, something was 
paid. The land was disposed of often without 
cojisulting the landlord, whose only concern was 
considered to be that he should receive his rent 
as originally lixed. As long as a tenant paid 
this rent lie had practical tixity of tenure. This 
was, in truth, a survival of the old Irish system of 
land tenure; but, as it had remained only in 
Ul.^ter, it came to be known as 'Ulster Tenant 
Right.' At the period of which we are speaking, 
it was a custom only, unrecognised by law, and 
enforced merely by public opinion and the incon- 
venience, or even peril, which might result to 
any person violating it. It is not to be supposed 
that, even in Ulster, many grievances did not 
e.xist in connection with land tenure, and we lind 
northerns now joining with the more oppressed 
tenants of the south in a general demand for 
redress. At a Conference held in Dublin in 1S50, 
Catholic priests and Presbyterian clergymen, land- 
lords and tenants met. Resolutions were drawn 
up and agreed to, demanding such alterations in 
the Land Laws as would estabikh a fair rent 
for agricultural holdings; protect the tenant from 
eviction as long as he paid this rent, and en- 
able him to sell his 'interest' at its full value 
when giving up the land. In order to carry out 
this programme by the exercise of pressure on 
Parliament, a society to be called 'The Irish Ten- 
ant League' was founded. ... In the autumn of 
1850. the Pope (Pius IX) issued a Bull directing 
the Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of England 
to use the titles of the Sees which they admin- 
istered The change was merely as to name, for 
they already performed all the functions apper- 
taining to their office, each in a diocese assigned 
to him. Nevertheless the order received from 
Rome produced a regular burst of anti-Popery 
fury in England, . . . [and] the introduction of. 
the 'Ecclesiastical Titles' Bill' (Februan.-, 1851), 
by which any ecclesiastic of the Catholic Church 
was forbidden to assume a title from any place 
in the United Kingdom [See also\': 1850.] 
The Bill passed, but ... no one took any notice 
of its provisions; no one was punished for dis- 
obedience to them. In Ireland, however, the 
effects of the measure were important and dis- 
astrous. The comments of the English Press on 
the Papal Bulls, which were echoed by the 
Orange journals, still more than the action of the 
Parliament bad excited great indignation amongst 
the Irish Catholics. Some were really fearful of 
possible injury to the interests of the Church. 
Others merely desired to make capital for them- 
selves out of the situation, and acquire a cheap 
popularity. Of these latter, two, William Keogh, 
a barrister by profession, and John Sadleir, a 
Tipperary banker, were the chief. ... As a re- 
sult ' chiefly of their efforts, a Catholic Defence 
Association was formed. In vain such men as 
Gavan Duffy pointed out that this movement 
would endanger the work of the Tenant League; 
that a renewal of sectarian animosities would dis- 
solve that union in it of men of different creeds 
which alone made it formidable, and gave it hopes 
of success. ... In spite of the division in its 
ranks, the League was still strong. At the Gen- 
eral Election of 1852, almost half of the members 
returned for Irish constituencies were pledged to 
support the resolutions of the Dublin Conference 
. . . But defeat came when triumph seemed at 
hand. When the list of appointments made by 
Lord Aberdeen, the new Premier, appeared (Jan- 
uar>-, 1853), it was read in Ireland with race and 
horror. . . . Keogb was Solicitor-General for Ire- 

land; Sadleir was a Lord of the Treasury; some 
of their followers received minor appointments. 
By this treachery the Tenant League was ruined. 
The peasants whose cause it had championed re- 
mained without defence. Disunion and disaffection 
spread. Of the members who entered Parliament 
pledged to support the League, more than half 
deserted it. . . . For the next few years there 
was tranquillity in Ireland. The activity of the 
constitutional politicians had ceased; the 'physical 
force' party gave no sign of life. Within a decade 
each had made a great effort; both had failed. 
. . . [But] under the surface and little extended 
at first, a new revolutionary movement had be- 
gun. In Skibbereen, Co. Cork, a few young men 
founded, in 1856, a club, half literary, half political, 
to which they gave the name of the 'Phojnix.' 
The moving spirit was one Jeremiah O'Donovan, 
later to be known as 'Rossa,' from the place, 
Ross, where his family resided. The 'Ph.cnix' 
men might have done little were it not that their 
activities came under the notice of James 
Stephens, who had taken part in the '48 rising, 
and had afterwards escaped to France, where he 
gained much information on the methods of secret 
conspiracy. In 1858, he visited Skibbereen, and 
aided O'Donovan to reorganise the club as a 
secret society. Branches were formed in many 
places in Cork and Kerry, and secret drilling was 
begun. Stephens had had opportunities of gauging 
the hatred of England which tilled the hearts of 
those whom the Famine and the 'clearances' which 
followed had driven across the Atlantic, and 
which their children had imbibed. He now con- 
fidently promised that, if a new rising were 
attempted in Ireland, American aid would not be 
wanting. . . . The idea of engineering an Irish 
revolution by means of American help was too 
promising to be easily abandoned. In the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries Ireland had looked to 
Spain. In the eighteenth she turned to France. 
Now she held out her supplicating hands to Amer- 
ica, but with a surer hope, for those whose aid 
she sought were not strangers, but her own exiled 
sons "The actual originator of The Irish Repub- 
lican Brotherhood,' founded in New York in 1858, 
was John O'Mahony, who, like Stephens, had 
joined in the '48 rising, and had been obliged, in 
consequence, to fly from Ireland. He was the 
first 'Head Centre' or chief. .^ translation which 
he had once made of Geoffrey Keating's History 
had interested him in the Fianna, the militia of 
ancient Ireland, and he adopted as a title for the 
new society that of the 'Fenian Brotherhood,' by 
which it is still generally known and remembered. 
The Fenian organisation resembled greatly that of 
the United Irishmen." — M. T. Hayden and G. A. 
Moonan, Short history of the Irish people, pp. 


1850-1896. — Increase in taxation. — Report of 
Financial Commission, 1896. — "The misfortune 
of Ireland was furthered by a rearrangement of 
finance, which took place soon after [the famine 
of 1846]. There was a great increase in Irish 
taxation in the decade 1850-1860, resulting from 
the Gladstone budgets, the increase being due 
especially to the equalization of the spirit duties 
in England and Ireland, and extending the in- 
come tax to Ireland. Such burden had hitherto 
been escaped owing to the fact that by the terms 
of the Act of Union, the Irish were entitled to 
special exemptions because of their backward 
economic condition. It was not to be expected 
that Irishmen would be permanently exempted 
from the burdens imposed upon the British tax- 
payers, perhaps, but now when Gladstone was 


IRELAND, 1850-1896 


IRELAND, 1858-1867 

striving to extricate tlie finances of the United 
Kingdom from the confusion and unsatisfactory 
position in which his predecessors had left them, 
he abruptly raised the taxation of Ireland, it is 
said, from 14s. gd. per head to 26s. 7d. It is 
true, the equalization of spirit duties and extension 
of the income tax to Ireland were accompanied 
by the remission of a debt of more than four 
million sterling owed by Ireland to the British 
treasury. None the less Englishmen themselves 
have not failed to observe that the increase created 
a new crushing burden at a time when Great Brit- 
tain was going forward in wondrous prosperity 
but Ireland was only beginning to emerge from the 
valley of the shadow through which she had passed. 
Irish writers have seen in it an intolerable bur- 
den laid upon their country despite the pledge 
once given that Ireland's ability to pay should 
always be considered. Since that time over-taxa- 
tion has been the subject of frequent complaint. 
In 1S96 a Financial Commission of the govern- 
ment reported that because of the equalization of 
taxes the result had been very unequal; that 
Ireland was paying one-eleventh of the revenues 
of the United Kingdom, though her ta.xable ca- 
pacity was not more than one-twentieth; that from 
her taxable surplus Great Britain paid less than 
two shillings in the pound, Ireland live times that 
much. This report has been much enlarged upon 
by recent Nationalist writers, and their striking 
conclusions have been spread broadcast for pur- 
poses of denunciation and propaganda. But there 
have alw'ays been justifiable differences of opin- 
ion about the Report, and strong dissenting 
opinions have been maintained about the matter. 
On the other side it is asserted nowadays that 
actually most of the ta.xation paid by Irishmen 
. . . [was] upon their tobacco and liquor, and 
that far from being overtaxed, Irishmen in Ireland 
. . . [were] ta.xed less than the inhabitants of 
Great Britain, and less than Irishmen in any 
other country in the world." — E. R. Turner, Ire- 
land and E>tgland,' pp. 143-145. 

1858-1867. — Fenianism. — "Manchester Mar- 
tyrs." — "It was the name of Fenianism that was 
new rather than the thing itself. In reality 
Fenianism was but a revival and re-organisation, 
on a more systematic plan, with improved re- 
sources, and above all, with American assistance, 
of that 'Physical Force' policy, which had at all 
times exercised an influence on Irish pohtics. . . . 
In 1S58 the apparent calm was troubled by a 
trifling disturbance, which no one took seriously. 
. . . But there was more in it than appeared. 
The real leader at Skibbereen, James Stephens, 
an old '48 rebel, had escaped. From this time 
forward he devoted himself, with the assistance 
of O'Donovan Rossa, O'Leary and Kickham, to 
preparing a more widely extended movement, under 
the title of the 'Irish Republican Brother- 
hood.' In America another revolutionary named 
O'Mahony proceeded to organise a militia, which 
he called the Fenians, the name given to the 
ancient warriors in the time of Fionn and his 
companions." — L. Paul-Dubois, Contemporary Ire- 
land, pp. 75, 77. — "A secret association was estab- 
lished in 1858, whose aim appears sufficiently clear 
from the oath of membership: 'In the presence 
of Almighty God, I solemnly swear allegiance to 
the Irish Republic, now virtually established, and 
to take up arms when called on to defend its 
independence and integrity. I also swear to yield 
impHcit obedience to the commands of my su- 
perior officers.' This was the Fenian, or the Irish 
Revolutionary Brotherhood." — G. P. Macdonell, 
Fenianism (R. B. O'Brien, ed., Two centuries of 

Irish history, p. 464). — "Across the Atlantic, . . . 
the Fenians enlisted, especially after i860, huge 
numbers of recruits. \Vhen the American Civil 
War broke out in 1861, it was said that in some 
of the Irish regiments practically every man was 
a sworn member of the Brotherhood. Even in 
Ireland and in England something of the same 
sort occurred, though to a much smaller extent. 
There were Fenians in the army, the navy, the 
civil service, some even of the jailers and warders 
of the prisons had taken the oaths. ... In April, 
1865, the American Civil War ended. . . . Soon 
the British Government learnt, through its spies, 
that almost every ship that crossed the Atlantic 
brought to Ireland men of mihtary experience, the 
motive of whose coming was scarcely concealed. 
In Ireland itself there was said to be a force of 
some 75,000 men, well drilled and fairly well armed. 
It was evident that the intended rising would not 
long be delayed. ... In September 1865, O'Leary, 
Luby, O'Donovan Rossa and several other promi- 
nent Fenians were arrested. The office of The 
Irish People was raided, and the paper was sup- 
pressed. James Stephens eluded capture till No- 
vember. He was lodged, when at last seized, in 
Richmond Prison (Dublin), but, by the aid of 
some of the warders who were themselves sworn 
members of the Brotherhood, he escaped and got 
safely out of the country. The others were sen- 
tenced to various terms of imprisonment. . . . 
In May, 1866, an attempt was planned to cross 
the frontier of the United States and attack the 
British power in Canada. The Washington au- 
thorities, after remaining for years conveniently 
deaf and blind to preparations which had been 
going on, suddenly roused themselves, seised the 
arms stored at the depots, imprisoned several of 
the Fenian leaders, anci ordered the St. Lawrence 
to be strictly guarded. Two bodies of Irishmen 
did succeed, however, in reaching Canadian ter- 
ritory. Coi. John O'Neill, with some i,.:;o men 
crossed to the village of Fort Erie, and ..eieated 
a troop of 'The Queen's Own Volunteers.' He was, 
however, obliged soon afterwards to surrender. A 
body from the State of Vermont had still less 
success. The Canadian troops drove them back 
across the frontier. Nothing further of importance 
was attempted in America. . . . Amongst the Irish 
Fenians there was profound discouragement. They 
had built much of their hopes on the American 
aid, and of its coming there was no sign. Still 
they would do something. . . . Risings in vari- 
ous parts of the country were decided on. One 
broke out (prematurely) in Cahirciveen (Co. 
Kerry) in February, 1S67. Others followed 
(March) in several of the southern counties. At 
Tallaght, near Dublin, there were some slight 
skirmishes between the poHce and insurgents. .Ml 
these movements were speedily suppressed. The 
insurgents scattered all over the country, and 'Were 
arrested in hundreds. ... A greatly exaggerated 
account of the happenings in Ireland had reached 
the United States. A party of .\merican officers 
and soldiers started from New York, towards the 
end of April. Their boat. The Jackncll, was loaded 
with arms and ammunition for the Fenians. These, 
however, they failed to land. They themselves 
got ashore in a fishing boat, but were immediately 
arrested. The trials of the captured Irish and 
American Fenians now began. Severe sentences 
were passed on many. Some were even condemned 
to death, but all these had the death penalty com- 
muted." — M. T. Hayden and G. .\. Moonan, Short 
history of the Irish people, pp. sog-sii.— "The 
whole revolutionary movement produced no revo- 
lution: the English government was forewarned 


IRELAND, 1858-1867 

"Manchester Martyrs" 
Land Act 

IRELAND, 1873-1879 

and forearmed: and an American ship, the Erin's 
Hope, with arms and men on board, was captured 
before a landing could be effected. Isolated acts 
of violence weie the only tangible results of the 
movement. Clerkenwell Gaol was blown up by 
dynamite (1867): a raid on Chester Castle was 
attempted, but miscarried (1866): and — most 
famous of all — the rescue by some of the Fenians 
of two of their members from a prison van in 
Manchester, and the killing of a policeman during 
the rescue, was punished in 1867 by the hanging of 
three of the rescuing party, Allen, Larkin and 
O'Brien, men famous in history as 'the Manchestei; 
Martyrs.' But if the immediate and tangible re- 
sults of the movement were small its ultimate 
effects were far larger. Omne ignotum pro mag- 
nifico. Secret societies were things unfamiliar in 
British politics; and just for that reason the Fenian 
acts of violence, small as was their scale, inspired 
the fear they were intended to create." — E. Barker, 
Ireland in the last fifty years, pp. 17-1S. — The 
alarm caused by the rising "aroused public opinion 
and frightened the English. Men began to under- 
stand the profound misery in which Ireland was 
sunk, and the necessity for repairing the wrongs 
of the past. The Act of 1867 had just then sent 
to Parhament a body of members chosen on a 
wider and more democratic franchise. Almost im- 
mediately afterwards Gladstone secured the pass^ 
ing of the Bill for the 'Disestablishment' of the 
Anglican Church in Ireland [see England: 1868- 
1870] and the first Land Act (1869-1870). To 
all appearances Fenianism had been a miserable 
fiasco. In reality it had succeeded where O'Con- 
nell and Young Ireland had failed. It had opened 
a new era in the history of Ireland. The period 
of concessions and reforms had at last arrived." — 
L. PauI-DuboLs, Contemporary Ireland, pp. 77, 
78. — "It is not necessary to follow out the steps 
of the Fenian movement any further. There were 
many isolated attempts; there were many arrests, 
trials, imprisonments, banishments. The effect of 
all this, it must be stated as a mere historical 
fact, was only to increase the intensity of dis- 
satisfaction and discontent among the Irish peas- 
antry. . . There were some public men who saw 
that the time had come when mere repression 
must no longer be relied upon as a cure for Irish 
discontent." — J. McCarthy, History of our o~u.<n 
times, V. 4, cli. 53. 

Axso in: T. p. O'Connor, Parnell movement, 
ch. 7.— G. P. Macdonell. I-enianism (R B. O'Brien, 
cd., Tivo centuries of Irish history, pt. s, ch. 4). — 
J. O'Leary, Recollections of Fenians and Fenian- 
ism. — Earl Grey, Ireland: Causes of its present con- 
dition, pp. 36-84 — \V. E. H. Lecky, History of Ire- 
land in the eighteenth century, v. S- — J- H. 
McCarthy. History of our own times, v. 4, ch. 53. 

1868. — Parliamentary reform. See England: 

1869. — Disestablishment of Anglican church 
in Ireland. See England: 1868-1870. 

1370. — Land Act. — "After many years of legis- 
lation in favour of the landlords and an attempt 
in the Deasy .Act of i860 to give the tenant the 
full but illusory advantages of free contract, a 
real start in corrective efforts was made by the 
Land Act of 1S70. The most evident agrarian 
abuse since the Great Famine had been the ruth- 
less process of eviction by which the landlords 
cleared their estates of tenantry. These evictions 
had become more serious following the Encum- 
bered Estates Act of 1849, which, despite its ad- 
vantages, created a new cKiss of proprietors even 
less interested in the welfare of the tenants than 
their predecessors. . . . The Act of 1870 attempted 

to meet this situation. It applied particularly to 
yearly tenancies up to the value of £100, the most 
abused class of holding. By giving legal recog- 
nition to the customary right which prevailed in 
Ulster, the tenant became, as it were, co-owner 
with the landlord. In case of arbitrary eviction, 
he was entitled to compensation for hi.s disturbance. 
Also he might claim payment for the improve- 
ments which he had carried out. Thus the ten- 
ant was guaranteed a certain fixity of tenure and 
might expect to realise something for his share 
in the holding. The Land Commission provided 
a judicial machinery for the purpose of deter- 
mining such claims in cases where no voluntary 
agreement could be reached. The .Act did not in- 
terfere with the sacred rights of property. It 
only protected the tenants against some of the 
more obvious disadvantages of their position. . . . 
But with the failure of the crops in 1878 and the 
consequent inability of the tenants to meet their 
obligations, evictions again grew in number. Yet 
of the 6163 applications for compensation before 
the Commission during the period 1871-1880, only 
1808 were successful. Moreover, while eviction, 
though made more expensive, was not prevented, it 
was always possible for the landlord to claim 
competitive prices for the tenant right, and thus 
the seeming privilege became really an additional 
handicap. The importance of the Act of 1870 as 
a step in Irish land reform lay, not in the results 
achieved, for they w-ere negligible, but in the 
recognition that the tenant had a claim upon his 
holding."— L. E. P. Smith-Gordon and L. C. 
Staples, Rural reconstruction in Ireland, pp. 20-21. 

Also in: Earl Grey, Ireland: Causes of its pres- 
ent condition, pp. 85-145. 

1873-1879. — Home Rule movement. — Organi- 
zation of Land League. — "For some years after 
1S70 Ireland was comparatively prosperous and 
free from unrest. During this period a new 
movement began in Ireland which has vitally af- 
fected Irish history ever since. In May, 1870, 
under the leadership of Isaac Butt [member for 
Youghal], the Home Rule movement was launched, 
and its programme was enunciated, 'that the es- 
tablishment of an Irish Parliament with full con- 
trol over our domestic affairs is the only remedy 
for the evils of Ireland.' By a curious irony, the 
agitation for Home Rule was largely Protestant 
in its inception. Discontented and disillusioned 
by the successful passage in the British Parliament 
of an act disestablishing the Irish Church, the 
Protestants of Ireland set their hopes for the mo- 
ment on a separate Irish Parliament. This phase 
of feeling soon passed ; and the Home Rule move- 
ment, in which from the first other elements than 
the Protestant had been powerful, soon became 
Catholic and Nationalist in spirit. Rapidly grow- 
ing in strength and numbers, and aided by the 
Ballot Act of 1872, the Home Rule League 
able in 1874 to return nearly 60 members to Par- 
liament who were pledged to its principles and 
programme. . . . Under Butt, and down to 1878, 
the Irish parliamentary party achieved little if 
any success. The Conservative Party, under Lord 
Bcaconstield, was in power (1874-1S80) ; and little 
attention was excited by Irish affairs. Butt was 
scrupulously constitutional, and he set his face 
against turning parliamentary agitation into par- 
liamentary obstruction. After 1878, when Parnell 
[Charles Stewart Parnell, who in 1877 became 
president of the Home Rule League] came to the 
front, a great change began to appear. Parnell 
was personally almost the antithesis of Butt; and 
his hard and concentrated intensity necessarily 
meant a reaction from the gentle and expansive 


IRELAND, 1873-1879 

Home Rule Movement 

IRELAND, 1873-1879 

geniality of his predecessor. Within a few years^ 
the muthods of the Irish parliamentary party were* 
completely altered. From Biggar [Joseph G. Big- 
gar, member for Cavan], Parnell borrowed the 
idea of obstruction, and by obstruction he sought 
to demonstrate to the British Parliament the 
wisdom of conceding another sphere for the ex- 
ercise of the talents of the meml)ers of his party. 
From Michael Davitt, an old member of the 
Fenian party, he learned two other lessons. He 
learned, in the first place, the value of an in- 
formal and working alliance between the National- 
ists and the Fenians. ... He learned, in the sec- 
ond place, the possibility of a connection between 
the agitation for Home Rule, which had hitherto 
been mainly political, and an agrarian agitation 


against landlordism. The strength of Parnell was 
thus that he reconciled the Nationalists with the 
Fenians, and brought both in contact with the 
economic needs and desires of the peasantry. . . . 
Political agitation was still, indeed, his supreme 
aim; and he advocated economic causes ... for 
the sake of the additional weight which they 
might give to the political cause he championed. 
. . . The organisation which Parnell gave to his 
own immediate party, and ... the ascendancy 
which he acquired over all its members . . . [ren- 
dered it extremely powerful]. The Home Rule 
League became a 'machine' under the 'chieftain's' 
control. In its local conventions it designated the 
candidates for the constituencies; from those can- 
didates it exacted a pledge; and in return, if they 
were unable to make ends meet without some sup- 
port, it paid their expenses from its parliamentary 
fund." — E. Barker, Ireland in the last fifty years, 
pp. 19-20, 22-25. — "Outside Parliament a strenu- 
ous and earnest man was preparing to inaugurate 
the greatest land agitation ever seen in Ireland. 
Mr. Michael Davitt was the son of an evicted 
tenant. . . . When he grew to be a young man 

he joined the Fenians, and in 1870, on the evi- 
dence of an informer, he was arrested and sen- 
tenced to fifteen years' penal servitude ; seven years 
later he was let out on ticket-of-leave. In his 
long imprisonment he had thought deeply upon the 
political and social condition of Ireland and the 
best means of improving it ; when he came, out 
he had abandoned his dreams of armed rebellion, 
and he went in for constitutional agitation to re- 
form the Irish land system. The land system 
needed reforming; the condition of the tenant was 
only humanly endurable in years of good harvest. 
The three years from 1S76 to 1879 were years 
6f successive bad harvests. . . . Mr. Davitt had 
been in America, planning out a land organization, 
and had returned to Ireland to carry out his plan." 
— J. H. McCarthy, Outline of Irish history, ch. 11. 
— "Parnell was beginning to be the dominant force 
in Irish politics by 1878. In 1879 Ireland fell 
under the shadow of famine. The potato crop 
failed, and the corn [grain] crop was under the 
average. Fear was urgent in a land where men 
still remembered the great famine of 1S46. Luckily 
relief was prompt an'd efficacious, and the horrors 
of 1846 were not repeated. But the results of 
the bad harvests of 1879 were none the less con- 
siderable. Tenants were unable to pay their rents; 
and since tenants who failed to pay rent were not 
protected by the Land Act of 1870, a new period 
01 evictions began. There had been under 500 
evictions in the year 1877; in the year 1879 there 
were over 1,250, and in the year 18S0 over 2,000. 
Meanwhile, in 1879, Michael Davitt had founded 
a Land League for agrarian agitation." — E. Barker, 
Ireland in the last fifty years, p. 26. — "At Irish- 
town, in Mayo, a meeting was called together in 
April of 1879, to protest against the action 
of a local landlord, Canon Burke, who had re- 
fused to reduce his excessive rents. The resolu- 
tions passed had been drawn up by Davitt, and 
indicated the boldness of his views. From the 
Irishtown meeting the beginning of the Land War 
dates, though it was some months later (October, 
1S79) when Parnell, who had at first held aloof, 
had been persuaded to come into the new move- 
ment, that the Land League was officially founded. 
The avowed object of the organisation was to re- 
duce rack-rents, and 'to facilitate the obtaining 
of the ownership of the soil by the occupiers.' 
Parncll's adherence practically involved that of th? 
Home Rule Party, and Parnell himself was elected 
president of the League." — M. T. Hayden and G. 
A. Moonan, Short history of the Irish people, 

p. 523- 

"No resolution or speech advocated the 'three 
F's,' or Mr. Butt's bill, which represented the 
official programme of the Home-Rule party on the 
land question, so that the Irishtown meeting broke 
with the then moderate parliamentary land re- 
formers, and began the movement which was to 
demand 'the land for the people.' ... It was, in 
every sense, a people's meeting. No priests had 
been invited. None could, in any case, attend, 
as one of the purposes of the demonstration was 
to exert pressure upon the parish priest of Irish- 
town to abate the rack-rents which he demanded 
from his tenants. In this respect the meeting 
scored an immediate success. Canon Burke 
granted an abatement of twenty-five per cent. . . . 
The plan and purpose of the leaders of the new 
league were to supplant the tenants' defence as- 
sociations, which had provided a platform for 
Mr. Butt and the Home-Rulers on the land ques- 
tion, and to create an aggressive movement which 
would try to rally the whole country in a fight 
against t^e whol? land system. . . . There was an- 


IRELAND, 1873-1879 

Land League 
Altitude of English Liberals 

IRELAND, 1880 

other and a kindred evil to assail in the carrj'ing 
out of these purposes. The land-grabber was the 
buttress of the rack-renting evil and the worst 
loe of the struggling tenant. He was never a 
man who, from the coercion of real want, took a 
holding from which a neighbor was ejected for in- 
ability to pay an unfair rent. ... He is always 
a man who possesses a farm or holding and covets 
more, or a person with means otherwise earned 
which prompts him to go contrary to the public 
sentiment by outbidding a poorer occupant of 
some tempting piece of land. It would be neces- 
sary, therefore, to put this practice down by 
popular power, and this was one of the planks 
we inserted in the Castlebar programme. No per- 
son taking land from which another was evicted 
was to be admitted to the Land League, while 
the names of such transgressors against the un- 
written agrarian code would be published as no- 
toriously going contrary to the interests of his 
fellows." — M. Davitt, Fall of feudalism in Ireland, 
pp. ISO, 151, 164, 165. — "The summer of 1879 
had been cold and wet. Most of the crops were 
extremely poor, and the potato crop practically a 
total failure. . . . Parncll, accompanied by John 
Dillon . . . betook himself to America, and col- 
lected, chiefly from the Irish of the United States, 
over fifty thousand pounds, to be used partly to 
feed the starving people, and partly for the carry- 
ing out of the political programme of the Land 
League. Other funds were started in Ireland, and 
great quantities of food and clothes were dis- 
tributed. . . . Still, the sufferings of the people, 
especially in the south and west, w'ere very severe, 
and numbers died of actual hunger, or of diseases 
produced by lack of proper nourishment. Rents 
could not, of course, be paid, and too often the 
landlords, deaf to all entreaties for, at least, delay, 
evicted without pity. That in consequence out- 
rages took place was far from surprising. These 
the leaders of the Land League denounced, as 
not only in themselves criminal, but as likely to 
prove most detrimental to their cause. At the 
same time, they took care to give as much pub- 
licity as possible to any particularly flagrant cases 
of eviction " — M. T. Hayden and G. A. Moonan, 
Short history of the Irish people, pp. 523-524. — 
"On the 2ist of October the National League of 
Mayo was turned into the Irish National Land 
League. Mr. Parnell had invited the attendance 
of representative public men, . . . [andl a central 
body was formed charged with the conduct of the 
agitation. The declared objects of the Land 
League were to reduce rack-rents and promote 
peasant proprietary; its methods were to be or- 
ganization of the farmers, and protection of those 
threatened with eviction or actually evicted for 
unjust rents. . . . [Branches of the Land League 
were soon established] all over Ireland and even 
in Great Britain, while Mr. Davitt was extending 
it in America, public meetings were being held 
every Sunday ; the receipts at the central branch 
were coming in by hundreds and thousands of 
pounds, the police and process servers had been 
openly defied in the early part of the year in 
the wild and desolate regions of Carraroe, and 
since then many collisions had occurred between 
people and police. .And there were agrarian out- 
rages too." — E. .\. D'.Mton, History of Ireland, 
■''. 3> PP- 280, 288. — "The Land League . . . had 
had at the outset to make headway in Ireland 
against the opposition of all the official Home 
Rule Press, and in Great Britain amongst the 
Irish exiles to depend entirely upon the cham- 
pionship of poor labourers and English and Scot- 
tish Socialists. In fact those latter were, for years. 

the principal exponents and interpreters of Land 
League principles to the British masses, and they 
performed their task unflinchingly at a time when 
the 'respectable' moneyed men of the Irish com- 
munities in Great Britain cowered in dread of 
the displeasure of their wealthy British neigh- 
bours." — J. Connolly, Labour in Irish history, 
pp. 211-212. 

Also i.v: T. P. O'Connor, Parnell movement, 
ch. 8-10. — A. V. Dicey, England's case against 
Home Rule. — G. Baden-Powell, ed., Truth about 
Home Rule. 

1880. — Breach between Irish Party and Eng- 
lish Liberals. — Compensation for Disturbance 
Bill. — Boycotting "invented." — "At first there 
seemed no reason to expect any serious disunion 
between the Irish members and the Liberal party. 
. . . The Irish vote in England had been given to 
the Liberal cause. The Liberal speakers and states- 
men, without committing themselves to any definite 
line of policy, had manifested friendly sentiments 
towards Ireland; and though indeed nothing was 
said which could be construed into a recognition 
of the Home Rule claim, still the new Ministry 
was known to contain men favourable to that 
claim. The Irish members hoped for much from 
the new Government; and, on the other hand, the 
new Government expected to find cordial allies 
in all sections of the Irish party. . . . The Queen's 
speech announced that the Peace Preservation 
.Act would not be renewed. This was a very im- 
portant announcement. Since the Union Ireland 
had hardly been governed by the ordinary law 
for a single year. . . . Now the Government was 
going to make the bold experiment of trjing to 
rule Ireland without the assistance of coercive 
and exceptional law. The Queen's Speech, how- 
ever, contained only one other reference to Ire- 
land, in a promise that a measure would be in- 
troduced for the extension of the Irish borough 
franchise. This was in itself an important prom- 
ise. . . . But extension of the borough franchise 
did not seem to the Irish members in 18S0 the 
most important form that legislation for Ireland 
could take just then. The country was greatly 
depressed by its recent suffering. . . . Evictions 
had increased from 463 families in 1877 to 980 
in 1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still on 
the increase, as was shown at the end of 1880, 
when it was found that 2. no families were evicted. 
. . . The Irish party called for some immediate 
legislation on behalf of the land question. Mr. 
Forster replied, admitting the necessity for some 
legislation, but declaring that there would not 
be time for the introduction of any such measure 
that session. Then the Irish members asked for 
some temporary measure to prevent the evic- 
tions; . . . but the Chief Secretary answered that 
while the law existed it was necessary to carry 
it out, and he could only appeal to both sides 
to be moderate. Matters slowly drifted on in this 
way for a short time. . . . Evictions steadily in- 
creased, and Mr. O'Connor Power brought in a 
Bill for the purpose of staying evictions. Then 
the Government, while refu.sing to accept the Irish 
measure, brought in a Compensation for Disturb- 
ance Bill, which adopted some of the Irish sug- 
gestions. . . .On Friday, June 25, the second 
reading of the Bill was moved by Mr. Forster, 
who denied that it was a concession to the anti- 
rent agitation, and strongly denounced the out- 
rages which were taking place in Ireland. . . . This 
was the point at which difference between the 
Irish party and the Government first became 
marked. "The increase of evictions in Ireland, fol- 
lowing as it did upon the widespread miser)' caused 


IRELAND, 1880 

Asrarinn Agitation 
Coercion Bill 

IRELAND, 1881-1882 

by the failure of the harvests and the partial fam- 
ine, had generated — as famine and hunger have 
always generated — a certain amount of lawlessness. 
Evictions were occasionally resisted with violence; 
here and there outrages were committed upon 
bailiffs, process-servers, and agents. In different 
places, too, injuries had been inflicted upon the 
cattle and horses of landowners and land agents." 
— J. H. McCarthy, England under Gladstone, 
ch. 6. — "A very moderate 'Disturbance Bill,' de- 
signed to entitle those who could clearly prove 
that the arrears of rent for which they were to 
be evicted were due to the prevalent state of 
distress, to receive some 'compensation for dis- 
turbance,' though passed by the Commons, was 
rejected by the Lord? (July, i88o) . It was about 
this time, and on the advice of Parnell himself, 
that the method afterwards called, from the name 
of the landlord (Captain Boycott) against whom 
it was first employed, 'boycotting' began to be 
used by the adherents of the Land League. Any 
person who took or even bid for a farm from 
which another was held to have been unjustly 
evicted was to be ostracised. No one should hold 
social intercourse with him, serve him, buy from 
him or sell to him. This was a terrible weapon, 
and those who wielded it could not be expected 
to be free from prejudice. Inco: venience, loss 
and annoyance, amounting to positive persecution, 
were inflicted, in not a few cases, on persons 
who had done little or nothing to deserve it. The 
Irish Chief Secretaryship, an office which had come 
to be considered as of much more importance than 
the Viceroyalty itself, was then held by Mr. 
William Forster. He had all an Englishman's re- 
spect for the law in and for itself, and he was 
perplexed when faced with a state of affairs in 
which it was constantly ignored or broken, while 
the public voice approved and encouraged law- 
breakers. An attempt to convict the chief Land 
League leaders of a conspiracy to incite the ten- 
ants to refuse the payment of their just debts, 
that is to say, of their rents, ended in the dis- 
agreement of the jury, and the prosecution was, 
for the present, abandoned." — M. T. Hayden and 
G. A. Moonan, Short history of the Irish people, 
pp. 524, 525. 

Also in: T. W. Reid, Life of Edward Forster. — 
J. F. Bright, History of England, v. 5, p. 7. 

1881. — Renewed agrarian agitation. — Land 
Act. — "The renewed agrarian agitation Under the 
leadership of the Land League, with the boycott 
as its effective weapon, and the report of the 
Bessborough Commission in iSSo [which recom- 
mended a land court] convinced Gladstone of the 
necessity of further legislation. 'It is essential,' 
declarecl the Report, 'to recognise the state of 
things existing in Ireland and to acknowledge 
the co-ownership of the tenant with the landlord 
in a more complete manner than did the law 
of 1870.' The Act of 18S1, which has been called 
the Magna Charta of. the Irish peasant, carried 
out this recommendation. To free sale and fixity 
of tenure was added the indispensable guarantee 
of a fair rent. . . . [The act provided that either 
the landlord or tenant, or both] might demand 
from the proper authority the determination of 
a fair rent. The authorities in this matter were 
the county courts and the reconstituted Land 
Commission. Or the proprietor and tenant might 
arrange matters themselves, and their agreement 
became valid and binding. This determination 
was to continue for a period of fifteen years, after 
which a revision might take place. Thus the 
rent became a regular charge. The tenant enjoyed 
complete security so long as he kept the con- 


ditions of his contract; and whereas, hitherto, the 
power of the landlord to raise the rent had vir- 
tually deprived the holder of the power of free 
sale, under the new conditions there was no such 
check. This was, in fact, the logical completion 
of the law of 1S70. The interdependence of the 
'Three Fs' — fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale 
— was recognised, and with these assured a satis- 
factory form of tenure was apparently achieved. 
Yet despite the liberality of the law of 18S1 and 
the enthusiasm of the Irish people for the re- 
form, its success was far from realising the hopes 
which were based on it. . . . In the first place, the 
landlords had a grievance. The judicial rents repre- 
sented decreases over the previous payments 
averaging 20, 19, and 9 per cent for the three 
determinations. It seemed a legal confiscation 
of property, for in many cases the income of the 
owner was all but completely absorbed. ... So 
long as the judicial represented a decrease over 
the competitive rents, this legislation was nat- 
urally popular with the tenant class. But it was 
not clear what the attitude of the tenants would 
be in the event of a market of rising prices. The 
measure of success attained by the rent-fixing leg- 
islation was the outcome of its incidental or par- 
ticular results rather than a justification of its 
principles." — L. E. P. Smith-Gordon and L. C. 
Staples, Kural reconstruction in Ireland, pp. 22-23. 
1881-1882.— Coercion Bill.— Land Act.— Arrest 
of Irish leaders. — Suppression of Land League. 
— Alleged Kilmainham Treaty, and release of 
Parnell and others. — Early in 1881, the govern- 
ment armed itself with new powers for sup- 
pressing the increased lawlessness which showed 
itself in Ireland, and for resisting the systematic 
policy of intimidation which the Nationalists ap- 
peared to have planned, by the passage of the 
Coercion Bill, followed, in April, by the intro- 
duction of a Land Bill, intended to redress the 
most conspicuous Irish grievance by establishing 
an authoritative tribunal for the determination of 
rents, and by aiding and facilitating the purchase 
of small holdings by the peasants. The Land 
Bill became law in August ; but it failed to .satisfy 
the demands of the Land League or to produce 
a more orderly state of feeling in Ireland. Severe 
proceedings were then decided upon by the gov- 
ernment. "The Prime Minister, during his visit 
to Leeds in the first week of October, had used 
language which could bear only one meaning. The 
question, he said, had come to be simply this, 
'whether law or lawlessness must rule in Ireland.' " 
— London Times .-Innual Summaries, v. 2, p. 155. — 
"To the Chief Secretar>' and to many of the Eng- 
lish Ministers it appeared almost self-evident that 
offences with which the ordinary law was clearly 
unable to deal, must be repressed by the passing 
of special enactments, that is, by a Coercion Bill. 
Gladstone was but half convinced. He saw that 
to the application to Ireland of an agrarian sys- 
tem unsuited to the circumstances of the country 
the prevalent disorders were mainly due. This 
he proposed to remedy by means of a compre- 
hensive Irish Land Bill, tjnfortunately, however, 
a Coercion Bill was to precede the remedial meas- 
ures. That the effects of the latter in Ireland would 
be lamentable was pointed out by many of the 
Irish members, and notably by Parnell himself. 
Their efforts to impede its passage were vain, 
and in March, 1881, the Coercion Act became law. 
. . . The activities of the Land League had been 
hampered by the imprisonment of many of the 
leaders, but the Ladies' Land League, an organi- 
sation of women, founded mainly by Michael 
Davitt, carried on much of its work, and ample 

IRELAND, 1881-1882 

Phoenix Park Murders 
Prevention of Crimes Bill 

IRELAND, 1882 

funds were furnished by the Irish in America. 
Little more than a month alter the passing of 
the Irish Coercion Bill (April, 1881), the Land 
Bill, which was to be its corrective, was placed 
before Parliament by Mr. Gladstone. It arrang«d 
for the setting-up in Ireland of Land Courts, to 
which tenants could apply to have their rents 
fixed. The land involved was to be examined by 
experts, and in accordance with their reports 01 
its value, a 'judicial rent' would be fixed, more 
than which could not be charged by the landlord. 
On agreement to pay this, the tenant would, under 
certain conditions, obtain a lease. In estimating 
the value of the holding, and consequently the 
rent to be paid for it, no account was to be 
taken to the landlord's profit of improvements 
made by the tenant at his own expense." — M. T. 
Hayden and G. A. Moonan, Short history of tlic 
Irish people, p. 525. — In October 1881 Parnell was 
arrested and lodged in Kilmainham jail to-,;ether 
with three other Irish members — Dillon, Sexton 
and O'Kelly. In telurn they issued a manifesto 
advising the people to pay no rent. The Land 
League was suppressed, but to take its place the 
Ladies' Land League was organized. The Co- 
ercion Act was put in operation, but outrages 
increased. "Parnell had predicted that his place 
would be taken by Captain Moonlight. Forster 
feared that secret societies would become active. 
Both expectations were realized. In the darkness 
of night bands of Moonlighters went abroad, lired 
into houses, terrorized landlords, bailiffs and grab- 
bers, houghed their cattle, wounded or perhaps 
murdered themselves. In November Forster 
thought that the best thing for Ireland and him- 
self would be his replacement by some one 'not 
tarred by the Coercion brush.' ... [In April Par- 
nell, who had been liberated on parole, intimated] 
that if the arrears question was settled by Gov- 
ernment he and his friends would withdraw the 
No-rent Manifesto, and gradually slow down the 
agitation. The offer was eagerly accepted. Glad- 
stone and Chamberlain, in opposition to Forster, 
obtamed the support of the Cabinet; Parnell, Dil- 
lon, O'Relly and Davitt were liberated; and Forster 
and Cowper resigned, and were replaced by Lord 
Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish. This was 
the result of what came to be called the Kil- 
mainham Treaty." — E. A. D'.'Mton, History of 
Ireland, v. 3, pp. 206-298. 

1882. — Phcenix Park murders. — Prevention of 
Crimes Bill. — Mr. Forster, chief secretary for Ire- 
land, resigned in April, 1882, and was succeeded 
by Lord Frederick Cavendish, . . . son of the 
duke of Devonshire. Earl Spencer at the same 
time became viceroy, in place of Lord Cowper, 
resigned. "On the night of Friday, May sth. 
Earl Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish 
crossed over to Ireland, and arrived in Dublin on 
the following day. The official entry was made 
in the morning, when the reception accorded by 
the populace to the new officials was described 
as having been very fairly favourable. Events 
seemed to have taken an entirely prosperous turn, 
and it was hoped that at last the long winter 
of Irish discontent had come to an end. On Sun- 
day morning there spread through the United 
Kingdom the intelligence that the insane hatred of 
English rule had been the cause of a crime, even 
more brutal and unprovoked than any of the 
numerous outrages that had, during the last three 
years, sullied the annals of Ireland. It appeared 
that Lord Frederick Cavendish, having taken the 
oaths at the Castle, took a car about half-past 
seven in order to drive to the Viceregal Lodge. 
On the way he met Mr. Burke, the Permanent 

Under-Secretary, who, though his life had been 
repeatedly threatened, was walking along, accord- 
ing to his usual custom, without any police escort. 
Lord Frederick dismissed his car, and walked with 
him through the Phccni.x Park. There, in broad 
dayUght — for it was a fine summer evening — and 
in the middle of a public recreation ground, 
crowded with people, they were surrounded and 
murdered." — Casselis illustrated history of Eng- 
land, V. 10, ch. 50. — "It was generally understood 
that Lord Frederick Cavendish, who succeeded Mr. 
Forster as Irish Secretary, was to be the exponent 
of the modified policy of the Government; repres- 
sion was henceforward to be repression of outrage, 
and not of political opinion. . . . But Govern- 
ment accepted the lesson of the terrible crime, and 
setting aside all other measures however pressing 
proceeded at once with its 'Prevention of Crimes 
Bill.' This Bill, introduced by Sir William Har- 
court on the following day, was undoubtedly very 
stringent in its character. As juries could not 
be trusted, special tribunals consisting oi three 
judges were to be appointed by the Lord Lieu- 
tenant; the police were to have the right of search 
in proclaimed districts by night and day; the 
Alien Act was to be so modified as to allow of 
the immediate arrest of suspicious strangers; and 
two stipendiary magistrates were to be authorised 
to exercise summary jurisdiction in cases of secret 
societies, of assaults on the police, or of intimida- 
tion. The .■\ct was to be in force for three years. 
... It became law on the 12th of July." — J. F. 
Bright, History of England, pp. 26-27. — "The 
tragic murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish, the 
messenger of conciliation, and Mr. Under-Secre- 
tary Burke by the 'Invincibles,' in the Phoenix 
Park brought [the triumph of Gladstone] ... to 
an abrupt conclusion. Parnell had accepted the 
aid of those extremists, who were prepared to co- 
operate in an agitation more or less within the 
law. But there remained the other section of 
extremists, who were opposed to such co-operation, 
and these had now come upon the scene. . . . 
Dublin, and the whole of Ireland, was filled with 
terror and alarm. Parnell made up his mind to 
keep clear of agitation by violent methods ever 
afterwards." — L. Paul-Dubois, Contemporary Ire- 
land, p. 83. — ".\t the same time [as the Crimes 
Act] the Government introduced an Arrears Bill 
which also passed into law. It applied only to 
tenants under I30, and to those who could satisfy 
a legal tribunal that they were unable to pay all 
the arrears of rent they owed. In such cases, if 
they paid the rent for 1881 and one year of the 
arrears due, the State, out of the Church Surplus 
Fund, paid another year of the arrears, and 
the remainder was wiped out. Thus did the Gov- 
ernment carry out its side of the Kilmainham 
Treaty. Mr. Parnell on his side suppressed the 
Ladies' Land League by refusing to give addi- 
tional funds. . . . And, in opposition to Dillon, he 
expressed his determination to 'slow down the 
agitation.' Tired of violence, he wanted the coun- 
try to settle down to a moderate and purely 
constitutional movement. . . . [In October 1S82 
a] National Conference was . . . held m Dublin 
. . . and the Irish National League was formed 
The chief planks in its programme were Home 
Rule, peasant proprietary, local self-government, 
the extension of the franchise, the encouragement 
of Irish labour and industrial interests. Mod- 
elled on the Land League, the National Leacue 
had Mr. Parnell as its President, had its central 
committee and central offices in Dublin, and 
branches throughout the land. And in turn it 
extended to England and America, and even to 


IRELAND, 1884 

Return of Liberals 
First Home Rule Bill 

IRELAND, 1885-1891 

Australia. The League had also its official press 
organ — United Ireland — edited by one of the ablest 
of journalists, Mr. William O'Brien." — E. A. 
D'Alton, History of Ireland, v. 3, pp. 302-303. 
. Also in: C. Russell, Parnell commission: Open- 
ing speech, pp. 282-291. — M. M. O'Hara, Chief 
and tribune, Parnell and DavitI, pp. 210-214. 

1884. — Enlargement of suffrage. — Representa- 
tion of the People Act. See E.ngland: 18S4-1885. 

1885-1891.— Return of Liberals.— First Home 
Rule Bill.— New Land Bill.— Their defeat.— Plan 
of campaign. — Fall and death of Parnell. — 
"Irish elections showed, in December, 18S5, an 
overwhelming majority in favor of the Home Rule 
party, and when they showed, also, that this party 
held the balance of power in Parliament, no one 
could longer ignore the urgency of the issue. . . , 
Mr. Gladstone's view, the indications of which, 
given by himself some months before, had been 
largely overlooked, now became generally under- 
stood. ... In the spring of 1886 the question could 
be no longer evaded or postponed. It was neces- 
sary to choose between . . . two courses ; the re- 
fusal of the demand for self-government, coupled 
with the introduction of a severe Coercion Bill, or 
the concession of it by the introduction of a Home 
Rule Bill. . . , How the Government of Ireland 
Bill was brought into the House of Commons 
on April 8th, amid circumstances of curiosity and 
excitement unparalleled since 1832 ; how, after de- 
bates of almost unprecedented length, it was de- 
feated in June, by a majority of thirty; how the 
policy it embodied was brought before the coun- 
try at the general election, and failed to win 
approval. ... All this is . . . well known. . . . 
But the causes of the disaster may not be equally 
understood. . . . First, and most obvious, although 
not most important, was the weight of authority 
. . . against the scheme proposed by Mr. Glad- 
stone. How came so many of his former colleagues, 
friends, supporters, to differ and depart from him 
on this occasion ? Besides some circumstances 
attending the production of the bill, . . . which 
told heavily against it, there were three feelings 
which worked upon men's minds, disposing them 
to reject it. The first of these was dislike and 
fear of the Irish Nationalist members. In the 
previous House of Commons this party had been 
uniformly and bitterly hostile to the Liberal Gov- 
ernment. Measures intended for the good of Ire- 
land, like the Land Act of 1881, had been ungra- 
ciously received, treated as concessions extorted, 
for which no thanks were due — inadequate con- 
cessions, which must be made the starting-point 
for fresh demands. Obstruction had been freely 
practised to defeat not only bills restraining the 
liberty of the subject in Ireland, but many other 
measures. Some members of the Irish party, 
apparently with the approval of the rest, had 
systematically sought to delay all English and 
Scotch legislation, and, in fact, to bring the work 
of Parliament to a dead stop. . . . There could 
be no doubt as to the hostility which they, still less 
as to thai which their fellow-countrymen in the 
United States, had expressed toward England, for 
they had openly wished success to Russia while 
war seemed inipending with her, and the so-called 
Mahdi of the Sudan was vociferously cheered at 
rnany a Nationalist meeting. ... To many Eng- 
lishmen, the proposal to create an Irish Parliament 
seemed nothing more or less than a proposal to 
hand over to these men the government of Ireland, 
with all the opportunities thence arising to op- 
press the opposite party in. Ireland and to worry 
England herself. It was all very well to urge 
that the tactics which the Nationalists had pur- 

sued when their object was to extort Home Rule 
would be dropped, because superfluous, when Home 
Rule had been granted; or to point out that an 
Irish Parliament would probably contain diiferent 
men from those who had been sent to Westminster 
as Mr. Parnell's nominees. Neither of these ar- 
guments could overcome the suspicious antipathy 
which many Englishmen felt. . . . The internal 
condition of Ireland supplied more substantial 
grounds for alarm. . . . Three-fourths of the peo- 
ple are Roman Catholics, one-fourth Protestants, 
and this Protestant fourth subdivided into bodies 
not fond of one another, who have little com- 
munity of sentiment. Besides the Scottish colony 
in Ulster, many English families have settled here 
and there through the country. They have been 
regarded as mtruders by the aboriginal Celtic 
population, and many of them, although hundreds 
of years may have passed since they came, still 
look on themselves as rather English than Irish. 
. . . Many people in England assumed that an 
Irish Parliament would be under the control of 
the tenants and the humbler class generally, a'nd 
would therefore be hostile to the landlords. They 
went farther, and made the much bolder as- 
sumption that as such a Parliament would be 
chosen by electors, most of whom were Roman 
Catholics, it would be under the contro of the 
Catholic priesthood, and hostile to Protestants. 
Thus they supposed that the grant of self- 
government to Ireland would mean the abandon- 
ment of the upper and wealthier class, the land- 
lords and the Protestants, to the tender mercies 
of their enemies. . . . The fact stood out that in 
Ireland two hostile factions had been contending 
for the last sixty years, and that the gift of self- 
government might enable one of them to tyran- 
nize over the other. True, that party was the 
majority, and, according to the principles of demo- 
cratic government, therefore entitled to prevail 
But it is one thing to admit a principle and an- 
other to consent to its application. The minority 
had the sympathy of the upper classes in England, 
because the minority contained the landlords. It 
had the sympathy of a large part of the middle 
class, because it contained the Protestants. . . . 
There was another anticipation, another forecast 
of evils to follow, which told most of all upon 
English opinion. This was the notion that Home 
Rule was only a stage in the road to the com- 
plete separation of the two islands." — J. Bryce, 
Past and future of the Irish question (New Prince- 
ton Review, Jan., 1887). — See also England: 1885- 

On October 23, 1886, "Mr. T. Harrington, in 
consultation with Messrs. Dillon, O'Brien, and 
others, launched his plan of campaign in United 
Ireland. . . . The chief proposals of Mr. Harring- 
ton's plan were these: The tenants on an estate 
where no voluntary abatement of rent was of- 
fered by the landlord were to wait upon him in 
deputation and ask for one on reasoned grounds. 
If this request was refused, the tenants were 
then to resolve not to pay any rent until the 
landlord would agree to a reduction commensurate 
with the prevailing depression. They were to pay 
into 'a campaign fund,' on the estate, the re- 
duced rent offered to and refused by the landlord, 
to be given to him should he consent, under this 
pressure, to grant the abatement asked for, or 
to be used, as far as necessary, in the fight which 
might follow if he should resort to legal pro- 
ceedings and eviction. . . . This movement was 
not officially connected with the National League. 
The secretary of the national organization was 
the author of the plan, but for reasons of dis- 


IRELAND, 1885-1891 

Fall and Death 
of Parnell 

IRELAND, 1885-1903 

cretion this was not made known at the time. 
The finances of the fight, its direction and gen- 
eral policy, were attended to apart, in order 
that neither Mr. Parnell nor the organization 
proper of the league should be involved in any 
legal proceedings arising out of the advance-guard 
attack upon the landlord position. The scheme 
was put in operation on eighty-four estates. The 
tenants formed estate combinations, paid the 'plan 
rent' into the hands of a committee, and awaited 
results. In no fewer than sixty instances the 
landlords prudently gave way, and settled on the 
plan terms, which averaged less than twenty-five 
per cent, of an abatement. On twenty-four estates 
a brief struggle ensued, but wisdom prevailed over 
obstinacy, and the landlords came to terms on 
a similar average of reductions. ... In the ses- 
sion of 18S7 . . . [the report of the Cowper Com- 
mission declared, inter alia] : 'The fall in the 
price of produce of all kinds, and in all parts 
of the country, has much impaired the ability 
of the farmer to pay the full rent, and this, fol- 
lowing on a previous restriction of credit by 
the bankers and other lenders of money, as well 
as by the shopkeepers, has verj' greatly increased 
their financial difficulties. . . . The land commis- 
sioners, recognizing this depression, began towards 
the end of 1885 to reduce the rents then being 
judicially fixed by from ten to fourteen per cent, 
below the scale of reduction in the four previous 
years, and they have since continued to act on 
this principle. . . . The sudden fall in prices dur- 
ing the last two years was intensified in its effect 
by a gradual deterioration which had been going 
on in the quality and produce of the soil, both 
tillage and grass, during a series of years of low 
temperature and much rain, especially in 1879, 
the worst year of the century. During this period 
much of the tenants' capital had disappeared. The 
cost of cultivation, compared with that of an 
earlier period, had also greatly increased.' " — M. 
Davitt, Fall of feudalism in Ireland, pp. 516-517, 
520-521. — "The undoubtedly disturbed condition of 
much of Ireland, with the prevalence of agrarian 
outrages, was largely caused by the existence of 
combinations which practically set up a law dif- 
ferent from and antagonistic to the ordinar>' law. 
The aim of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 
[of July, 1887] was to restrain these combinations 
by placing extraordinary powers in the hands of 
the Lord Lieutenant. He was authorised to de- 
clare leagues or combinations illegal, and to pro- 
claim disturbed districts, which were then to pass 
under a system which was Httle less than arbi- 
trary government. Side by side with the danger 
arising from leagues and combinations went the 
extraordinary difficulty of convicting accused per- 
sons; even when the evidence against them was 
of the strongest character, juries refused to find 
them guilty. In order to withdraw criminal trials 
from the influence of organized intimidation or 
local sympathy, the new- law contemplated, under 
certain circumstances, the transference of the pro- 
ceedings not only to a different part of Ireland, 
but altogether into England ... A proclamation 
was at once issued, placing Ireland under the 
Crimes .Act; ajid on Mr. W. O'Brien, as editor of 
United Ireland, continuing to encourage the people 
in opposition to the police, the National League 
was declared by the Lord Lieutenant to be a 
'dangerous association.' A regular war between the 
Nationalists and the .■\dministration was thus be- 
gun. Again and again meetings were proclaimed 
as illegal, again and again they were held in spite 
of the proclamation. Nor was the disturbance con- 
fined to the Irish. English sympathy was excited 

by the apparent violence of the Administration, and 
a certain number of the more eager Radicals 
threw themselves vehemently into the movement, 
and frequently attended and even addressed the 
illegal meetmgs. On the Qth of September a pe- 
culiarly disastrous collision took place between 
the people and the police at Michelstown. . . . 
The police . . . driven back to their barracks . . . 
fired upon the crowd with fatal result. . . . The 
Coroner's jury brought in a verdict of wilful mur- 
der against the inspector and three of the con- 
stables; but in spite of this they were not prose- 
cuted. The event remained as an evil memory of 
coercion unsuccessfully attempted, and of the 
processes of law set at nought by the authorities. 
. . . These violent scenes, and the disaffection of 
the Irish, were a rnelancholy blot upon the satis- 
faction which should have marked the year of the 
Queen's Jubilee. . . . Interest lay in the grad- 
ually rising opposition of the heads of the Roman 
Catholic Church to the extreme forms of the Na- 
tionalist movement. The Pojje had already given 
his verdict against it; and although the majority 
of the clergy were in sympathy with it, and con- 
fined their obedience to assuming an attitude of 
friendly neutrality, there were not wanting both 
priests and bishops who, following the conspicu- 
ous example of Dr. O'Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick, 
condemned boycotting and refusal of rent in very 
outspoken language. But though the Church might 
condemn them, and unfortunate victims of the 
'plan of campaign' might suffer, the leaders per- 
sisted in their 'no rent' policy, rendered more 
acceptable to the people by a threatened failure 
of the potato crop in August i8qo. With equal 
persistency the Government pursued its course; the 
Irish leaders were duly apprehended, tried, and im- 
prisoned. The stormy trial of Mr. Dillon and 
Mr. O'Brien in Tipperary, from which they had 
withdrawn forfeiting their bail, was scarcely ended 
when a catastrophe occurred, which affected pri- 
marily the private character of Mr. Parnell, but 
which in its consequences not only divided . the 
Irish party, but even for the time seemed to 
paralyze the action of the Opposition in Parlia- 
ment. A suit was brought in the Divorce Court 
by a well-known member of the Irish party, in 
which Mr. Parnell was the respondent. The Court 
pronounced its judgment in favour of the divorce 
(November 17, 1800). . . . Mr. Parnell did not 
wholly lose his popularity, but his opponents, sup- 
ported by the full weight of the priestly influence, 
were too strong for him. He lost much by his 
refusal to produce the accounts of the National 
League, and the cause as a whole suffered severely 
by the entire collapse of the New Tipperar\- 
scheme, where the unfortunate tenants were left 
deserted amid the struggles of their leaders. The 
issue of the contest was however still uncertain, 
when the unexpected death of Mr. Parnell, in 
October iSqi, withdrew the personal element from 
it, and the party settled down in two sections, 
the one under Mr. McCarthy, the other under 
Mr. Pamell's trusty follower, Mr. John Redmond." 
— J. F. Bright, History of England, pp. 104, 107- 
loS, Ii8-iiq, 127, 130. 

1885-1903. — Ashbourne Act. — Land purchasing 
legislation of 1891 and 1896. — "With the Ash- 
bourne Act of 1885 the purchase system became of 
real importance, and immediately proved that the 
more conservative measures would not suffice. A 
Committee of the House of Lords had proposed a 
comprehensive programme in 1882, suggesting the 
loan of the entire purchase money in order to 
create a peasantn,' of small holders. Though there 
was much opposition to this revolutionary step, 


IRELAND, 1885-1903 

Ashbourne Act 
Gaelic League 

IRELAND, 1896-1902 

the only alternative, that of land nationalisation 
. . . secured little encouragement from any quar- 
ter. The Ashbourne Act provided a fund of 
£5,000,000, from which loans were to be made to 
such tenants as might secure the sanction of the 
Land Commission for the purchase of their hold- 
ings. The yearly annuity paid by the purchasers 
for this loan was fixed at 4 per cent. Three per 
cent, of this was allocated to interest charges; 
the remainder was to accumulate as a sinking fund 
to pay off the principal. This arrangement se- 
cured complete ownership for the occupier after 
payments of the annuity for forty-nine years. 
Such immediate success attended the promulgation 
of this Act that a further grant of £5,000,000 was 
made early in i838. This vindication of the 
policy of tenant purchase led to an even more 
comprehensive measure in iSgi. An issue of land 
stock up to the value of £33,000,000, to be paid 
over to tlie landlords in this form rather than 
in cash as provided in the previous Acts, was au- 
thorised. The allocation of the 4 per cent, yearly 
annuity differed somewhat from that under the 
previous Acts. The money was secured at a lower 
rate of interest (2^4 per cent.), and the '/i per 
cent, surplus was placed in a fund for the con- 
struction of labourers' cottages. This excellent pro- 
vision was abandoned after the amending .'\ct of 
1896, by which the !4 per cent, was added to the 
sinking fund. In this way the period of payment 
was reduced to forty-two years. Another change 
introduced by the amending Act provided for de- 
cadal reductions in the annuity, a wise foresight in 
case of a further drop in the prices of agricul- 
tural produce. Under this arrangement, the pos- 
sible period of purchase was extended to seventy 
years. Yet despite their various advantages and 
the large resources available, these Acts were com- 
paratively unsuccessful. Over the period to igo3, 
only 38,251 tenants had been converted into pro- 
prietors, in the aggregate a large, but relatively 
a rather meager result. The chief reason for the 
ineffectiveness of the Acts of 1891 and i8q6 was 
the fact that the sale was not made sufficiently 
enticing for the landlord. While the land stock 
in which the purchase price was paid was at par 
or a premium, the transaction was prolilable 
enough. But the heavy issues of Consols at the 
time of the war in the Transvaal seriously de- 
preciated these kindred securities. Whereas in 
i8q5 Irish land stock stood at a premium (it went 
as high as 114), it had fallen by igoo to a po- 
sition permanently below par. This fact quickly 
clogged the machinery of purchase, and by 1902 
the new sales were reduced to an almost negligible 
number. Besides, there were many legal diffi- 
culties which were a constant hindrance. The 
purchases proceeded at such a slow rate that the 
completion of the change which had been con- 
sideied a matter of a few years was relegated into 
the dim, distant future." — L. E. P. Smith-Gordon 
and L. C. Staples, Rural reconstruction in Ireland, 
pp. 25-26. — "The effect which the measure [of 
1891] would have on the permanent settlement of 
Ireland was of course as yet a mere matter of 
speculation ; but there were clear signs that Mr. 
Balfour's administration, in spite of the uproar it 
had raised, had been effective. In part no doubt 
he had received assistance from the agricultural 
distress which had fallen upon the country at the 
close of i8go, since it gave him the opportunity 
of showing the real sympathy which lay behind 
the severity of his action ; in part also he had 
been assisted by the private disputes of the Irish 
Parliamentary leaders, whose humbler followers in 
Ireland labouring under a sense of desertion were 

more disposed to accept conciliatory measures. 
The result at all events was satisfactory; for Mr. 
Balfour was able to declare in Parliament (June 
5, 1891) that the time had arrived for relaxing 
the action of the coercive clauses of the Crimes 
Act, that they might now be. safely removed from 
all Ireland with the exception of one county, 
and a few outlying baronies." — J. F. Bright, His- 
tory of England, pp. 134-135- 

1893. — Gladstone's Home Rule Bill passed by 
House of Commons and defeated by House of 
Lords. See Exglakd; 1892-1893. 

1893-1905. — Foundation of Gaelic League. — 
Early growth of its influence. — Dr. Douglas 
Hyde, in 1893 "founded the Gaelic League, a 
body non-political and non-sectarian, with one 
main object in view — the restoration of the Irish 
language to its place as the speech of the people. 
. . . Branches of the League were formed all over 
the country, and were particularly strong in Dub- 
lin and some of the larger towns. ... It began to 
acquire influence. Some clerical managers intro- 
duced IrLsh into their schools. Some county and 
urban councils passed resolutions requiring those 
who sought employment from them to have a 
knowledge of Irish. Local assemblies, Feisanna, were 
held all over the country, at which prizes were 
given for speaking, singing, story-telling, and re- 
citing, in Irish. Classes for the study of the lan- 
guage were started in ever>' branch. A great annual 
assembly, called the Oireathlas, was held in Dub- 
lin. . . . The League remained a non-political and 
non-sectarian organization. The parliamentary 
Nationalists, still believing in politics, made over- 
tures to the League, which were rejected. . . . 
[In 1905] the circulation of the official organ of 
the Gaelic League, An Claidheamh Soluis . . . 
[was] large and increasing, although the major 
part of the paper . . . [was] written in Irish." — 
J. O. Hannay, Gaelic League (Independent Review), 
Nov., 1905). 

Also in: A. E. D'Alton, History of Ireland, v. 3, 
p. 496-500. 

1895. — Waning of interest in Home Rule. — 
".'\fter the intense excitement which had attended 
the Home Rule Bills, and the constant recurrence 
of the Irish difficulty in an aggravated form dur- 
ing the last twenty years, the small part it played 
in Lord Salisbury's last Ministry is somewhat sur- 
prising. This is said to be partly due to the 
sympathetic management of Mr. [John] Morley 
during his tenure of office [1892-1895]; but its 
continuance may more probably be traced to good 
seasons and commercial prosperity, to the over- 
whelming majority of the Unionists which deprived 
the Irish party in Parliament of much of its po- 
lilica'l importance, to the quarrels which broke 
up that party after the death of Mr. Parnell, and 
to a certain measure of success which attended 
the efforts of Government to secure the well- 
being of the people. It is remarkable that there 
had been for some years an unbroken growth in 
the deposits in the Irish savings banks. They 
had steadily increased from £4,710,000 in 1S86 to 
£7,678,000 by the end of 1895. Two good har- 
vests had also tended to the lessening of political 
discontent." — J. F. Bright, History of England, 
pp. 199-200. — See also E.n'gla.vd: 1894-1895 
(March-September) . 

1896-1902. — Continued discussion of land 
question. — Land conference (1902). — "Between 
1S96 and 1902 Parliament was not entirely free 
from discussion on the Irish Land Question. The 
Irish Nationalists in the House of Commons 
pressed the claims and hardships of the tenants, 
and advanced a plea for compulsory sale. In the 


IRELAND, 1896-1902 

Land Question 
Local Government Act 

IRELAND, 1899-1900 

House of Lords the representatives of the land- 
owners complained strongly of the working of the 
Acts, and endeavoured to secure compensation for 
injury they had suffered as the result of legisla- 
tion since 1881. The Government turned a deaf 
car to both parties; and it was not until 1902 that 
they proposed further legislation. ... In the au- 
tumn ... an event took place which was to have 
the most far-reaching results on land purchase. 
The situation in Ireland was troubled. The United 
Irish League was in full activity ; its opponents 
had formed a Land Trust to provide the funds 
and organisation necessar)' to defend and protect 
those whom the League attacked. The (jovern- 
ment, moreover, had been compelled to take de- 
cisive steps to check disorder. On September 3 
a letter appeared in the press from Captain Shaw 
Taylor, a Galway landlord, inviting the principal 
landowners and Nationalists, as representing the 
tenants, to take part in a conference to which 
proposals for settling the land question would be 
submitted. For a while it seemed that the project 
would be still-born. The leading landlords stood 
aloof; but the Landowners' Convention, although 
not expressing definite approval of a conierence, 
recorded an opinion in favour of a settlement. 
Other landowners supported the proposal; while 
an unofficial poll showed considerable feeUng for 
the conference. The Chief Secretary, too, spoke 
of it as 'a step in the right direction.' ... At a 
meeting of the [XationaHstj Party the desirability 
of a conference was agreed to. On December 20 
the Land Conference became an accomplished fact. 
. . . The conference sat with closed doors, and 
within a fortnight had unanimously agreed to a 
report, which was issued on January 3, IQ03. It 
insisted on the expediency of settling the land 
question upon a basis mutually satisfactory to 
owners and occupiers, and expressed the vie>v that 
an unexampled opportunity was afforded of set- 
thng the dispute. It stated that the only satis- 
factory solution w-as by the substitution of an 
occupying proprietary in lieu of the existing sys- 
tem of dual ownership, and it proceeded to outline 
a scheme upon this principle. . . . The report, 
however, met with general acceptance. The Land- 
owners' Convention were not dissatisfied with the 
conclusions arrived at; and the unique coaUtion of 
Irish landowners and Irish tenants rendered Mr. 
Wyndham's task of passing a Land Bill through 
Parliament all the easier. So, too, the improved 
condition of Ireland and consequent rela.xation of 
severer methods of administration added consider- 
ably to the prevalent good understanding." — P. G. 
Cambray, Irish affairs and the Home Rule ques- 
tion, pp. 197-199. 

1898-1907. — Local Government Act. — ^Land 
and labor associations. — A bill which had great 
success, so far as it went, was brought forward 
by the Conservative Government, and carried 
through both in July, 1898. This .Act pro- 
vided "for the organisation of a system of local 
government in Ireland substantially similar to that 
which, within the last few years, has been es- 
tablished in Great Britain." This important .\ct 
established County Councils, Urban District Coun- 
cils, Rural District Councils, and Boards of Guard- 
ians, all elected by ballot ever>' three years, on 
a franchise broader than the Parliamentary fran- 
chise, since it gave the local suffrage to women. 
The same .■\ct extended to Ireland the provisions 
of the .■\ct for the relief of agricultural land, — 61 
& 62 Vift. ch. 37. — The act "put more power in 
the hands of the Irish and of the Nationalist party. 
.■\ very small percentage of the old members of the 
grand jury found seats on the new Councils, which 

were for the most part constituted of men inex- 
perienced in administrative business. It can afford 
no cause for surprise that here and there unwise 
excesses of party feeling were seen, in nothing per- 
haps more notably than in the violent resolutions 
passed in not a few of the newly established Coun- 
cils in favour of the Boers during the South 
African War. It is more to be wondered at that 
in a large majority of cases the Councils set to 
work with an apparent determination to execute 
their new duties with throughness, and on the 
whole succeeded in so doing." — J. F. Bright, His- 
tory of England, pp. 202-203. — "After the passing 
of the Local Government Act of 1898 abolishing 
the old Grand Jur>- system [by which poor rates 
and road rates had been imposed] and throwing 
the franchise for district and county government 
open to the general body of the people, there 
was a real all-Ireland movement directed towards 
securing the election of Labour members to dis- 
trict, county, town and city councils, but it was 
. . . [purely local, without a] national centre. . . . 
Throughout the w'hole country, however, the 
unions and the Trades Councils combined to put 
forward Labour candidates at the first elections in 
1899 and succeeded in getting many elected in 
Dublin, Dcrry, Cork, Limerick and many of the 
smaller centres. In the rural areas the labourers 
and small farmers combined in local organisations, 
the land and Labour Associations . . . and had 
a considerable success in the rural elections. But 
both in town and country the experiment was a 
failure. . . . Most of the elected Labour mem- 
bers had no training, . . . few of them had any 
clear grasp of the essential policy and tactics of 
independent and class representation, . . . and in 
a few years the working men . . . were absorbed 
by other political parties and repudiated by the 
workers. . . In 1896 James Connolly [had] 
founded in Dublin the first definitely Socialist 
organisation in Ireland, the Irish Socialist Re- 
publican Party . , Connolly and [this] . . . 
Party were the pioneers of proletarian Socialism 
in Ireland. ... In 1S99-1900 the Party conducted 
a strong and vigorous agitation in opposition to 
the imperialist war of Great Britain against the 
Boer Republics, and with the other revolutionary 
movements in Ireland, the Republican Party 
helped to establish the Irish Transvaal Committee 
which organised an Irish Brigade for service in the 
field on the side of the Republican armies in 
South Africa." — Ireland at Berne (Reports and 
.Memoranda presented to International Labour 
and Socialist Conference at Berne, Feb., 1919, pp. 

1899-1900. — Organization of agricultural de- 
partment. — Systemization of agriculture. — In 
1899 "a new Department of Agriculture, Indus- 
tries, and Technical Instruction was created for 
Ireland. The object was to develop the resources 
of the country and to teach the people how to 
use them. The first \ice-President was Mr. Hor- 
ace Plunkett. This appointment was an official 
recognition of the excellent work he had for some 
lime been carrying on. At his persuasion an Irish 
.Agricultural Organisation Society had been formed, 
and had pressed upon the people with great suc- 
cess the principles of industrial co-operation. The 
work had begun in 1897, and had spread with 
extraordinary rapidity — ^7 Agricultural Societies, 
with a membership of 9000, and 155 Dairy Socie- 
ties, with a membership of 20,000, were under its 
control by December, 1898." — J. F. Bright, His- 
tory of England, pp. 202-203.— The cardinal prin- 
ciple of the Irish .Agricultural Organization So- 
ciety "is mutual help and self-dependence. . . . 


IRELAND, 20th Century 

Land Purchase Under 
W yndham Land Act 

IRELAND, 1903 

It was encouraged by government grants till the 
Department of Agriculture took over much of the 
society's work under the vice-presidency of Sir 
Horace Plunkett. ... Of its political aspect it does 
not concern the economist to speak. . . . The great 
outstanding fact, and Sir Horace Plunkett's most 
powerful apology, lies in the gigantic nature of the 
work his inspiration has accomplished. Indeed, 
it has been held that Wyndham's great Act itself 
would have been practically useless but for the 
cooperative system, which can now render the 
smaller farms productive when they would have 
been unproductive by having no outlet for their 
dairy produce." — L. G. Redmond-Howard, New 
birth of Ireland, p. 158. — See also Cooperation: 

Also in: H. Plunkett, Ireland and the new cen- 
tury, pp. 227-241, 26o-2qi. 

20th century. — Extent of education. — Practi- 


cal instruction. — Technical and commercial 
schools. See Education: Modern developments: 
20th century: General education: Ireland. 

1903. — Land purchase under Wyndham Land 
Act. — Estates commissioners. — Terms of act. — 
In 190,5 "Sir Antony MacDonnell was brought 
home [from India] to be Under Secretary to the 
Lord Lieutenant, that is, permanent chief to Irish 
administration. At the same time Mr. George 
Wyndhatn, descended from the ,great Geraldine 
House of Kildare, became Chief Secretary. These 
two men were jointly responsible for the Land 
Purchase Act of 1Q03, which decided in principle 
that all Irish landlords should be bought out on 
terms so favourable that they could maintain their 
old way of life in their old homes, but that the 
land of Ireland should be owned by the men who 
farmed it, payment being made by a long series 

of annuities, less in every case than the rent which 
had been paid in the past. This Act, though its 
principle has still not been carried out over the 
whole of Ireland, yet marked the triumph of a 
revolution." — S. L. Gwynn, Irish sitttation, p. 7. — • 
"The bill, introduced on March 25, met with ac- 
ceptance, and was but little opposed, even on the 
Committee stage. ... Its favourable treatment 
arose not only through the preliminary agreement 
that had been come to, but was also to be found 
in the broad and generous principles underlying 
the scheme. From the restrictions and points for 
litigation which had afflicted other Land Acts the 
Bill of 1903 was believed to be free. Whereas pre- 
vious schemes had offered no more than purchase 
for a limited number of tenants, Mr. Wyndham's 
Bill aimed at effecting a complete settlement on 
those lines. No limited amount of money was 
set aside for advances ; but it was estimated that 
£100,000,000 would be required to finance the 
measure. The problem was to offer sufficient in- 
ducements to the landlord to seil and to the tenant 
to buy, while, at the same time, not placing too 
great a burden on the British Exchequer. There 
were three interests to meet. So far as the land- 
lords alone were concerned, they were to be paid 
in cash ana not in stock; and as a further en- 
couragement, especially to 'limited' owners and 
life tenants, and as compensation for incidental 
losses on the sale, the owner was to receive for 
his own use a cash bonus of 12 per cent, on the 
purchase money, to be paid out of the Land Pur- 
chase Aid Fund. The advantage to the tenant 
lay in the reduction of the purchase annuity from 
4 per cent, under previous Acts to 3!4 per cent., of 
which ],''2 per cent, formed the sinking fund, and 
2-J4 per cent, represented interest. Repayment was 
consequently extended from forty-nine to sixty- 
eight and a half years. Other provisions, espe- 
cially those which simplilied the proving of title, 
aimed at facilitating the operation of the Act, and 
were advantageous to both landlord and tenant. 
Tenants were not dealt with individually, and 
the owner sold not a farm here and a farm there, 
but the whole estate or such unit as the Com- 
missioners agreed to deal with, and the tenants 
acted in a body. Already judicial rents had been 
fixed on a large number of estates, and the Act 
took advantage of this to simplify the procedure. 
Where the purchase annuity showed a substantial 
reduction on the judicially fixed 'fair rent,' . . . 
the agreed price was taken as equitable, and the 
holding as offering security for the advance without 
need of inspection, and without the uncertainty 
that when owner and tenant had come to an 
agreement the Commissioners might decline to ad- 
vance the money. On the part of the British 
people there was a gift of the £12,000,000, which 
formed the 'bonus,' for which they had the pros- 
pect of finally settling the Irish land question. 
The administration of the Act was entrusted to 
three Estates Commissioners, and the financial 
part to the Treasury. To the Estates Commis- 
sioners were also given powers of purchase, and 
of subsequent re-sale to tenants; also they were 
entrusted with powers for dealing with untenanted 
land, creating new holdings, enlarging holdings, 
and reinstating evicted tenants." — P. G. Cambray, 
Irish affairs and the Home Ride question, pp. 
199-201. — "The Act of 1903 marks the culminating 
point of Irish land legislation. . . . But the slow- 
ness of the transfer, caused by a provision of the 
law of 1903 which limited the issue of stock to 
£5,000,000 yearly, was a source of considerable 
criticism The Estates Commissioners fell more 
and more behind in dealing with the applications 


IRELAND, 1904 

Sinn Fein 

IRELAND, 1905-1916 

made to them. For the tenants, the arrangements 
did not seem as satisfactory as in previous Acts. 
The zone system, which fixed the purchase price 
according to the existing judicial rents and in- 
volved a consideralile increase over existing stand- 
ards, was not popular. Meanwhile, the fmancial 
arrangements broke down completely. The stock 

issued at 

per cent, fell in the markets to a 

very considerable discount, requiring large inroads 
upon the Irish Development Fund to make up 
the deficit. Moreover, the law did not deal ade- 
quately with the problem of congested districts, 
many of which were found to exist outside the 
areas officially known by that name." — L. E. P. 
Smith-Gordon and L. C. Staples, Rural reconstruc- 
tion in Ireland, pp. 27-28. — In igoS, therefore, 
Augustus Birrell introduced a new bill which pro- 
vided for the return to the old policy. This bill 
was passed in igoq. 

1904. — First devolution plan. — Both Wyndham 
and "Sir Antony MacDonnell were fully aware 
that to settle the land question did not dispose 
of the Irish problem. Nationalist Ireland, which 
returned 80 per cent of the Irish Members of 
Parliament, had also its elected representatives in 
control of all purely local business ; but the cen- 
tral administration of the country was controlled 
by it. .\ plan was considered by the Chief Sec- 
retary and his associate.^ lor devolving upon some 
representative Irish body the charge of the su- 
perior departments; so came into fashion the word 
'devolution.' It v/as an attempt to introduce 
Home Rule by instalments. As soon as rumour 
spread of the attempt, outcry was raised, es- 
pecially by the Unionists of Ulster. Mr. Wynd- 
ham was immediately thrown overboard by Mr. 
Balfour, the Prime Minister. Nationalist Ireland 
was at this moment, in 1004, mainly preoccupied 
with the new working of land purchase, then pro- 
ceeding very rapidly. Moreover, it was clear to 
all that the days of Tory ascendancy, which had 
lasted with one brief ineffectual interval since 
1886, were at last numbered. Ireland at this 
moment realised that much had been gained under 
the rule of its traditional opponents; much more 
was hoped from the approaching advent to power 
of its traditional friends. One thing had sunk 
deep into the Irish mind. Constitutional agita- 
tion had made good; though with that conviction 
went the other, that for Irishmen to get a bad 
law changed the law must be defied and broken." 
— S. L. Gwynn, Irish situation, pp. g-io. 

1905-1916. — Formation of Sinn Fein party. — 
Sinn Fein movement to rebellion of 1916. — 
Gradual trend toward rebellion. — "The Sinn Fein 
movement was, from the first, political. It was 
Nationalist in the widest and most extreme form 
of that word. Founded in 1905, some five years 
or so after the Gaelic League, to a large ex- 
tent, it left to the latter organisation the educa- 
tional work it might, under other circumstances, 
have itself undertaken, and proceeded to supple- 
ment that work by the wider means at its disposal 
owing to its freer constitution. Though strictly 
nonsectarian, it was not, like the Gaelic League, 
trammelled by non-political bonds, and it was 
able to expound a policy and formulate a pro- 
gramme that the Gaelic League, committed as it 
then was to a severe estrangement from all that 
politics mean, could not undertake. . . . When 
the payment of members of Parliament was 
adopted, and the Irish representatives received 
i400 a year, the scorn of the Sinn Feiners passed 
all bounds. How could anything virile, they 
asked, be expected from men who were in the 
pay of the Governro«nt? , , , Suggestions were 


(made] for the establishment of Irish Consuls. 
This was the suggestion that caught the fancy 
of Sir Roger Casement, who for years had been 
in the British Consular Service. He became in- 
terested in the Sinn Fein movement and strongly 
supported the proposal that Irish Consuls should 
be appointed in the various large capitals of the 
world. The primary object of these Consuls would 
be to act as visible signs of the distinct nationality 
of Ireland. Their secondary, and equally impor- 
tant, purpose would be to watch for opportunities 
for Irish trade, ... as well as to advise as to 
new methods of business in Ireland. .■\11 these pro- 
posals had one direct object and that was to in- 
itiate the Irish people into the art of depending 
on themselves alone. . . . Self-reliance was the 
motto of the Sinn Feiners. In the early days 
of the movement it was not revolutionary, nor 
did it profess to appeal to arms to carry out 
its objects. Like the Gaelic League, but in a larger 
and wider sense, it was an educational movement 
formed for the purpose of trying to convince the 
Irish people to look out on the world from a new 
and more self-centred standpoint. Much, it was 
felt, could be accomphshed if only they could 
be converted from the evil practice of looking to 
England for everything they stood in need of. 
. . . Instead of waiting for State aid, why should 
not the people start at work themselves? There 
was mineral wealth in the country waiting to be 
opened up. There were railways and waterways 
that could be utilised if the people would only 
combine instead of talking. Why should Ireland 
stand apathetic, wearily waiting, whilst some sev- 
enty or eighty Irish members of the British Par- 
liament delivered interminable speeches about 
Home Rule? Better than any Home Rule would 
be the spirit of the Irish people if they started 
doing things and relied on themselves alone to 
do them. Such was the essential teaching of the 
Sinn Fein movement, and, at this stage, -it was, 
as Mr. Birrell, the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, 
stated at the Royal Commission in London (May 
iQth, 1916) wholly unobjectionable. The inspircr, 
and practically the founder, of the Sinn Fein move- 
ment was Mr. .Arthur Griffith, an able journalist 
of W'clsh descent, who returned to Dublin, his 
native place, early in the twentieth century, after 
several years spent in South .Africa. A bold 
and acute thinkei, a lucid and forcible writer, 
and a man who obtained and retained the un- 
shakable confidence of his followers, he devoted 
himself to expounding, by means of a weekly news- 
paper in Dublin, the doctrines of Sinn Fein." — J. 
F. Boyle, Irish rebellion of 1916, pp. '12-18. — "The 
older generation had thought about two things 
only^ — Home Rule and the land. Now, they were 
told that to revive the dying language was equally 
important; that Home Rule would be an empty 
symbol if Ireland lost its distinctive toncue; and 
that to free the land and make the farmer pros- 
perous was of little service unless Irish indus- 
tries were protected against foreign and especially 
English competition. All this angered the elder 
generation, and led to a severance of political 
sympathy between them and the young; thus pro- 
viding a natural recruiting ground for the new 
party, which began to make older Nationalists 
aware of its existence. ... In i8qq Mr. .Arthur 
Griffith [had] founded The United Irishman, re- 
viving the name of John Mitchel's rebel paper. 
He revived more than the name: since Mitchel 
there had been no publicist in Ireland possess- 
ing so trenchant a style. Yet it may be fairly 
said that without the Gaelic League, inspired by 
Hyde's raojt attractive personality, Mr. Griffiths 

IRELAND, 1905-1916 

Sinn Fein 
Trend toward Rebellion 

IRELAND, 1905-1916 

would hardly have succeeded so far as he did. 
The Gaelic League conducted necessarily a vehe- 
ment propaganda against anglicisation. . , . With 
great skill . . . [Griffith] furnished Gaelic stu- 
dents with a parallel from the history of a 
country which had recovered both its independence 
and its language. His pamphlet, The Resurrection 
of Hungary, preached all the things which the 
Gaelic League preached, and preached them with 
a political application. . . . Various minor organ- 
isations with Gaelic names came into being, but 
Sinn Fein ('Ourselves') was the name that stuck. 
The proposal to re-establish Irish independence 
through a general agreement to make English 


law and government unworkable came to be known 
as the Sinn Fein policy. The object defined was 
the recovery of independence under a joint crown 
■ — herein conforming to what Hungary had 
achieved; and as a first practical step was recom- 
mended the withdrawal of all Members from 
Westminster. They were to stay at home anil 
help to recreate Irish industries. All resistance was 
to be passive. Refusal to pay taxes was obviously 
a part of the programme, but since three-fifths 
of Irish taxes were levied indirectly, this was 
not very practicable, unless the Irish people aban- 
doned the use of alcohol, tobacco, tea, and so 
forth. The one important item of direct levy, in- 
come-tax, was not at this period to any great 
extent paid by those who sympathised with Sinn 
Fein. The new policy did not make much head- 

way. In iQoS, when the old constitutional move- 
ment had experienced a severe set-back, Mr. Dolan, 
Member for Leitrim, resigned his seat and stood 
again as a Sinn Feiner ; he was defeated so heavily 
that Sinn Fein did not contest a seat again till 
1916. It succeeded, however, in returning some 
members to the Dublin Corporation. None the 
less, constitutional Nationalism was losing ground 
in these years.' — S. L. Gwynn, Irish situation, pp. 
11-14. — "From the first the Sinn Fein cause at- 
tracted to itself the malcontents whose sole dogma 
may be summed up in the word — Hate [against 
England]. . . . These men saw, or thought they 
saw, an opportunity in the new movement to 
gratify their predominant passion. . . . [But] out- 
side of certain circles attracted by its doctrines 
in DubUn and some of the larger cities and towns, 
the country, as a whole, refused to have anything 
to do with it. The farmers, especially, neither un- 
derstood it nor attempted to understand it. . . . 
As an agricultural people their thoughts were 
centred solely on the soil. They had just emerged 
fiom a long-drawn-out struggle with landlordism. 
They had won. What they next wanted was some 
rest. Even Home Rule interested them but mildly. 
Sinn Fein did not interest them at all. Even 
in the towns and cities the movement made only 
poor progress. To be styled a Sinn Feiner meant 
being a crank The Nationalist Press, being be- 
hind the Nationalist Party, ridiculed the Sinn 
Fein movement. The politicians derided it. The 
Unionist Press, seeing the weakness of the move- 
ment supported it just a little as a lever against 
the more powerful Nationalist Party. Under such 
circumstances it flourished but feebly. Still, it 
managed to survive. . . . Many Sinn Feiners were 
pacifists. [From the beginning of the World War] 
some of them were against Germany for de- 
claring war, but nearly all, . . . were against Irish- 
men joining the Army to fight with England and 
her Allies against Germany. The policy of the 
'Sinn Fein' newspaper early in the war brought 
it into collision with the authorities, and it was 
suppressed. By other small newspapers, however, 
means were found of reaching the rank and fi e 
01 the Sinn Feiners. The change in attitude was 
gradual, but certain. When the Home Rule Bill 
was before Parliament there were signs that the 
Sinn Feiners, although they regarded it as in- 
adequate, were prepared to accept it. Especially 
were they anxious to retain the Ulster Protestants, 
for whom they professed an affection owing to the 
part played by the Northerners in the United 
Irishmen movement in I7g8. . . . When it finally 
passed, with, however, the guarantee that it would 
not come into operation until the end of the war, 
and also with the promise to the Ulster Unionists 
of an Amending Bill, the Sinn Feiners and other 
sections of actively discontented Irishmen had 
taken their choice. They had definitely become 
pro-German. A convention was established with 
the extreme Irish element in the United Irish 
States, and the words Sinn Fein came to mean (not 
quite, but in the main, fairly accurately) pro-Ger- 
man and pro-Republican. From the outset, and 
especially after the signing of the Home Rule Bill, 
Mr. Redmond and several members of his Party 
professed to treat this now very extreme sec- 
tion of Irishmen with supreme contempt. In 
this attitude he undoubtedly, as Mr. Birrell ad- 
mitted, influenced the Government. The Sinn 
Feiners, and those who, whilst not Sinn Feiners, 
thought with them on this matter, were treated 
as negligible, and thus came to pass the tragic series 
of events." — J. F. Boyle, Irish rebellion of 1916, 
pp. 18-20, 23-26. 


IRELAND, 1906 

Operation of 
Land Purchase Acts 

IRELAND, 1909-1911 

1906. — Housing of agricultural laborers.— 
"One of the most important measures pa»scd by 
the British Parhament during this period of Irish 
revival has been the Irish Labourers' Act. It 
was one of the first measures passed by the new 
Liberal Parhament of 1906, and it has been 
since often amended and supplemented. But its 
main provisions still stand. . . . (Under the] Act 
the Imperial Government . . . Lgranted] to the 
local authorities in Ireland loans at cheap rates 
for the purpose of re-housing the Irish agricul- 
tural labourers. It . . . [placed] the whole ad- 
ministration oi these loans in the hands of the 
Irish District Councils — a very delicate and diffi- 
cult task. So efficiently have the District Councils 
done their work that more than half the Irish 
labourers have already been re-housed. It is 
fully expected that within a few years the whole 
Irish agricultural labouring population will have 
received under this Act good houses, accompanied 
always with a plot ol land at a small rent. " — H. 
Spender, Home Rule, pp. 27-28. — The houses have 
attached to them from half an acre (lor the 
older houses) to an acre of land, and are rented 
to bona fide laborers at a nominal rental 01 
is.3d. a week, 01 approximately $15.60 a year. 
Up to the second decade of- the present century 
the wages ol laborers were very small. Quite 
late in the nineteenth century, a laborer who re- 
ceived seven shillings a week, and food lor himself, 
in his employer's kitchen, was munificently paid. 
In addition, he was generally allowed some land 
for a potato garden. He was housed by his em- 
ployer, and his wife and children were held at 
his employer's call, at a very small wage, when- 
ever their services were required. It was in very 
large part thi.s laboring class which was so 
wretchedly hou.sed in Ireland, partly because the 
farmers could not afford to build better dwellings 
for their "tenants." It must be admitted, how- 
ever, that the farmers showed little inclination 
to share their increased prosperity with the la- 
borers, and grumbled excessively when they were 
compelled to raise their wages. 

1907. — Proposed bill for creation of repre- 
sentative council. — Rejected by National party. 
- — \ Bill proposing half-way progress toward Home 
Rule for Ireland was introduced in the British 
Parliament by the chief secretary for Ireland, 
Mr. Augustine Birrell in May, igo?. "Liberalism 
in England had decided that the Home Rule 
question was one of secondary importance and 
could wait. The group headed by Mr. Asquith, 
Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Haldane ... in order 
to get a clear vote on the issue of Free Trade, 
. . . [had] pledged themselves to oppose the in- 
troduction of a Home Rule Bill in the Parliament 
which was to be elected at the beginning of igo6. 
The result was that a House of Commons in which 
the declared opponents of Home Rule did not 
number one-third could do nothing on this mat- 
ter, e.xccpt take up the attempt [at devolution] 
abandoned by Mr. VVyndham." — S. L. Gwynn, 
Irish situaiion, p. 14. — In 1907 therefore Augustus 
Birrell introduced a bill to provide for an elec- 
tive council "Mr. Birrell's Councils Bill of 1907 
proposed to set up an administrative Council of 
82 elected and 24 nominated members in Dublin 
to control the chief departments of Irish Gov- 
ernment. To establish an Irish Treasury, and 
to establish an Irish Fund of £4,164.000 per annum 
with certain supplemental grants to use for Irish 
administration. The measure was utterly con- 
demned by Unionists and Nationalists alike. It 
was denounced in unmeasured terms by a great 
'National Convention' in Dublin on 21st May, 

1907, as 'utterly inadequate in scope, and unsatis- 
factory In details. ' . . . The Bill was withdrawn 
on 3rd June, 1907, and with it (ell the 'Home Rule 
by Instalment' policy." — A. W. Samuel, Home 
Rule, pp. 72-73. — "An Evicted Tenants Bill of igo? 
enabled the Estates Commissioners to purch;isc — 
compulsorily, in case of need — the land needed for 
the settlement of evicted tenants; and the Bill, 
though modified by the House of Lords, ultimately 
became law."— E. Barker, Ireland in the last fijty 
years, p. 65. 

1908. — Old-Age Pensions Act. See Social in- 
surance: Great Britain: 1833-igii; Chariiies: 
Ireland: igo8-ig2i. 

1909 (October). — Organization of national 
university. — "The most important Irish measure 
passed in that Parliament was the Irish University 
Act, endowing a National University with colleges 
at Dublin, Cork, and Galway — which . . . [be- 
came] forcing-houses of the Sinn Fein faith." — S. 
L, Gwynn, Irish situaiion, p. 14. 

1909-1911. — Operation of Land Purchase Acts. 
— Congested districts. — "The law ol igog grap- 
pled with several . . . shortcomings. The inter- 
est rate on the stock issued was increased to 3 
per cent., and the annuities were raised corre- 
spondingly to 3'/> per cent. The heavy deficit 
already existing was to be settled by the inter- 
vention ol the Treasury. In place of a fixed 
bonus of 12 per cent., this additional payment 
to the landlord was now graded according to the 
price paid. The problem of congestion and the 
unwillingness of certain landlords to sell was par- 
tially solved by the extension of the area under 
the jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board 
and the investiture of that body with compulsory 
powers. The Estates Commissioners were given 
the same powers in respect to 'congested districts' 
outside the jurisdiction of the Board. These mod- 
ifications and additions have brought the pro- 
gramme laid down in 1903 much nearer completion. 
The actual result of the land purchase .\cts in 
Ireland has been to create a country of peasant 
proprietors. By March 31, igi5, nearly 300,000 
holdings had passed into the hands of their oc- 
cupiers. These represented nearly ten million acres 
of land. At the same time, an additional 100,000 
holdings of over three million acres were in process 
of negotiation. Together these comprised more 
than three-quarters of the soil of the country. A 
sum of nearly i 100 ,000.000 had been advanced by 
the Government in order to achieve this re- 
markable result" — L. E. P. Smith-Gordon and L. 
C. Staples, Rural reconstruction in Ireland, p. 2g. 
— "Congestion in Ireland is a problem within a 
problem. Its causes are both historic and economic. 
The Cromwellian Settlement, the Penal Laws, the 
Great Famine, the Clearances, and the Repeal of 
the Corn Laws, have all influenced the condi- 
tions for the worse, .■\lone, the land question 
would be sufficient to cause statesmen perplexity, 
but it is further complicated by the presence over 
a large part of the West of Ireland of conges- 
tion. By the term is not meant dense population, 
such as the word would indicate if applied to 
urban districts. A district may be sparsely peo- 
pled; but nevertheless congested, if the holdings 
are in the main too small and unproductive to 
support a family. .■\Iong the sea coast mostly 
there is a fairly dense population in certain 
areas where the land is hardly capable of sup- 
porting anv population at all; in other districts 
there is an excessive population on poor land, 
but adjacent to thinly populated districts of bet- 
ter land. The problem is one of the condition 
of the people, and though, so far as locality is 


IRELAND, 1909-1914 

Labor Movement 
Third Home Rule Bill 

IRELAND, 1912-1914 

concerned, it mainly occurs in the West, yet it 
is present in other parts of Ireland. . . . The 
Congested Districts Board was established in 1891 
by Mr. Balfour. Its duties are to remove con- 
gestion by migration and the purchase of estates 
and a redivision of holdings, and to improve the 
condition of such districts by aiding and develop- 
ing agriculture and fishing, by improving live 
stock, and by the introduction of suitable in- 
dustries. Today [1911] it has the spending of an 
income of £250,000 a year, partly voted by Par- 
liament, and in addition has a call on money 
raised by the Treasury for land purchase to the 
amount of £1,000,000 a year; and in such pur- 
chases the Board may exercise compulsory powers. 
By the Land Act of 1909 the number of mem- 
bers was increased, its area of operations was 
extended, and it was given new and more re- 
sponsible duties. Clearly, then, the Board is an 
important and powerful factor in Irish hfe. At 
the beginning it was laid down by Mr. Balfour 
that the Board was not in the ordinary sense 
a Government department; nor was it to be sub- 
ordinate to either the Chief Secretary's office or 
the Ministry of the day. With the exception, 
that the Lord Lieutenant must be consulted for 
certain purposes specified 'by statute, and that all 
applications to the Treasury for expenditure paid 
for out of the Vote must pass through 'the 
Castle,' its correspondence may be conducted in- 
dependently of the Government." — P. G. Cambray, 
Irish affairs and the Home Rule question, pp. 
23-24, 227-228. 

1909-1914. — Labor movement. — Organization 
of Labor party. — "Early in iqoq Larkin founded 
in Dublin . . . [the] Irish Transport and General 
Workers' Union, a class-conscious organisation with 
both industrial and political aims, designed for 
the organisation in one body of all general work- 
ers and centering all of them round the transport 
workers. . . . [The organisation had its head- 
quarters at Liberty Hall, Dublin, and issued a 
weekly newspaper known as The Irish Worker. 
Efforts were made to combat the evil of poor 
housing, small pay, and precarious employment.] 
Meanwhile amongst the Irish workers in the 
United States of America . . . James Connolly 
had been carrying on a successful Socialist propa- 
ganda. ... [In 1910 he returned to Ireland to 
organize the movement there. The younger men 
in Dublin were organized into a body known as 
the Citizen Army, which later on took an active 
part in the rising of 1916. Before that time (1911- 
1Q12) there were serious strikes in Dublin, where 
the Employers' Federation was formed to op- 
pose the Transport LInion. The strike lasted into 
IQ13, and the remembrance of the riots of that 
year no doubt had their share in inciting the re- 
volt of igi6. igii marked the end of the 
transition from a purely trade union movement 
to a combined political and industrial labor move- 
ment and party. This party adopted an anti-mili- 
tarist policy, and opposed compulsory service. In 
1Q12, an independent Labor Party was founded] 
in order that the organised workers might be 
able to enter the proposed Irish Parliament as 
an organised Labour Party. ... In August 1914 
and for twelve months afterwards the war divided 
but did not disrupt the movement. ... A strong 
section of the leaders and a majority of the 
rank and file, however, opposed participation in 
the war on, the ground that the people had not 
been consulted and that Great Britain's declared 
principle of the recognition o£ nationality had 
not been carried out in practice in Ireland. . . . 
By the autumn and winter of 1916 the Transport 

Union and Liberty Hall had begun to rise literally 
from their ashes, and the resurgent spirit in the 
country gave a fillip to organisation. . . . The fe- 
verish activity in organisation was the distinguish- 
ing mark of the year following the insurrection, 
and indeed the two great phenomena of 191 7 
in Ireland were the rapid rise of Sinn Fein, the 
Irish Republican Party, and the equally rapid 
rise to both power and popularity of the mili- 
tant Labour movement. . . . For the first time in 
history the agricultural labourers began to flock 
into the unions and clerical workers and women 
helped to swell the ranks in the proletarian or- 
ganisations. By the beginning of 1918 the Labour 
movement had . . . [become] a considerable force 
in both political and industrial affairs. . . . The 
Party by this time was a well-organised body 
whose support was to be sought and whose op- 
position was to be feared. This prestige was in- 
creased by Labour's hold and defiant action against 
conscription to Iretand. . . . The General Strike 
was discussed and voted as a demonstration of 
the will to resist . . . and on April 23 all work 
and all business ceased for twenty-four hours 
throughout the whole country except the Unionist 
districts in Ulster . . , and the stoppage was com- 
plete and entire. . . . Throughout the whole cam- 
paign of resistance to conscription Labour con- 
tributed generously and effectively in both thought 
and action to the great movement which pre- 
served Ireland as the only unconscripted country 
in Europe, uniting with the leaders of the Repub- 
lican, Home Rule and All-for-Ireland Parties in 
the Mansion House Conference and supplying out- 
side an invaluable industrial auxiliary to the other 
militant forces." — Ireland at Berne (Reports and 
memoranda presented to the International La- 
bour and Socialist Conference held at Berne, Feb., 
1919, pp. 13, 18-19). 

Also in: M. MacDonagh, Sinn Fein and labor 
(Contemporary Review, .Apr., igi8). — D. D. Shee- 
haw, Ireland since Parnell, pp. 262-267. 

1912-1914.— Third Home Rule Bill introduced. 
— Passed in 1914. — "The constitutional crisis 
through which the United Kingdom began to pass 
in igog-io found a changed Ireland. . . . For one 
thing security of tenure and the sense of owner- 
ship had worked a far-reaching improvement on 
the land; prosperity was steadily increasing among 
the farmers, and the distinction between classes 
was less and less one of wealth. According to all 
prognostications of Unionist politicians, this should 
have meant the end of Irish discontent. In point 
of fact Ireland had at this time the good humour 
which comes of prosperity. . . . There was prob- 
ably never a moment when Nationalist feeling 
was less anti-English. The idea of a settlement 
which gave self-government within the Empire was 
frankly accepted by all except a very few theorists. 
. . . But the demand for self-government was no 
less insistent than at any time since Parnell came 
to power. . . . Moreover, outside of Ulster, the 
opposition to Home Rule had greatly weakened. 
. . . Many of the landlord class had left Ireland; 
but a much larger proportion had remained in 
the country from habitual attachment. In re- 
maining, they had remained also by tradition 
Unionists. As such, they were debarred from 
local power. ... A Protestant landlord who be- 
came a Home Ruler had no difficulty in securing 
election to his county council; but these con- 
versions were rare. Broadly speaking, the landed 
gentry, the professional classes, and the business 
men who were Protestants remained Unionists, 
and endeavoured to return a member to their lik- 
ing in one or two divisions of Dublin. But all 


IRELAND, 1912-1914 

Ulster and National 

IRELAND, 1913-1916 

sting had gone out of their fight ; and not a 
few men among them were at least anxious to 
see the experiment of self-government tried. In 
Ulster, change had been in a very different sense. 
Opposition to Home Rule had in no way abated, 
but it had altered its character. . . . Ulster's cry 
was still '.No Home Rule!' and when the Solemn 
League and Covenant was framed and signed in 
1912, the Covenant bound all Ulstermcn into a 
common resistance to any law that should seek 
to bring any part of Ulster under a Dublin Par- 
liament. ... As matters proceeded, Sir Edward 
Carson declared again and again that what they 
really wanted was time and experience of the 
working of Home Rule. Let Ulster stay under the 
Union. If Hume Rule were the success that Na- 
tionalist Ireland anticipated, Ulster would gladly 
come in. This issue was narrowed when the 
Nationalist party accepted a provisional partition. 
Such counties as chose to vote themselves out 
should stay out for a period of five years. This 
raised two new questions: first, (he provisional 
nature of the exclusion ; secondly, the area to 
be excluded. Sir Edward Carson insisted that 
Ulster should never be forced in ; and further, 
that Ulster should mean six counties — in two of 
which Nationalists h-id 54 per cent of the popu- 
lation." — S. L. Gwynn. Situation in Ireland, pp. 
18-20, 24. — This was the temper of the country 
when the third Home Rule Bill was introduced 
in April 11. 1Q12. The bill, which was endorsed 
by the national convention, provided for a bi- 
cameral parliament, the lower house to consist of 
164 elected memljers; the upper house of 40 
members to be appointed by the Irish executive; 
the two houses, in case of disagreement, to sit 
and vote together. "The issues of war and peace, 
the control of the army and navy, and the treaty- 
making power . . . [were] all excluded from i^ 
purview. Its powers of taxation . . . [were to be| 
limited. Certain reserved services, such as Land 
Purchase, the Royal Irish Constabulary, Old Age 
Pensions and National Insurance . . . [were to 
be] maintained for the time being under Imperial 
control ; but the Royal Irish Constabulary . . . 
[was] to be transferred after an interval of six 
years, and the other services, with the exception 
of the Land Purchase . . . [might] also be trans- 
ferred after due notice. To these three limitations, 
thus concerned with foreign policy, finance and 
reserved ser\^ices, certain others . . . [were] also 
added ex abtpidanti cautela, mainly with the ob- 
ject of preserving any minority in Ireland, and 
especially Protestant Ulster, from possible op- 
pression. The Irish Parliament . . . [was] de- 
barred from any legislation . . . [which would] 
impose religious disabilities. Its Acts . . . [were] 
to be subject to the veto of the Lord Lieutenant, 
acting on the advice of the Imperial Executive; 
and . . . subject to nullification and amendment by 
the Imperial Parliament. . . . [Ireland was] still 
to send its members, reduced in number from 103 
to 42, to sit at Westminster. . . . [This was] the 
solution provided in the Act for one of the two 
main difficulties. . . . (The other difficulty] — that 
of finance — . . . was met by an ingenious system 
of division of powers under which, on the whole, 
the Irish Parliament, under certain circumstances, 
. . . [could] vary or discontinue Imperial taxes, 
or even impose taxes of its own, provided they 
. . . [were] not of a definitely protective char- 
acter." — E. Barker, Ireland in lite last fifty years, 
pp. 91-92. — "The Home Rule Bill was accepted by 
all Nationalist Ireland in good faith as a fair 
measure of self-government. A vast open-air 
meeting was held in Dublin to endorse this ac- 

ceptance, and among the speakers was Patrick 
Pearse, who stood on a platform outside the 
General Post Office, where four years later he was 
to launch his rebellion. Rejection by the Lords 
was foreseen; but it was assumed that since 
this had b.3en made the test question for the 
trial of strength between the hereditary and the 
elected Houses, British democracy would not give 
way." — S. L. Gwynn, Irish situation, p. 16. — The 
bill became a law in September 1914; but at the 
same time its operation was suspended until after 
the close of the World War. Notice was also 
given that an amending bill, to provide a separate 
government for Ulster, would be introduced. — See 
also Engi.a.\d; 1912-1014. 

1913-1916. — Ulster Volunteers and National 
Volunteers. — Activities of Sir Roger Casement. 
— "In 1013 Ulster announced its intention to re- 
sist Home Rule by force of arms. The Ulster 
\olunteer Force was established. A great deal 
of money was subscribed. . . . The intention or 
the hope of the Ulstermen was to overthrow the 
Liberal Government by a mere threat of civil 
war. . . . From this time forward a new concep- 
tion began to enter into Irish politics: that of 
an Ulster with separate powers of legislature and 
administration. It was detested by Nationalists 
generally, because they felt that a small group 
of counties left under direct government from 
Westminster would soon come to consider that 
arrangement on its merits and would discard it 
as inconvenient; whereas they believed, and still 
believe, that a separate self-governing Ulster would 
be permanently kept apart from the rest of Ireland 
by religious bigotry. Catholics disliked the idea 
of a new unit in which Catholics would be always 
a minority; the clergy in particular w'ere vehement 
against the control of education by a Government 
of anti-Catholic bias. The liquor trade, which 
was largely in Catholic hands, feared confiscation. 
But above all there was a strong sentimental at- 
tachment to the idea of Ireland's unity. . . . The 
whole issue at this time was deeply tainted with 
unreality, and worse still, by the suspicion of 
unreality. Nationalists clamoured for the mainte- 
nance of unity ; yet the most clamorous showed 
that they believed Protestant Ulstermen to be a 
race apart, permanently incapable of acting for 
the interest of Ireland as a whole. . . . Nationalists 
suspected that Ulster's military preparations were 
bluff, and said so; Ulster suspected that Na- 
tionalist professions of willingness to accept self- 
government within the Empire were illusory, and 
said so. . . . The incident at the Curragh in 
March 1914, when General Gough and a large 
number of officers resigned their commissions 
rather than take action which they believed to 
be hostile to Ulster, was taken as a sign that Gov- 
ernment could not depend on the Army." — S. L. 
Gwynn, Irish situation, pp. 25, 27, 29. — See also 
("URRACH INCIDENT. — "During the summer of 1913 
the Ulster Volunteers drilled openly, and made 
no secret of their intention to resist, by arms 
in the field if it should prove necessary, the im- 
position of Home Rule on Ulster. The Nationalists 
in the South and West of Ireland watched this 
arming and this drilling in Ulster, at first with 
amusement, and afterwards with admiration. . . . 
It was not surprising, therefore, to find an at- 
tempt made towards the end of 1013, amongst the 
Nationalists in the South and West of Ireland, to 
emulate the doings of the North. In Dublin and 
other places National Volunteers were formed. 
Drillings immediately began, and efforts were at 
once made to obtain arms. Funds were not want- 
ing. In America . . . money was raised for the 


IRELAND, 1913-1916 

Sir Roger Casement 
Revolutionary Feeling 

IRELAND, 1914-1916 

arming and equipping of the National Volunteers. 
The Government, however, alarmed by the estab- 
lishment of two sets of Volunteers in Ireland, took 
tardy action, and in December issued a Proclama- 
tion forbidding the import of arms into the 
country. The Ulster Volunteers, by their great gun- 
running exploit at Lame and other northern ports 
in the spring of igi4, practically defied this Proc- 
lamation, and the National Volunteers were not 
slow to follow their example. They also en- 
deavoured to obtain arms and equipment, and they 
grew steadily in numbers. At length Mr. John 
Redmond intervened. Up to now both he and 
the Irish Party, as well as the Nationalist Press 
in Ireland, had watched the growth of the Na- 
tional Volunteers with anxiety. ... To make mat- 
ters more serious, the membership of the Volunteers 
was increasing daily. Finally, therefore, Mr. Red- 
mond look action. The Volunteers were governed 
by a Provisional Committee of twenty-five mem- 
bers. Profiting by the word Provisional, Mr. 
Redmond . . . [demanded] that twenty-five of his 
supporters should be nominated on the Pro- 
visional Committee. ... A split in the ranks of 
the National Volunteers was imminent, when, at 
the last moment, . . . the twenty-five nominees 
of Mr. Redmond [were admitted]. All during 
the summer of 1914 the ranks of the \'olunteers 
continued to swell, until, shortly before the war 
broke out, there must have been well over one 
hundred thousand active members. ... It was 
calculated [however] in July, igi4, that not one- 
fourth were armed or properly drilled or equipped. 
. . . Some thousands of rifles and a large quantity 
of ammunition were landed at Howth on the sec- 
ond last Sunday in July, 1914. The ending of 
the affair was tragic. On hearing of the oc- 
currence, the Assistant Commissioner of Police in 
Dublin sent a force of police and military to 
intercept the National Volunteers on their march 
back, with their arms, from Howth. There was 
a collision on the Howth Road, in the course of 
which some rifles were seized, but the Volunteers 
dispersed through the fields and roads with their 
weapons, and the militarj- on the march back 
to Dublin were followed by a mob, mainly com- 
posed of women and children, as well as a number 
of roughs not connected with the Volunteers. 
Irritated by the conduct of this mob, which flung 
taunts and missiles alike at the troops, the 
latter, composed of a detachment of the Scottish 
Borderers, fired at the crowd in Bachelor's Walk 
with the result that several people were killed 
and over a score wounded. In the midst of the 
excitement, the European War burst forth, and in 
the larger catastrophe the smaller one was forgot- 
ten. When it became apparent that Great Britain 
would be involved in the war, Mr. John Redmond, 
in a notable speech, strove to link Ireland with 
the fortunes of England and the Empire, and in 
a dramatic manner offered the National Volunteers 
to the Government for the defence of Ireland. 
The speech created a great burst of enthusiasm in 
Parliament, as well as in Ireland. Protestant and 
Unionists landlords in the South and West has- 
tened to offer their services to the National Vol- 
unteers, and it really seemed as if the millennium 
had arrived, so far as the relations between Ire- 
land and the British Empire were concerned. The 
enthusiasm was, however, short-lived. Quickly it 
became apparent that there would be no Ger- 
man invasion of Ireland. . . . Eventually, on the 
Royal Assent being given to the Home Rule Bill, 
Mr. Redmond and members of the Nationalist 
party came definitely forward and asked for Irish 
recruits for the firing line abroad. It was 

at once apparent that he would be opposed in 
this by the Sinn Feiners and others who hated 
England. The split, that had been avoided earlier 
in the year, came about, therefore, in September, 
1914, a little after the war had been in progress. 
A great part of the country sided with Mr. Red- 
mond, and their ranks were known as the National 
Volunteers. Those who seceded called themselves 
the Irish Volunteers. . . . Never very enthusiastic 
about the movement, the leaders of the National 
Volunteers . . . [became apathetic and numbers] 
quitted the movement altogether, leaving the 
ardent spirits to join the ranks of the Irish (or 
Sinn Fein) Volunteers. Such was the position of 
affairs in the early part of 1916." — J. F. Boyle, 
Irish rebellion of 1916, pp. 33-41. — In the mean- 
time Sir Roger Casement had procured for the 
Sinn Fein material aid and moral encouragement 
from extremists in the United States. After the 
commencement of the war he entered into com- 
munication with the German government, which 
was already actively fomenting trouble in Ireland. 
In December, 1914 he went to Germany, and 
there obtained promises of financial support. In 
iQiS he endeavored to raise an "Irish Brigade," 
from among the Irish prisoners of war, for service 
in the German army ; but in spite of promises 
and threats, his efforts in this respect were all 
in vain. In the spring of 1916 it was deemed that 
matters in Ireland were sufficiently advanced to 
promise favorable results from a rising. Casement, 
therefore, obtained from the German government 
a shipment of arms and ammunitions. This was 
sent forward in the steamship Aud- accompanied 
by two submarines in one of which Casement 
himself was a passenger. The Aud, however, was 
captured by a British patrol boat, and scuttled by 
her German crew. Casement was put ashore off 
t^e coast of Kerry, in a collapsible boat, and the 
submarines escaped. 

1914-1916. — Growth of revolutionary feeling. 
— "The declaration of war came at a time when 
the Ulster Volunteers and the National Volun- 
teers were confronting one another, prepared to 
light upon the question of Home Rule. ... It 
seemed as though nothing could restrain the op- 
posing forces from flying at one another's throats, 
as soon as their leaders had secured the neces- 
sary munitions for the purpose. About the time 
of the outbreak of war the Ulster Volunteer Force 
was about 85,000 strong, and was believed to 
have in its possession some 53,000 rifles. To- 
wards the end of September, 1914, the strength 
of the National Volunteers was about 181,000, but 
on loth December of the same year it was esti- 
mated that the rifles in their possession only 
numbered some 9,000, with very little ammunition. 
The war affected these two forces very differently. 
On the outbreak of the European War at the 
beginning of August there was a notable relaxa- 
tion of the political tension in Ulster, and a 
considerable suspension of active military prepara- 
tions on the part of the Ulster Volunteers; though 
before the month was past about 1,400 rifles 
and a large quantity of ammunition were landed 
at Belfast for their use. . . . Nevertheless consid- 
erable unrest prevailed alike in the Unionist and 
Nationalist ranks as to the action which the 
Government would take with regard to the Home 
Rule Bill." — "I. O.," Administration of Ireland, pp. 
1-3. — "Then came the formation of the [Asquith] 
Coalition Cabinet in England and the disappear- 
ance of the Government that had passed the Home 
Rule Measure. Ireland was made to feel that 
she had been flouted and betrayed. Not only 
did the new cabinet contain Mr. Arthur Balfour, 


IRELANQ. 1914-1916 ""Z^lliTcaseZe^f IRELAND, 19,6 

whose whole political life had been devoted to 
the anti-Home Rule cause, and Mr. Bonar Law, 
who had declared, . . . 1913, . . . that 'if the Gov- 
ernment attempt to coerce Ulster before they 
have received the sanction of the electors, Ulster 
will do well to resist them, and we will support 
resistance to the end,' but it contained Sir Ed- 
ward Carson, the Chief of the General Staff of 
the forces opposed to Home Rule. Sir Edward 
had taken an oath to resist the establishment ol 
a Home Rule Government, and Irish Nationalists 
felt that he would not have taken office unless 
he had obtained some assurance that the Home 
Rule Bill would not be made operative in his time. 
Home Rule was dead, people felt, or at best, it 
was in a doubtful condition." — M. Joy, Irish re- 
bellion of ii)i6 and its tmirtyrs, p. 60. — "Before 
the outbreak of the War the Ulster Volunteer 
Force was . . . nearly 85,000 strong. Up to the 
end of September about 12,000 had joined the 
Army either as reservists or on enlistment. . . . 
On the outbreak of the war, Mr. Redmond un- 
dertook in Parliament, on behalf of the Irish 
Volunteers, that they, in union with the Ulster 
Volunteers, would defend the shores of Ireland from 
the enemy. His announcement was accepted with 
approval not only by the vast bulk of the Irish 
Nationalists but also by many prominent Union- 
ists, who had nothing in common with his political 
views. On i6th of September, Mr. Redmond is- 
sued a Manifesto calling upon the people of Ire- 
land to take their part in the great national 
crisis, and asking that Irish recruits for the Ex- 
peditionary Force should be kept together in 
an Irish Brigade under the command of Irish 
Officers. Later on at the meeting in the Mansion 
House, Dublin, on the 25th September, which 
was addressed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Red- 
mond spoke strongly in favour of recruiting. . . . 
[He had, however, already begun to lose ground 
with the more radical members of the Nationalist 
party. A split developed in the Irish Volunteer 
force. The majority, about 160,000, followed Red- 
mond, and formed the National Volunteers; the 
minority, about 10,000, who, however, had the 
advantage of retaining the old name remained 
under the leadership of Eoin McNeill, the original 
organizer of the force. At a convention of the 
Irish Volunteers held in Dublin, October 25, IQ14, 
resolutions were adopted declaring the policy of 
the Irish Volunteers to be: (i) To uphold the 
right of the nation to maintain a volunteer force 
for its own defense. (2) To unite the people of 
Ireland on the basis of Irish nationality and a 
common national interest, and to resist partition. 

(3) To resist compulsory military service until a 
free national government of Ireland is empowered 
by the Irish people themselves to deal with it. 

(4) To secure the abolition of British government 
in Ireland, and the establishment of a national 
government in its place. An article in the "Irish 
Volunteer," entitled] 'Who are the Cowards?' 
[said] 'Iieland's national individuality, Ireland's 
national Soul, demands that Ireland should take 
no part, either through its leaders or through its 
masses, in promoting this iniquitous war. Eng- 
land, the Bully of the Nations, is in a difficulty. 
It is our duty to our ancestors, who risked and 
lost their lives to free Ireland from England, it 
is our duty to ourselves, who live under the 
heel of the mass of the same hypocritical power, 
it is our duty, above all, to those who will 
come after us in the inheritance of this land, 
to declare Ireland's neutrality ; to refuse, in the 
words of the Volunteers' Manifesto, any foreign 
service under a Government which is not Irish, 

and to decline all part in foreign quarrels for 
which the Irish people have no responsibility.' 
. . . Organisers were soon at work forming new 
branches [of the Irish Volunteers! all over the 
country, promising an abundant supply of arms 
from America; and simultaneously a determined 
campaign was started to prevent men joining 
the Army. ... [In May, 1915, an immediate in- 
surrection was proposed. It was defeated by 
John McNeill; but, in July, 1915,] instructions 
were issued to County Boards directing them to 
assist organisers in forming new branches, and 
to resist the Registration Act should any at- 
tempt be made to enforce it fn Ireland. At this 
meeting a sum of 3,000 dollars recently received 
from America was distributed. . . . During the 
winter months the Irish Volunteers were daily 
improving their organisation." — "I. O.," Adminb- 
tration oj Ireland, pp. 3-4, 10-12, 15. — The result 
of the winter activities made practicable the 
movement toward rebellion which came to a head 
in Dublin, at Easter, igio. See below; 1916 

1916. — Irish republic. — German aid. — Arrest 
of Sir Roger Casement. — Rising in Dublin. — 
Irish republic proclaimed. — "Early in the morning 
of Good Friday, April 21st, a Kerry peasant 
walking along the seashore at Banna, not far 
from Fcnit, came upon an empty collapsible boat, 
and noticed the footprints of three men leading 
to the sandhills. Later on he reported the mat- 
ter to the police, who discovered buried in the 
sand some revolvers and a quantity of ammuni- 
tion. Subsequently a tall man was ob.served near 
a ruin, who, when covered by a rifle, told the 
constable not to shoot, and surrendered. He gave 
an English name and address, but on being taken 
to the Tralee Police Barracks it was noticed that 
he resembled Sir R. Casement's portrait. Mean- 
while his two companions in the boat had walked 
to Tralee and inten^ewed the local leaders of 
the Irish Volunteers. One of these men, who called 
himself Mulcahy, returned in a motor-car with 
two Volunteers in search of Sir R. Casement and 
was arrested by the police; the other made his 
escape. On April the 22nd, Casement, who re- 
fused to give his true name, was sent ... to 
London, and on that (Saturday) evening Mr. 
John [Eoin] McNeill, President of the Irish \'ol- 
unteer Council, issued orders countermanding the 
Easter Parades. On Easter-Sunday night, April 
the 23rd, the prisoner Mulcahy made a volun- 
tary statement to the District Inspector at Tralee. 
He told him that the prisoner who had gone to 
Dublin was really Sir R. Casement, that the 
name of the third man who landed with them 
at Banna was Robert Monteith, and that his own 
name was Daniel Julian Bailey, a private in the 
Royal Irish Rifles. He stated that he was taken 
prisoner by the Germans early in the war and 
that he subsequently joined the so-called Irish 
Brigade at the instigation of Sir R. Casement. 
He further deposed that he. Casement and Mon- 
teith left Wilhelmshaven in a submarine together 
with a German ship full of arms and ammuni- 
tion bound for the Kerry coast to arm the Irish 
Volunteers, that there was to be a rebellion, and 
that the plans included an attack upon Dublin 
Castle. In view of the facts that the ship with 
arms on board [the Aud] had been discovered 
and sunk, that Sir R. Casement was a prisoner, 
and that Mr. McNeill had cancelled the Volun- 
teer mobilisation, a 'rising' seemed unlikely. Owing, 
however, it is said to some information which 
reached them on SiMiday night, the leaders of the 
movement, fearing that their Headquarters in 


IRELAND, 1916 

Proclamation of Republic 
Easter Rebellion 

IRELAND, 1916 

which they had large stores of explosives and 
arms would be raided by the Military and they 
themselves arrested, decided to overrule Mr. Mc- 
Neill and launch the rebellion." — "I. O.," Admin- 
istration of Ireland, pp. 16-18. — According to 
Michael Joy, in his "History of the Irish Re- 
bellion, 1916," the document which precipitated 
the revolt was what purported to be a secret 
order, stolen from the files of Dublin Castle. This 
document which was declared a forgery by the 
authorities, was said to decree the arrest of the 
leaders of the Irish Volunteers, of the Citizens' 
Army, the Smn Fein Council, the GaeUc League, 
and others. 

"The first shot in the rebellion was fired shortly 
after noon on Easter Monday, April 24th. . . . 
At the Post Office was established the Headquar- 
ters of [P. H. Pearse, Commandant-in-Chief o! the 
Army of the Republic, and President of the Pro- 
visional Government of the Irish Republic]. The 
colours of the Republic — a tricolour flag of green, 
orange and white — were flown from the flag-staff 
on the roof of the building, and on the door was 
posted a copy of the following Proclamation; — 

"The Provisional Government of the Irish 

"To THE People of Ireland 

"Irishmen and Irishwomen! In the name of 
God and of the dead generations from which she 
receives the old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, 
through us, summons her children to her flag, and 
strikes for her freedom. 

"Having organised and trained her manhood 
through her secret revolutionary organisation, the 
Irish RepubHcan Brotherhood, and through her 
open military organisations, the Irish Volunteers 
and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently per- 
fected her discipline, having resolutely waited for 
the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes 
that moment, and supported by her exiled chil- 
dren in America and by gallant allies in Europe, 
but relying in the first on her own strength, 
she strikes with full confidence of victory. We 
declare the right of the people of Ireland to the 
ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered con- 
trol of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and in- 
defeasible. The long usurpation of that right 
by a foreign power and government has not e.x- 
tinguished the right, nor can it ever be e.\- 
tinguished except by the destruction of the people. 
In every generation the Irish people have asserted 
their right to National freedom and sovereignty ; 
six times during the past three hundred years they 
have asserted it in arms. Standing on that funda- 
mental right and again asserting it in arms in 
the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the 
Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, 
and we pledge our lives and the lives of our 
comrades in arms to the cause of its freedom, of 
its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations. 

"The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby 
claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irish- 
woman. The Republic guarantees civil and re- 
ligious liberty, equal rights and equal oppor- 
tunities to all its citizens, and declares its 
resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of 
the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all 
the children of the nation equally, and oblivious 
of the differences carefully fostered by an alien 
Government, which have divided a minority from 
the majority in the past. 

"Until our arms have brought the opportune 
moment for the establishment of a permanent Na- 
tional Government, representative of the whole 
people of Ireland, and elected by the suffrages 

of all her men and women, the Provisional Gov- 
ernment, hereby constituted, will administer the 
civil and military affairs of the Republic, in trust 
for the people. 

"We place the cause of the Irish Republic 
under the protection of the Most High God, Whose 
blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray 
that no one who serves that cause will dishonour 
it by cowardice, inhumanity or rapine. In this 
supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour 
and discipline, and by the readiness of its chil- 
dren to sacrifice themselves for the common good, 
prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which 
it is called. 

"Signed on behalf of the Provisional Govern- 
ment: Thomas J. Clarke, Sean MacDiarmad, 
Thomas MacDonagh, P. H. Pearse, Eamonn 
Ceannt, James Connolly, Joseph Plunkett." — W. B. 
Wells and N. Marlowe, History of the Irish rebel- 
lion of igi6, pp. 140-149. — Plans had been well 
laid, and strategic points in the city were quickly 
taken possession of by the insurgents who, however, 
failed to capture the castle. 

1916 (April) Irish rebellion. — "On Easter Mon- 
day, 24th April, igi6, at noon, the storm burst in 
Dublin, and for the following six days the City 
and the suburbs were the scene of grave loss 
of life and destruction of property. The revolution 
was organised by the Irish (Sinn Fein) Volun- 
teers, and it was carried out by them with the 
assistance of the Citizen Army, Hibernian Rifles, 
and other similar bodies. Twelve o'clock in the 
day was the hour fixed for the beginning of the 
operations, and at that time or shortly afterwards 
bodies of armed Sinn Feiners quietly entered the 
buildings to which they had been assigned, turned 
out the occupants and took possession. Any- 
one who resisted was promptly shot. In this way 
the principal buildings in the City were cap- 
tured, and the rebels at once set about erecting 
barricades, and taking precautions against attack. 
The General Post Office in Sackville Street proved 
to be the central fortress of the rebels. It was 
here that P. H. Pearse, 'the Comraandant-in-Chief 
of the Army of the Republic and President of 
the Provisional Government,' established his Head- 
quarters and issued his orders. ... At mid-day 
small groups of Sinn Fein Volunteers were stand- 
ing about the entrance gates [of St. Stephen's 
Green], and at a given signal they quietly walked 
inside, closed the gates, . . . [and cleared the 
park]. Dublin Castle, the Headquarters of the 
Irish Executive, was attacked by a handful of 
Volunteers, and had any force of Sinn Feiners 
joined in the attack the Castle would almost cer- 
tainly have been captured, as there were only a 
few soldiers on duty. A policeman on duty at 
the Upper Castle Yard was shot . . . but the 
small garrison came to the rescue and the in- 
vaders were driven off. Other bodies of rebels 
succeeded in taking possession of buildings over- 
looking the approaches to the Upper Castle Yard. 
In this way the offices of the 'Daily Express' and 
'Evening Mail' were entered, and the staff turned 
out at the point of the bayonet. The City 
Hall, the rear of which commands the offices 
of the Chief Secretary's Department, the Prisons 
Board and other Government Offices, was also filled 
with snipers. . . . ,\11 the points in the City 
which were considered of strategical importance 
having been occupied by the rebels, their plans 
were further developed by the taking possession 
of positions controlling the approaches from mili- 
tary barracks. The Four Courts were early in 
their hands, and men were posted all over the 


IRELAND, 1916 

Easter Rebellion 

IRELAND, 1916 

buildins to attack troops which iruRht approach 
alonj; the quays from the direction of Phtcnix 
Park. The Four Courts Hotel, which adjoins the 
Courts, was garrisoned. . . . Strong barricades 
were erected [over railway bridges in the north 
side I. Liberty Hall was strongly held by the 
rebels, but the Custom House was left unmolested. 
Across the river, on the South side, Boland's Mill 
was fortiliid in every possible manner, and con- 
stituted a stronghold of great strategical impor- 
tance. Round by Northumberland Road, Pem- 
broke Road, and Lansdowne Road, private houses 
were occupied and garrisoned to resist the ap- 
proach of reinforcements for the military from 
the Kingstown direction. Portobello Bridge, which 
commands the approach to the City from the mili- 
tary barracks at that place, was the scene of a 
short but severe fight shortly after mid-day on 
Monday. . . . The South Dublin Union in James's 
Street and a distillery in Marrowbone Lane were 
two other strong points in the Sinn Fein plan. 
The workhouse was attacked by the Military on 
Monday, and after a stiff fight, during which 
many casualties occurred on both sides, the rem- 
nant of the rebel garrison was driven into one 
part of the premises, where they maintained their 
struggle until Sunday. Jacob's Biscuit Factory 
in Bishop Street, though it 'does not occupy a 
strategical position of any importance, was filled 
with foodstuffs of various descriptions, and prob- 
ably in this respect it was deemed necessary to 
instal in it a large garrison. . . . The foregoing 
are the outlines of the position on the evening 
of the first day of the rebellion. ... On the 
following day, 2Sth April, Martial Law was pro- 
claimed in the City and County of Dublin. On 
the 2bth the whole of Ireland was placed under 
the same regime. The country generally remained 
quiet, and in only four counties — Dublin, Louth, 
Galway East and West Ridings, and Wexford — 
did the Volunteers rise up in arms. In a few 
others destructive acts were committed, obviously 
intended to further the rising. . . . The fighting 
strength of the troops available in Dublin at 
the moment w'as: — 6th Reserve Cavalry Regiment: 
35 officers, 851 other ranks; 3rd Royal Irish Regi- 
ment: 18 officers, 385 other ranks; loth Royal 
Dublin Fusiliers: 37 officers, 430 other ranks; 3rd 
Royal Irish Rifles: 21 officers, 650 other ranks. 
. . . The first objectives undertaken by the troops 
were to recover possession of the Magazine in 
Phocni.x Park, where the rebels had set fire to 
a quantity of ammunition; to relieve the Castle; 
and to strengthen the guards at the Viceregal 
Lodge and other points of importance. . . . The 
situation at midnight on Monday, the 24th, was 
that the Military held the Magazine, Phoenix 
Park, the Castle, and the Ship Street entrance to 
it, the Royal Hospital, all barracks, the Kings- 
bridge, Amieas Street and North Wall Railway 
Stations, the Dublin Telephone Exchange, . . . 
the Electric Power Station, . . . Trinity College, 
Mountjoy Prison, and Kingstown Harbour. The 
Sinn Feiners held Sackville Street and blocks of 
buildings on each side of this, including Lib- 
erty Hall, with their Headquarters at the Gen- 
eral Post Office, the Four Courts, Jacob's Biscuit 
Factory, South Dublin Union, St. Stephen's Green, 
[i. e., the center of the city] all the approaches 
to the Castle except Ship Street entrance, and 
many houses all over the City, especially about 
Ballsbridge and Beggar's Bush. On April 25th 
Brigadier-General W. H. M. Lowe, . . . [arrived] 
with the leading troops from the 25th (Irish) Re- 
serve Infantry Brigade, and assumed command of 
the forces in the Dublin area. These forces were. 

roughly, 2,300 men of the Dublin garrison, the 
Curragh mobile column of 1,500 dismounted cav- 
alrymen, and 840 men of the 25th Irish Reserve 
Infantry Brigade. . . . [Communication with the 
castle was established by noon on April 25th, 
by a line of posts from Kingsbridge station to 
Trinity College.] It divided the rebel forces 
in two, gave a safe line of advance for troops 
extending operations to the north or south, and 
permitted communication by despatch-rider with 
some of the commands. . . . During the day the 
4th Royal Dublin Fusiliers from Templemore, a 
composite Ulster Battalion from Belfast, and a 
battery of four i8-pounders from the Reserve 
Artillery Brigade at Athlone arrived, and this en- 
abled a cordon to be established round the 
northern part of the City ... to North Wall. 
Broadstone Railway Station was cleared of rebels, 
and a barricade near Phibsborough was destroyed 
by artillery fire. As a heavy fire on the Castle 
was being kept up by the rebels located in the 
Corporation Buildings, 'Daily Express' office, and 
several houses opposite the City Hall, it was de- 
cided to attack these buildings. The assault on 
the 'Daily Express' office was successfully carried 
out under very heavy fire by a detachment of 
the 5th Royal Dublin Fusiliers. The main forces 
of the rebels having now been located in and 
around Sackville Street, the Four Courts, and 
adjoining buildings, it was decided to try to 
enclose that area north of the Liffey by a cordon 
of troops, so as to localise as far as possible 
the efforts of the rebels. Towards evening the 
178th Infantry Brigade began to arrive. At about 
5.30 p. m. orders were received that the ad- 
vance to Trinity College was to be pushed for- 
ward. [One column was held up on its way to 
Trinity College, and in overcoming the opposition 
to its advance. 4 officers were killed, 14 wounded, 
and of other ranks 216 were killed and wounded.] 
. . . Meanwhile severe fighting had taken place 
in the Sackville Street quarter. At 8 a. m. Lib- 
erty Hall, the former headquarters of the Citizen 
Army, was attacked by field guns from the South 
bank of the River Liffey and by a gun from the 
patrol ship 'Helga,' with the result that con- 
siderable progress was made. During the night 
of the 26-2 7th April several fires broke out in 
this quarter and threatened to become dangerous 
as the fire brigade could not get to work owing 
to its being fired upon by the rebels. . . . Through- 
out the night the process of driving out the 
rebels in and around Sackville Street continued, 
though these operations were greatly hampered by 
the fires in this area and by the fact that some 
of the burning houses contained rebel stores of 
explosives which every now and again blew up. 
In other parts of the City the troops had a try- 
ing time dealing with the numerous snipers, who 
became very troublesome during the hours of 
darkness. Owing to the considerable opposition at 
barricades, especially in North King Street, it 
was not until g a. m. on 2gth .-Xpril that the 
Four Courts area was completely surrounded. 
Throughout the morning the squeezing out of 
the surrounded areas was vigorously proceeded 
with, the infantry being greatly assisted by a 
battery of Field Artillery; the guns being used 
against the buildings held by the rebels with such 
good effect that a Red Cross Nurse brought in 
a message from the rebel leader, P. H. Pearse, 
asking for terms. A reply was sent that only 
unconditional surrender would be accepted. At 
2 p. m. Pearse surrendered himself unconditionally, 
and was brought before Sir John Maxwell, when 
he wrote and signed notices ordering the various 


IRELAND, 1916 

Easier Rebellion 
Commission of Inquiry 

IRELAND, 1916 

'Commandoes' to surrender unconditionally. Dur- 
ing the evening the greater part of the rebels 
in the Sackville Street and Four Courts area 
surrendered. Early on the 30th April two 
Franciscan monks informed Sir John Maxwell that 
. . . MacDonagh, declining to accept Pearse's or- 
ders, wished to negotiate. He was informed that 
only unconditional surrender would be accepted, 
and at 3 p. ni., when all preparations for an at- 
tack on Jacob's Biscuit Factory, which he held, 
had been made, MacDonagh . . . surrendered un- 
conditionally. These surrenders practically ended 
the rebellion in the City of Dublin." — "I. O.," 
Administration of Ireland, pp. 21-27, 3i-40- — The 
proclamation of martial law had put the trial of 
the participators in the rising in the hands of the 
military authorities. Courts martial were held, 
and fifteen of the leaders were condemned and 
executed. Of these P. H. Pearse, Thomas Mac- 
Donagh, Joseph Plunkett, Edmund Kent, Thomas 
J. Clarke, James Connolly and John McDermott 
had signed the proclamation. Seventy-five cases 
were committed to penal servitude for varying 
terms, tv.enty-three received short sentences of 
imprisonment with hard labor and 1,841 prisoners 
(including five women) were interned in Eng- 
land. The first effect of the rebellion in Ireland 
was one of anger at its foolishness ; but the feel- 
ing soon wore off, and the pendulum began to 
swing toward Sinn Fein. Various theories were 
advanced to account for this change, including 
the elation produced by a visit from the premier, 
Herbert Asquith. There is no doubt, however, 
that the execution of the prisoners, and es- 
pecially of Pearse, Plunkett and Connolly, had a 
great effect. Greater still was the dread of con- 
scription, and strongest of all the belief, amount- 
ing to knowledge, that the hands of the British 
government were tied by the now almost uni- 
versally held theory of the rights of small nations. 
Immediately after the surrender of Dublin, troops 
were sent to the other parts of the country where 
fighting had taken place, or where it was an- 
ticipated. "On the 27th April, ... a detachment 
was sent ... to .^rklow to reinforce the garri- 
son at Kynoch's Explosive Works, and a small 
party was sent to assist the R. I. C. [Royal 
Irish Constabulary] post over the wireless station 
at Skerries. On the 28th April a battalion of 
the Sherwood Foresters was despatched by rail to 
Athlone to protect the artiller>' and military stores 
there and to hold the communication over the 
River Shannon. ... In other parts of Ireland 
similar attacks on police posts had been made 
by armed bands of Sinn Feiners In order to 
deal with these, as soon as the Dublin rebels had 
been crushed, I organised various mobile columns. 

. . Each column was allotted a definite area, 
which, in close co-operation with the local police, 
was gone through." — Report of General Sir J. G. 
Max-well, commander-in-chief of the forces in Ire- 

1916 (May). — Resignation of secretary for 
Ireland.— On May 3, the sitting of the House of 
Commons "was chiefly devoted to Mr Birrell's 
apology for his share of responsibility in the 
unhappy state of affairs which had arisen. He 
confessed frankly that he had made an untrue 
estimate of the Sinn-Fein movement. ... As soon 
as the insurrection was over (on May i), he had 
placed his resignation in the hands of the Prime 
Minister who had accepted it, 'no other course 
being open to me or to him.' Mr. Birrell then 
made some reference to the iimumerable criticisms 
oT which he had been the subject. 'The error 

which I have admitted,' he said, 'which has had 
great and terrible consequences has not proceeded 
from any lack of thought or of anxiety. If 
my critics want to make me wince, and I can 
do that much better for myself than they can 
do it for me, they must change their tack.' He 
had subordinated everything in order to maintain 
unbroken the front of Ireland towards the en- 
emies of the Empire, and in that w-ork he had 
been gallantly assisted by Mr. Redmond. He 
had run grave and considerable risks, but what 
would have been the consequence if he had 
tackled the Sinn-Fein movement earlier? The 
insurrection had been no Irish rebellion, and he 
hoped it would not be associated with past re- 
bellions in the minds of the Irish people." — Annual 
Register, 1916, pp. 121-122. 

1916 (May-July). — Commission appointed to 
inquire into the Easter rebellion. — Resigna- 
tion of lord-lieutenant. — "In the course of a de- 
bate in the House of Lords on May 10, Lord 
Crewe announced the resignation of the Lord- 
Lieutenant (Lord VVimborne) and stated that a 
Commission of Inquiry had been appointed, con- 
sisting of Lord Hardinge oi Penshurst, Sir Mon- 
tague Shearman, a Judge of the High Court, and 
Sir Mackenzie Chalmers. . . . The Royal Com- 
mission . . held ift first meeting on May i8. 
... Its report was published on July 3, within 
seven weci;s of its appointment. In the course 
of this report . . . many remarkable quotations 
were given from confidential reports by the heads 
of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dub- 
lin Metropolitan Police to show that even be- 
fore the outbreak of war (in 1914) full knowl- 
edge of the state of affairs was supplied to the 
Irish Government. . . . The Commissioners sharp- 
ly criticised the Government policy of inaction 
in the face of these repeated warnings, and said 
that even at the risk of a collision early steps 
should have been taken to arrest and prosecute 
the leaders of sedition. They acquitted the Lord- 
Lieutenant (Lord Wimborne) of responsibility, 
and expressed the opinion that the Chief Sec- 
retary (Mr. Birrell) was primarily responsible 
for the outbreak. 'The main cause of the re- 
bellion,' they said, 'appears to be that lawlessness 
was allowed to grow up unchecked ; and that 
Ireland, for several years past, has been ad- 
ministered on the principle that it was safer 
and more expedient to leave law in abeyance 
if collision with any faction of the Irish people 
could thereby be avoided.' . . . Although fasten- 
ing responsibility upon Mr. Birrell, the Commis- 
sioners remarked that the policy of the Chief 
Secretary was the policy of the British Govern- 
ment as a whole. They credited Sir Matthew 
Nathan, the Under-Secretary, with complete loy- 
alty to the Government policy, but expressed 
the opinion that he had not sufficiently impressed 
on Mr. Birrell the need of more active measures 
to put down sedition." — Annuai Register, 1916, 
pp. 128, 138-139. 

Also i.v; F. P. Jones, History of the Sinn Fein 
movement, and Irish rebellion, pp. 239-386. — J. 
Stephens, Insurrection in Dublin. 

1916 (June-August). — Trial of Casement. — 
Sentence. — Efforts for commutation. — Execu- 
tion. — British government statement. — "Case- 
ment was brought to trial (before the Lord Chief 
Justice) at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, 
on June 26. His prosecutor was the Attorney- 
General, Sir F. E. Smith, one of the men who 
had been most prominently identified with the 
organization of the Carson [Ulster] Volunteers. 


IRELAND, 1916 

Trial and Execution 
of Casement 

IRELAND, 1917 

Evidence was piven of Casement's arrest in Ire- 
land after his landing from the Germ:in sub- 
miirinc, and of the propaganda he had carried on 
amonust the Irish prisoners of war in Germany 
with the intention of forming them into an Irish 
brigade to join the Irish V'olunteers. Most of 
this evidence was given by a man named Daniel 
Julian Bailey, formerly a soldier in the English 
army [and prisoner of war in Germany J, who 
had joined Casement's Irish Brigade. This man 
went to Ireland with Casement in the submarine, 
and, on his arrest, turned King's evidence against 
Casement. Casement was tried under a statute of 
Edward III. . . . His counsel, including Mr. 
Francis Doyle of America, made a determined 
fight for the pri-soncr. The main plea in favor 
of the prisoner was that he was being illegally 
tried under the statute, as his offense, if any, was 
not committed within the realm of England, as 
charged in the bill of accusation. When the jury 
bad returned a verdict of guilty. Casement was 
asked if he had anything to say as to why sen- 
tence of death should not be passed upon him. 
His speech from the dock will forever rank with 
Emmet's as a most eloquent statement of Ire- 
land's case as against England." — F. P. Jones, 
History of the Sinn Fein movement, pp. 426-427. 
— "The melancholy tragedy of Sir Roger Case- 
ment, one of the moving spirits in the Irish 
revolt, ended with his death on the gallows at 
Pentonville Prison [London] at 9 o'clock Thurs- 
day morning, Aug. 3. . . . Earnest efforts were 
made to secure a commutation of Sir Roger 
Casement's sentence. The Senate of the United 
States passed a resolution asking that clemency 
be exercised. Pope Benedict also interceded on 
his behalf, and an impressive "petition to this ef- 
fect was presented, signed by the most distin- 
guished Catholic and Protestant clergymen and 
laymen of the United Kingdom. The British Gov- 
ernment, through Lord Robert Cecil, issued the 
following formal statement regarding the execu- 
tion: 'No doubt of Casement's guilt exists. No 
one doubts that the court and jury arrived at the 
right verdict. The only ground for a reprieve 
would be political expediency, a difficult ground 
to put forward in this country. This country 
never could strain the law to punish a man for 
the same reason that it could not strain the law 
to let one off. The Irish rebellion began with 
the murder of unarmed people, both soldiers and 
police. \o grievance justified it, and it was 
purely a political movement organized by a 
small section of Irish people who still hate Eng- 
land and were assisted by Germany. There was 
and is in this country the greatest possible in- 
dignation against these people. There is no doubt 
that Casement did everything possible to assist 
this rebellion in co-operation with the Germans. 
There can be no doubt that he was moved by 
enmity for this country. The contention that he 
landed in Ireland for the purpose of preventing 
the rebellion is demonstrably false. No such as- 
sertion was made by counsel at the trial. Case- 
ment was much more malisnant and hostile to 
this country than were the leaders of the rising, 
who were caught with arms in their hands. He 
visited military prisons in Germany with the in- 
tention of persuading Irish soldiers to throw 
off their allegiance. .^11 sorts of promises were 
made for the improvement of the conditions of 
these men to induce them to join the Irish le- 
gion. An enormous majority thus approached 
refused and thereafter were subjected to increased 
hardships by the Germans. From among these 

Irish soldiers a number have since been re- 
patriated as hopeless invalids, and they subse- 
quently died. They looked upon Casement as 
their murderer.' "—.\ew York Times Current His- 
tory, Sept., IQ16, pp. 1025-1026. 

Also in: VV B. Wells and N. Marlowe, History 
of the Irish rebellion of igi6. 

1917. — By-elections. — Sinn Fein convention 
declares for separation. — Announcement of pro- 
posed Constituent Convention. — ".\l the end of 
1916, it may be said, the two conflicting tenden- 
cies which were to dominate Irish politics during 
the following year had begun to disclose them- 
selves. On the one hand the release of the in- 
terned prisoners ... in fact laid the first founda^ 
tions for the growth of a militant Sinn Fein 
pohcy, which was shortly to ex()res3 itself as 
irreconcilably opposed to a constitutional settle- 
ment. On the other hand, the release of the 
prisoners was by a few days anticipated by the first 
suggestion of what, in contrast with the Sinn Fein 
policy, may be called the Convention policy. 
Shortly before Christmas there appeared incon- 
spicuously in the Dublin newspapers, and with 
little more than perfunctory notice in their edi- 
torial columns, a circular issued by the 'Irish Con- 
ference Committee' land signed by Dermod 
O'Brien, president of the Royal Hibernian Acad- 
emy]. In the formation of this body, and the 
issue of its circular, which was addressed to the 
Chairman of the County Councils and other pub- 
lic bodies in Ireland, the idea first took coherent 
shape of an attempt to solve the problem of Irish 
government by means of a Conference based on 
the precedent of those which secured the passage 
of the Wyndham Land .Act, and the establishment 
of the Department of Agriculture and Technical 
Instruction for Ireland. ... It was to be some 
months, however, before the Convention idea took 
formal shape. In the meantime the political hi