IS ULSTER RIGHT?

A STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE BETWEEN ULSTER AND THENATIONALIST PARTY, AND OF THE REASONS--HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, ANDFINANCIAL--WHY ULSTER IS JUSTIFIED IN OPPOSING HOME RULE

BY AN IRISHMAN

LONDON

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 

1913

CONTENTS. 

Preface

Chapter

I. The Ulster Covenant. The Questions Stated. Ireland under the Celtsand the Danes

II. Ireland from the time of Henry II to the time of Henry VIII

III. Ireland under the Tudors

IV. The Seventeenth Century, until the end of the reign of James II

V. The period of the Penal Laws

VI. The earlier part of the reign of George III. The acquisition ofindependence by the Irish Parliament

VII. The independent Parliament. The Regency Question. Thecommencement of the Rebellion

VIII. The Rebellion

IX. The Union

X. The period from the Union until the rejection of the first HomeRule Bill

XI. The Unionist Government of 1886

XII. The Gladstonian Government of 1892. The Political Societies

XIII. Ireland under the present Government

XIV. Criticism of the Bill now before the Country

XV. The danger to the Empire of any form of Home Rule. The Questionsanswered

Index

PREFACE. 

In the following chapters I have endeavoured to lay before ordinaryreaders a simple statement of the present position of the Irishquestion. Following the maxim of Confucius that it is well "to studythe Past if you would divine the Future, " I have first shown that thetales which are told about the glories of the ancient CelticKingdom are foolish dreams, not supported by the accounts given bycontemporary annalists or the investigations of modern writers, andthat Ireland never was a nation in the political sense, with thepossible exception of the few years between 1782 and 1800, duringwhich the Irish Parliament was independent; that the charges madeagainst the English government with reference to their action betweenthe "Conquest" by Henry II and the assumption of the title of Kingby Henry VIII are baseless; and that though there is much which thehistorian must look back upon with regret in the period between thereign of Henry VIII and the passing of the Act of Union, it is merewaste of time now to dwell on the wrongs of a former age whichhave long since passed away and which in any other country would beforgotten. Then I have traced the brief history of the independentParliament, and shown that whatever may have been its virtues orits failings, it would be impossible to revive it now; all thecircumstances of the country have changed. I have striven also to makeit clear that the Nationalists of to-day are not the representativesof the leaders of that Parliament but of the party which foughtagainst it and brought on the horrors of the Rebellion; that theUnion was a political necessity, if the connection between the BritishIslands was to be maintained at all; and that if the people of Irelandhave not derived all the benefits from the Union which they might havedone, it is their own fault, as the history of Ulster during the lastcentury has shown. Next, I have explained the rise of the presentHome Rule movement, and its dependence on agrarian agitation. I haveanalyzed some of the provisions of the present Bill, which independentwriters consider to be hopelessly unworkable; and lastly I have statedwhy in my opinion Home Rule in any form must be fraught with disasternot only to Ireland but also to the Empire at large. 

I have no desire unnecessarily to wound the feelings of those who takea different view; if it can be shown that any of my statements areincorrect or my inference illogical, I shall be glad to correctthem; but to mere abuse, such as the Nationalists are in the habit ofpouring on Unionist writers, I shall pay no heed. I admit that it maybe said that there are several matters which I ought to have gone intomore fully; to that I can only reply that I wished to be as brief aspossible, and that I have done my best to compress with fairness. What I am really anxious to do is to draw the attention of thoughtfulreaders, before it is too late, to the terrible dangers with which weare faced. As an Irish historian has said:--

 "No political madness could be greater than to put the legislative machinery of an integral and essential portion of the Empire into the hands of men who are largely or mainly disaffected with that Empire, and who, in times of difficulty, danger and disaster are likely to betray it. "

 * * * * *

The following are the principal works of which use has been madein preparing this volume. They are cited here in order to avoid thenecessity of constant footnotes:--

 "Short History of the Irish People. " By Professor Richey. 

 "Irish Nationalism. " By the late Duke of Argyll. 

 "History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century. " By W. E. H. Lecky. 

 "History of the Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland. " By Dunbar Ingram. 

 "Ireland and Her Fairy Godmother. " By J. Warren. 

 "The Continuity of the Irish Revolutionary Movement. " By Prof. Brougham Leech. 

 "A Fool's Paradise. " By Professor Dicey. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE ULSTER COVENANT. THE QUESTIONS STATED. IRELAND UNDER THE CELTS ANDTHE DANES. 

 "Being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship and perilous to the unity of the Empire, We, whose names are underwritten, Men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V, humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in Solemn Covenant throughout this our time of threatened calamity to stand by one another in defending for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And, in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In such confidence that God will defend the right, we hereunto subscribe our names. "

Such is the Solemn Covenant which 220, 000 resolute, determinedUlstermen--of various creeds and of all sections of the community, from wealthy merchants to farm labourers--fully realizing theresponsibility they were undertaking, signed on the 28th September, 1912. To represent that it was merely the idle bombast of ignorantrustics, or a passing ebullition of political passion coming fromhot-headed youths excited by irresponsible demagogues, is folly. It expresses the calm resolution of earnest men who, having thoughtdeeply over the matter had decided that it was better even to facethe horrors of civil war rather than to submit to the rule of aNationalist Government. 

The opinions of the Nationalists with regard to the Ulster Covenantcan be gathered from many speeches and sermons. The following extractfrom one of their papers--the _Frontier Sentinel_--may be taken as aspecimen:--

 "It may not be out of place here to translate into simple English the terms of the Covenant. It denies the claim of Ireland to self-government and the capacity of Irishmen to govern Ireland. It asserts that the Catholics of Ireland are the spawn of the devil; that they are ruthless savages and dangerous criminals with only one object in life--the wiping out of Protestants. It claims for the Protestant Unionist majority of four Ulster counties a monopoly of Christianity, public and private morality, and clean successful business enterprise. In the name of God it seeks to stimulate the basest passions in human nature, and calls on God to witness a catalogue of falsehoods. Only a few of the local Protestant clergymen, it should be stated, signed this notoriously wicked document. "

It is well then to pause and consider calmly two questions: Whatare the real objects of the Nationalists; and, Are the men of Ulsterjustified in resisting them to the uttermost?

It is a mere truism to remark that in every political question themain controversy is complicated by a number of side issues. Thus inthe tangled skein of politics in South Eastern Europe there is notmerely the great struggle between the Crescent and the Cross, butthere are also jealousies between Greek and Bulgarian, between Servianand Austrian, which have to be considered. So in Ireland, if wetake the religious question as the dominating one, we find ourselvesinvolved in a maze of racial animosities, class prejudices, andtrade disputes; by ignoring these we can arrive at a simple butunfortunately a totally erroneous solution of the question. And toweigh them all fairly involves more trouble than the average man caresto take. 

Irish history is at best a dismal subject. And those who ought tobe historians are too often politicians; regarding themselves asadvocates and not as judges they deliberately omit incidents whichtell against their views, and enlarge on others, frequently withouteven examining the evidence in support of them. Then in arrivingat the truth about any matter connected with Ireland there is theadditional difficulty arising from the custom, almost universalamongst Irishmen, of talking in superlatives. The exaggeratedexpressions, both of praise and blame, which are constantly employed, at first puzzle a stranger coming to Ireland from another country; hesoon, however, gets to realize that they are mere forms of speech, andare no more intended to be taken seriously than similar phrases arewhen used by an Oriental. They are therefore harmless. But it becomesa more serious matter when learned men employ inflated language inaddressing ignorant and excitable audiences. Thus Bishop Gaughran, when recently preaching to a crowded congregation in Dublin a sermonwhich was reported in full in the Roman Catholic papers, said:--

 "The persecution of the Catholics in Ireland had no parallel in the history of the Church save perhaps those of the early Christians in the Catacombs of Rome. Edicts were sent forth before which those of Nero might be said to pale into insignificance--the Edicts of Elizabeth and Cromwell, for example. "

Yet these words came from a man who was doubtless familiar with thehistories of Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands; and who is aleader of a party which had not long before expressed the opinion thatCatholics have no reason to be ashamed of the Inquisition, which wasa coercive and corporally punitive force which had effected its endssplendidly!

One of the many popular delusions under which English people labourwith regard to Ireland is that all the population of the country atthe present day are Celts, and that this is the key to the whole Irishquestion. Thus a review of Father Tyrrell's autobiography recentlyappeared in an English journal in which the reviewer said: "Probablyno Englishmen could have written such a book; it needs a Latin likeRousseau, or a Celt like Tyrrell to lay bare his soul in this way. "No doubt these words were written in perfectly good faith; but ifthe writer had cared to make any enquiry he could have found out in amoment that the Tyrrell family were thoroughly English and that noneof them had gone to Ireland before the nineteenth century. The factis that the inhabitants of Ireland, like the inhabitants of all othercountries in Western Europe, are of mixed origin. The Celts werethemselves immigrants, who conquered and enslaved a pre-existing racecalled the Firbolgs; then came the Scandinavian invasion; and thenwave after wave of immigration from England and Scotland, so thatSir J. Davies, writing three hundred years ago--that was, before theCromwellian settlement and the arrival of the French refugees who hadescaped from the persecution of Louis XIV--said that if the people ofIreland were numbered those descended of English race would be foundmore in number than the ancient natives. 

This, however, is only one of many errors into which English writershave fallen. Mistakes of course will always be made; but unfortunatelyit is a charge from which Mr. Gladstone's admirers cannot clear himthat when he wished to bring the English people round to the idea ofHome Rule he deliberately falsified Irish history in order to makeit serve his ends; and his misrepresentations have gained credenceamongst careless thinkers who are content to shelter themselves undera great name without looking at what has been written in answer. Thegeneral idea of an average Englishman about Irish history seems to bethat Ireland in Celtic times was a peaceful, orderly, united kingdom, famous for its piety and learning, where land was held by "tribaltenure"--that is, owned by the whole tribe who were closely relatedin blood--rent being unknown, and the chief being elected by the wholetribe in solemn assembly. Into this happy country came the Normaninvaders, who fought against and conquered the king; drove the nativeowners out of their possessions, and introduced a feudal system and analien code of law unsuited to the people; and the modern landlordsare the representatives of the conquering Normans and the tenantsthe descendants of the ancient tribesmen who naturally and rightfullyresist paying rent for the lands which by ancestral right should betheir own. There could not be a more complete travesty of history. 

The Celtic Church no doubt had its golden age. It produced saints andmen of learning. It sent out its missionaries to the heathen beyondthe seas. So famous were its schools that students came to them fromdistant lands. But centuries before the Normans appeared in Irelandthe salt had lost its savour. The Celtic Church had sunk into beinga mere appendage of the wild tribes it had once tried to tame. Thechiefs of one tribe would sack the colleges and shrines of anothertribe as freely as they would sack any of their other possessions. For instance, the annals tell us that in the year 1100 the men of thesouth made a raid into Connaught and burned many churches; in 1113Munster tribe burned many churches in Meath, one of them being full ofpeople; in 1128 the septs of Leitrim and Cavan plundered and slew theretinue of the Bishop of Armagh; in the same year the men of Tyroneraided Down and a great number of people suffered martyrdom; fouryears later Kildare was invaded by raiders from Wexford, the churchwas burnt and many men slain; and so on with dreary monotony. Bishopsand abbots fought in the incessant tribal wars as keenly as laymen. Worse still, it was not infrequent for one band of clergy to makewar on another. In the ninth century, Phelim, who claimed to be bothBishop and King of Leinster, ravaged Ulster and murdered its monks andclergy. In the eleventh century the annals give an account of a fiercebattle between the Bishop of Armagh and the Bishop of Clonard. Nor didtime work any improvement; we read of bloody conflicts between abbotsand bishops as late as the middle of the fifteenth century. Whatinfluence for good could such a church have had upon the mass of thepeople?

And even in its noblest period the Celtic Church seems to have had butlittle power beyond the walls of its own colleges. The whole historyof Celtic Ireland, as we learn from the annalists, was one miserablesuccession of tribal wars, murders and plunderings. Of course it maybe said with perfect truth that the annals of other countries at thetime tell much the same story. But there is this difference betweenthem: wild and barbarous though the wars of other countries were, they were at any rate the slow and painful working up towards a highercivilization; the country became consolidated under the most powerfulchief; in time peace was enforced, agriculture improved, and townsgrew up. The tribal raids of Celtic Ireland, however, were merelyfor plunder and destruction. From such conflicts no higher state ofsociety could possibly be evolved. The Irish Celts built no cities, promoted no agriculture, and never coalesced so as to form even thenucleus of a united kingdom. 

It was about the end of the eighth century that the first foreigninfluence was brought to bear on Celtic Ireland. The Danish invasionbegan. Heathen though the Danes were, they brought some ideas ofsettled government and the germs of national progress. They foundedcities, such as Dublin, Waterford and Limerick. And when they, liketheir fellow-countrymen in England, accepted Christianity, theyestablished bishoprics in the new towns, but took care that theyshould be wholly independent of the Celtic tribal episcopate; theylooked to Canterbury and Rome. 

Much has been written and sung about the fame of Brian Boroo. No doubthe was in some ways a great man; and it seemed for a time that hemight do for Ireland something like what Alfred the Great had done forEngland and Kenneth MacAlpine had done for Scotland--might consolidatethe country into one kingdom. But the story of his life is a strikingcommentary on the wretchedness of the period. Forming an alliance withsome of the Danes he succeeded in crushing the chiefs of several rivalCeltic tribes; then in turn he attacked his former allies, and beatthem at the battle of Clontarf in the year 1014, though they wereaided by other Celtic tribes who hated Brian and his schemes even morethan they hated the foreigners. Important though this battle was, itseffect has been much exaggerated and misunderstood. It certainlydid not bring the Danish power in Ireland to an end; Dublin was aflourishing Danish colony long afterwards--in fact it was thirty yearsafter the battle that the Danish king of Dublin founded the Bishopric. 

But Brian was slain in the moment of victory. The soldiers of hisarmy murdered his only surviving son, and began fighting amongstthemselves. Brian's dream of a united Ireland came to an end, and thecountry relapsed into chaos. If the immediate result of the battlewas a victory of Celt over Dane, the lasting effect was a triumph ofanarchy over order. It was on the Celtic people that the ruin fell;and the state of things for the next two centuries was if possibleworse than it had ever been before. 

It will be readily understood that throughout this terrible period ofhistory anything like a peaceful cultivation of the soil or a regularelection to the office of chief was out of the question. It was quitean ordinary thing for a chief to obtain his position by murdering hispredecessor. The annalists give us a long list of Kings of Irelanddating from before the Christian era until the arrival of the Normans. Of course the word "king" can mean little more than "prominentchief, " for no one man ever had real authority over the whole of thedistracted land. Even of these prominent chiefs, however, accordingto the annalists, very few died natural deaths. Some fell in battle, others were assassinated; but the most common fate for a monarch wasto be "slain by his successor. " If this was true of the most powerfulmen in the country, to speak of the office of chief as elective isreally absurd. But more than this: there is no evidence that the"tribal system, " in the sense of all the tribe being related by bloodand all owning their lands in common, ever existed in Ireland evenin theory. At the earliest date of which we possess any distinctinformation on the subject, wealth, representing physical force, hadbecome the acknowledged basis of political power and private right;and the richer members of the community were rapidly reducing thepoorer freemen--many of whom were the descendants of an earlier raceor of conquered tribes--to a state of serfdom. The system (if sucha word can be applied at all) was in fact a bad form of feudalismwithout its advantages. There was no central overlord (like thosein other countries who gradually developed into the sovereigns ofmediĉval kingdoms and thus became able to enforce peace and progress), each petty chief being independent; and on the other hand the duespayable by the retainers were not fixed by law or custom. We mustprobably reject the suggested derivation of the word "feodal" from theCeltic "Fiudir"; but if so, it is curious that two words accidentallyresembling each other conveyed ideas so closely alike; for a Celtic"Fiudir" was practically a tenant at the will of the lord; and it mustbe admitted that the word "vassal" is of Celtic origin. Charters whichdate from before the Norman invasion show that the land was regardedas the private property of the chiefs; frequently the wretchedoccupiers, instead of paying fixed rents, were liable to unlimitedexactions, one of them being the right of the lord to "coigne andlivery"--that is, to quarter himself and his retainers as long as hepleased on any occupier who possessed a few cows (which were the onlyform of wealth in those days of universal poverty); in some cases, however, land was let for a term of years, on a fixed payment ofcattle. 

On the death of a freeholder his land was divided amongst his sonsequally, according to what is called "the custom of gavelkind. "Whether primogeniture is a good or a bad thing in England or theBritish Colonies at the present day is of course a totally differentquestion; the circumstances of the times are totally different. Butit can hardly be doubted by a thoughtful student of history that theadoption of primogeniture in the early days of feudalism in otherEuropean countries was a social necessity if civilization was to riseto a higher state; and that its not being introduced in Ireland was ifnot a cause at least an evidence that civilization in that countrydid not progress. For in a condition not far removed from anarchythe connection between the ownership of land and political power isinevitable; hence if holdings are small their owners become an easyprey to stronger neighbours; whereas the possessors of larger areascan repel attacks and enable their dependents to live in some sort ofsecurity. It was the enormous number of petty independent chiefs thatadded to the miseries of Celtic Ireland. 

I shall probably be accused of having painted too dark a picture inthe brief sketch that I have given of Ireland before the coming of theNormans. I admit that it is very different from the glowing accountsof "Irish Ireland" that may be found in the pages of Nationalistjournals. But the question to me is not which account is more pleasantbut which is true. And I defy anyone who has cared to look through theworks of such writers as Richey, Stokes, and Sullivan, to prove thatwhat I have said is incorrect or unfair. 

CHAPTER II. 

IRELAND FROM THE TIME OF HENRY II TO THE TIME OF HENRY VIII. 

In the last chapter I dealt with the long period during which theCeltic tribes of Ireland were free from foreign influence except forthe comparatively brief time when a small part of the country wasunder the rule of the Danes; and I endeavoured to show that accordingto the evidence of their own annalists and in the opinion of modernwriters of various political sentiments, the whole island throughoutthat period remained in a chronic state of anarchy, without anyadvance towards a higher civilization. 

As Dr. Richey, when describing the condition of Ireland about the year1170, says, "The state of the Celtic people was beyond all hope ofself-amendment. The want of law, order and justice, the absence ofself-knowledge and self-control, paralysed their national action andreduced the power of their chief king to insignificance. "

I come now to what has been absurdly called the conquest of Irelandunder Henry II. 

That the English king was instigated in his efforts by the Pope isperfectly clear. The Bull of Pope Adrian, issued in 1155, is stillextant:--

 ". . . There is indeed no doubt but that Ireland, and all the islands on which Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, hath shone, and which have received the doctrine of the Christian faith, do belong to the jurisdiction of St. Peter and the Holy Roman Church . . . Therefore we are the more solicitous to propagate the righteous plantation of faith in this land, and the branch acceptable to God, as we have the secret conviction of conscience that this is more especially our bounden duty. You then, our dear son in Christ, have signified to us your desire to enter into the island of Ireland, in order to reduce the people to obedience under the laws, and to extirpate the plants of vice, and that you are willing to pay from each house a yearly pension of one penny to St. Peter, and that you will preserve the rights of the churches whole and inviolate. We, therefore, do hold it good and acceptable that . . . You enter this island and execute therein whatever shall pertain to the honour of God and welfare of the land; and that the people of the land receive you honourably and reverence you as their lord. "

And in 1172 Pope Alexander III ratified the action of his predecessor. 

 "Forasmuch as these things which have been on good reasons granted by our predecessors, deserve to be confirmed . . . And considering the grant of the dominion of the land by the venerable Pope Adrian, we . . . Do ratify and confirm the same (reserving to St. Peter and to the Holy Roman Church, as well in England as in Ireland the yearly pension of one penny from every house) provided that, the abominations of the land being removed, the barbarous people, Christians only in name, may by your means, be reformed, and their lives and conversations mended, so that their disordered Church being thus reduced to regular discipline, that nation may, with the name of Christians, be so in act and deed. "

Whether the description here given was literally correct, or whetherthe Pope's views were coloured by the fact that the Celtic Church didnot acknowledge the supremacy of Rome and was heretical on certainpoints of doctrine, is a question outside the present subject. TheBulls are only quoted here as showing the part taken by Rome. And itmust be admitted that in the succeeding century the power of the Popebecame strong enough to enable him to levy taxes in Ireland for thepurpose of carrying on his wars against the Emperor and the King ofAragon. 

But Henry did not conquer Ireland. He did not even pretend to do so. Previous to his arrival there had been some little fighting done by afew adventurous Norman knights who had been invited by a native chiefto assist him in a domestic war; but Henry II fought no battle inIreland; he displaced no ancient national government; the Irish hadno national flag, no capital city as the metropolis of the country, nocommon administration of the law. The English, coming in the name ofthe Pope, with the aid of the Irish bishops, with a superior nationalorganization which the Irish easily recognised, were accepted by theIrish. The king landed at Waterford; his journey to Dublin was rathera royal progress than a hostile invasion. He came as feudal sovereignto receive the homage of the Irish tribes; the chiefs flocked to hiscourt, readily became his vassals, and undertook to hold the landsthey already occupied as fiefs of the Crown. But Henry did not takethe title, or assume the position of King of Ireland. He merely soughtto establish a suzerainty in which he would be the overlord. And infact a conquest of Ireland in the modern sense of the term would havebeen impossible. England possessed no standing army; the feudal leviesof mediĉval times were difficult and expensive. It might of coursehave been possible to have organized a wholesale immigration and anenslavement of the natives, something like that which the Normans hadaccomplished in England, and the Saxons had done centuries before; butnothing of the kind was attempted. Whether Henry's original intentionwas simply to leave the Irish chiefs in possession or not, it isuseless now to enquire. But if it was, he appears to have changed hisviews; for not long afterwards he granted large fiefs with palatinatejurisdiction to various Normans who had made their way over to Irelandindependently. 

It may be that Henry--knowing that the Conqueror, whilst takingcare that no powerful seignories should grow up in the heart of hiskingdom, as rivals to the throne, yet made exceptions in caseswhere the lands verged on hostile territory, such as Durham orChester--thought that he could best follow the spirit of that policyby establishing what were practically semi-independent principalitiesin an island already inhabited by another race. But the result wasdisastrous. 

That the Normans were savage and brutal, dealing out no justice ormercy to their victims, is proved by the account of their conquest ofEngland. Yet they possessed certain great qualities, which eminentlyfitted them to become rulers in those wild, unsettled times; as theirsuccesses, not merely in Britain, but also in Southern Italy andSyria, show. They had the idea of a strong, centralized Government;and more than that they had a marvellous capacity for receptivity. Thus we see that in England, after a period of rough tyranny, theyblended the existing Anglo-Saxon Government--the strength of which layin its local organization--with their own; and from the union ofthe two has come the British Constitution. So too in the Lowlandsof Scotland it was the Norman knight Robert Bruce who, accepting thealready existing Saxon and Roman civilization, raised Scotland into apowerful kingdom. But in Ireland all was different. The only stateof society which the Normans found was Celtic barbarism. Politicalinstitutions did not exist. As the Normans in England had becomeAnglified, and in Scotland Scottified, so in Ireland they becameErsefied. It is true that they built stone castles which at any ratewere better than the hovels of the Irish Chiefs, and (like theDanes before them) founded a few towns, such as Kilkenny, Galway andAthenry; but there their efforts ended. Scattered amongst the tribes, they learnt their ways. They sank to the position of the CelticChiefs around them; local wars went on the same as before; the onlydifference being that they were waged sometimes by Normans againstNormans or against Celts, but more frequently by one body of Celtsagainst another, each side being aided by Norman allies. 

One class of Nationalist writers has inveighed against the Englishkings for not having forcibly introduced English law and put an end tothe barbarous Celtic customs. The simple answer is, How could they doso? Whilst England was being weakened by long continental wars orby struggles between rival Houses, what strength had she left toundertake the real conquest of Ireland? The English kings had turnedto the only people who could have helped them--the Normans settled inIreland; and they failed them. Other Nationalist writers have onthe other hand declaimed with equal vehemence against the tyranny ofEngland in forcing an alien system of law on an unwilling people. Tothis the answer is that nothing of the kind occurred. It is true thatpetitions were sent from Ireland to the King urging him to introduceEnglish law; but these petitions came mainly from the poorer classesof English settlers who found that instead of attaining greaterliberty in their new home they were being ground down to the miserableposition of the native Irish. The King issued proclamations directingthe English barons to permit the Irish to be governed by the law ofEngland; but his orders were totally disregarded; many of the unhappyEnglish settlers fled from the country and returned to England;the barons supplied their places with native retainers. Thus theErsefication of the degenerate Normans became complete; they"donned the saffron"--that is, they adopted the yellow dress of theCelts--abandoned their original language, and gave themselves up to alife of constant plunder and rapine. 

Early in the fourteenth century the Irish septs united so far as toform a joint effort to expel the English. The incident is speciallyinteresting, in the light of later history. Robert Bruce, a Normanknight, had recently consolidated the Scottish tribes into a kingdomand succeeded in shaking off the English yoke. The Irish Celtsresolved to imitate his example. King Robert was shrewd enough to seethat by aiding them he could attack his enemy at the most vulnerablepoint; consequently, when the chiefs offered the Crown of Ireland tohis brother Edward if he would come and help them, he gladly acceptedthe invitation. For three years a devastating war raged over a largepart of Ireland; the Scotch went from the North of Ulster almost toLimerick, burning, slaying, plundering, sacking towns, castles andchurches; and a terrible famine ensued. But the Irish chiefs were nomore energetic in supporting Edward Bruce than their ancestors hadbeen in supporting Brian; he and his chief officers fell in a battleagainst the English near Dundalk, and the rest of his followersescaped to Scotland. The coalition fell to pieces; and the only resultof the Scotch invasion was to increase the misery of the people, especially of the unhappy English settlers, who continued to flockback to England in greater numbers than before. 

As soon as the rebellion was put down, the great legislator EdwardIII made another effort at introducing order into the distracted land. Acts were passed by the English Parliament providing that the samelaw should be applicable to both English and Irish, and forbiddinglandowners to keep larger bands of armed men than were necessary forself-defence. But the Ersefied barons on whom he relied refused toobey the new laws; they renounced their allegiance and joined therebellious Celtic tribes. Then the king, seeing the impossibilityof carrying out his scheme for pacifying the whole of Ireland, wasreduced to the expedient of dividing the country into two; leaving thelarger part of it for the natives and degenerate English to misgovernas they pleased according to their own customs, and preserving onlya mere fraction (the "English Pale") in allegiance to the Crown ofEngland. This was the real meaning of the "Statutes of Kilkenny, "which have been so often misrepresented by modern writers. 

The next king, Richard II, attempted to imitate the policy of hisancestor Henry II. He went to Ireland with great pomp. Again theCeltic chiefs flocked to Dublin to swear allegiance to their lord;and as soon as his back was turned commenced not only fighting amongstthemselves but even attacking the English Pale. The result of all hisefforts was that the limits of the Pale were still further contracted;the English power was confined to a small area in the neighbourhood ofDublin. 

But even within that narrow boundary the power of the king was farfrom being secure. When England was torn by the Wars of the Roses, theso-called Parliament (which was really an irregular assembly at bestrepresenting a territory about the size of a modern county) seizedthe opportunity of declaring itself independent. It is interesting, inview of present-day questions, to observe that Dr. Richey, writingin 1869, seems to consider their action as not only justifiable butinevitable. He says:--

 "The Irish Parliament declared the complete independence of the Irish Legislature, and boldly affirmed those constitutional rights which, though involved in the existence of separate parliament, had not hitherto been categorically expressed. They asserted their rights to a distinct coinage, and their absolute freedom from all laws and statutes except such as were by the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons of Ireland freely admitted and accepted in their Parliament. They declared that no Irish subject was bound to answer any writs except those under the great seal of Ireland, and enacted heavy penalties against any officer who should attempt to put English decrees in force in Ireland. They, in fact, took the same position and laid down the same principles as the celebrated Parliament of 1782. "

Whether they imagined that they could form a separate kingdom ofDublin, or dreamt of making an alliance with the tribes outside thePale, it is useless now to conjecture; but we can see that though theyhad no chance of benefiting themselves they might have caused seriousinjury to England. Nor was it long before a difficulty arose. Theinhabitants of the Pale remained attached to the House of York evenafter the Battle of Bosworth, and readily accepted Lambert Simnel asKing of Ireland. He was crowned in the Cathedral of Dublin, and helda Parliament. After the defeat of this Pretender, the able and astuteHenry VII saw that it was necessary without further delay to make theshadowy suzerainty of England over Ireland a reality. He accordinglypersuaded the Irish Parliament to pass an Act which from the name ofthe Lord Deputy was known as "Poyning's Act. " By this Act, all Englishstatutes then existing in England were made of force in Ireland; thechief fortresses were secured to the Crown of England; and the IrishParliament was relegated to the position of a subordinate legislature;for it was enacted that no Parliament should be held in Ireland unlessthe King's Lieutenant and Council should first certify the King, underthe Great Seal of Ireland, the Acts which they considered should pass;then the King and his Council should approve the proposed Acts, and issue a licence under the Great Seal of England, summoning theParliament. 

Though some writers have spoken of this as the most disgraceful Actever passed by an independent legislature, the people in Ireland atthe time considered it a boon and a favour; for it shielded them fromthe unauthorized power of a Lord Deputy supported by a Parliament ofhis own creatures. 

And so, with the close of the mediĉval period, ended the secondchapter of Irish history. It will be observed that there had been noreligious persecution, unless indeed the conduct of the Norman--thatis, the Roman--Church towards the ancient Celtic Church, or theburning of some heretics in the fourteenth century, could be sodescribed; a view which the Nationalists of to-day will hardly care toput forward. Nor can the English Government be fairly blamed for thecondition of affairs; for responsibility depends on power, and Englishpower in Ireland hardly existed. The suzerainty of England, feeble atbest, had gradually been limited to a mere fraction of the country. The Celtic tribes had long since thrown off even a nominal submissionto the English Crown; the Anglo-Norman lords had become eitheravowedly or practically independent. But the inhabitants of Irelanddid not constitute a nation or possess any common interest or bond ofunion. There was no trace of an organization by which the Irish tribescould be united into one people. The ceaseless civil wars had indeedsupplanted the original tribesmen by the mercenary followers ofanother set of rival chiefs; but there had been no union; and the massof the people, still under the influence of their native customs, wereprobably in a more wretched condition than they had ever been before. 

CHAPTER III. 

IRELAND UNDER THE TUDORS. 

We have seen that at the close of the Middle Ages Ireland was in thecondition that some people in England now consider the panacea forall the woes of the country; it possessed a subordinate Parliament andEngland interfered as little as possible in its local affairs. HenryVIII attempted "to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas"; having noarmy of his own, he appointed the most powerful of the Norman baronshis deputy. But this deputy used his authority precisely as anErsefied Norman (who possessed no more patriotism or national feelingthan a Celtic chief) might have been expected to use it, --that was, toaid him in a succession of family quarrels and tribal wars in which, allied with some of the native septs he attacked others. Even thetowns outside the Pale fared little better than the remoter districts;there was actually a civil war between Cork and Limerick. The state ofaffairs in Celtic Ireland during the brief period from 1500 to 1534as stated in the annals (which, however, only deal with a part of thecountry, hardly referring to what took place in Leinster or Munster)has been summed up by Dr. Richey in the following words:--

 "Battles, plunderings, etc. , exclusive of those in which the English Government was engaged, 116; Irish gentlemen of family killed in battle, 102; murdered, 168--many of them with circumstances of great atrocity; and during this period, on the other hand, there is no allusion to the enactment of any law, the judicial decision of any controversy, the founding of any town, monastery or church; and all this is recorded by the annalist without the slightest expression of regret or astonishment, as if such were the ordinary course of life in a Christian country. "

At length, in 1534, matters came to a head; the Lord Deputy broke outinto open rebellion. We can learn from the State papers of the periodwhat the condition of Ireland then was. The Pale--now but the remnantof a fraction--was constantly invaded and ravished by wild tribes, and was itself becoming Ersefied; for the poorer English settlers hadeither fled back to England, joined the Celtic tribes in despair, astheir only way of escaping from the harshness of the English lords, orbeen crushed out of existence; and, as had already happened elsewhere, their place had been taken by Irish retainers. Then in the rest of thecountry there were some ninety chiefs, of whom about sixty representedancient septs and the remainder degenerate Normans, all claimingindependence and preying sometimes on one another and sometimes ontheir unfortunate followers. Not infrequently also a tribe was dividedagainst itself, and a civil war was raging between the two factions. And one result of the Ersefication of the Norman barons was that, in addition to the regular feudal dues, they demanded every kindof Celtic tribute from the occupiers of the land. In fact, how thewretched tenants managed to support life at all seems a mystery. Whatever law there may at one time have been was now long extinct;and as King Henry himself pointed out, if the natives were to have anysort of law at all, the only possible law was the law of England. 

At this time also a new factor came into the already complicatedproblem--the Reformation. Henry VIII never was a Protestant, inthe sense of adopting the doctrines which are now usually calledProtestant; but he had renounced the authority of the Pope. In 1535Pope Paul III passed sentence upon him, consigning his kingdoms towhoever might invade them, and commanding his nobles to take uparms against him. Both the Emperor and the King of France saw theiropportunity, as Robert Bruce had done centuries before. They commenceda correspondence with the Irish chiefs with the object of bringingabout an invasion of Ireland. Thereupon King Henry resolved to takethe only course that seemed to him possible--to make the conquestof Ireland a reality and to enforce law and order in that distractedland. His letters, which are still extant, show the care with which hethought out the matter, and his earnest desire for the welfare ofthe people of both races; a perusal of them would astonish those whoregard him merely as a savage sensualist. Strange to say, in theirIrish policy, the character of Henry VIII shows itself at the best, and that of Elizabeth at its worst. When Henry had with difficultysucceeded in crushing the Geraldine rebellion and a series of otherswhich broke out soon after, he got the Irish Parliament to pass anAct conferring on him the title of king; he was solemnly proclaimed assuch, and his title was confirmed by the almost unanimous consent ofthe Irish princes. 

This was important in more ways than one: it was universallyrecognized that the word "king" meant much more than "lord"; and itgave him a title independent of the Pope's donation. 

It is one of the ironies of history that the renunciation of the Papalauthority and the submission to the king's supremacy was far morerapid and general in Ireland than it was in England. For not only didall the lay chiefs readily yield their adhesion, but only two of thebishops refused to take the oath of supremacy. Rebellions such as thatof Fitzgerald had no connection with religion; it was not until yearsafterwards when England had become identified with Protestantism andSpain with Catholicism that the Irish became intensely Papal. On theother hand, the Reformation, as a religious movement, made no headwayin Ireland. It was purely negative and destructive, and emanated fromthe Government, not from the mass of the people. The monasteries weredestroyed; hence there were no vicars to supply the parish churches, which fell into ruin; the king endeavoured rather to Anglify than toProtestantise the people by sending to them bishops and clergy fromEngland--but they were mere state officials, not fathers in God;unable even to speak the Irish language; what real preaching therewas was done by friars sent from Rome and Madrid. Henry's efforts atestablishing parish schools were also a total failure. Had there notbeen later immigrations from England and Scotland, Irish Protestantismwould probably have died out. Yet it is but fair to state, and to bearin mind, that there was no religious persecution as such in Irelandduring the Tudor period. Elizabeth's policy was, without making anyactual promise of freedom of conscience, to leave the question ofreligious opinions alone as far as possible. The real difficulty camefrom the political nature of the Church of Rome; when the Pope deposedElizabeth and gave Ireland to Philip of Spain every Irish RomanCatholic had either to be false to his religion or to become atraitor--_in esse_ or _in posse_--to the queen. 

When Henry had resolved to do his utmost to bring Ireland to a stateof civilization, there were not wanting advisers who urged upon himthat his only safe course was absolutely to destroy the whole nativepopulation by sword and famine and re-people the vacant lands byimmigrants from England. Such a course would have been quite inaccordance with the ideas of the time. Not thirty years previously, the combined forces of Church and State had pursued the hereticpopulation of the Loise into the mountain fastnesses to which they hadfled, and had piled logs of wood at the mouths of the caves in whichthey had taken refuge, and set them on fire. Then, when all theunhappy people--men, women and children, numbering some thousandsin all--had perished, their lands were distributed amongst strangersbrought in from a distance to occupy them. And at a later date--in themiddle of the sixteenth century--the native inhabitants of the CanaryIslands were exterminated by the Spanish Inquisition, and their landstaken by the invading race. But to Henry it appeared that there wasone milder course that might still be possible. Might not the nativechiefs and the degenerate Normans who had shown that their only ideaof independency was anarchy yet be brought together as nobles undera strong central government with a Parliament representing not merelythe Pale, but all Ireland? Might not the mass of the people, whosenative customs had been well nigh crushed out by civil wars, be persuaded to _adopt_ the law of England? This was the policydeliberately adopted by Henry and acted on by him during his life. It is easy for writers living in modern times to sneer at some of thedetails of his scheme; but it is not so easy for them to point outwhat other course would have been better; or indeed, whether any othercourse short of a policy of extermination, would have been possible. 

The remarkable thing, however, is that the change to a more severeline took place not under Henry or his Protestant son, but under themost Catholic Sovereigns Philip and Mary. It was by their orders thatthe first of the confiscations (which were to play so important a partin the later history of Ireland) was carried out. By an Act passedin their reign the lands occupied by the O'Moores, O'Connors andO'Dempseys were confiscated and formed into the King's andQueen's counties, Leix and Offaly being renamed "Philipstown" and"Maryborough"; and a "Plantation" of English settlers was established. 

And here it is well to pause for a moment and consider theseconfiscations, about which so much has been written. Thatconfiscations have taken place in every country is a plain fact ofhistory. There is probably no part of Western Europe where land isnow held by the descendants of the aboriginal inhabitants. Forcibleconquest and adverse occupation is nearly always the primary rootof title. But it is part of the policy of every civilized country torecognize what lawyers call "Statutes of limitations. " When centurieshave elapsed and new rights have grown up, it is impossible to rectifythe wrongs of times long gone by. Thus we cannot suppose that anyfuture Government of Spain would ever recognize the title of the Moorsin Africa to the properties from which their ancestors were drivenby Philip IV; or that the Huguenots, now scattered over variouscountries, could ever succeed in recovering possession of the estatesin France which were confiscated at the time of the Revocation of theEdict of Nantes. And the only people who have a cause to complain, even on sentimental grounds, of the wrongs of past ages, are thelineal descendants of those who suffered ill-treatment. No Englishmanto-day can feel aggrieved because Saxons drove out Britons, or NormansSaxons. 

But more than that: the confiscation of the lands of rebels stands ona different basis, and has been so regarded in every country in theworld, even New Zealand. The lands confiscated by Philip and Mary wereowned by the arch-rebel FitzGerald. Naturally fertile and capable ifproperly cultivated of supporting a large population, they were atthis time a wild pathless tract of forest and bog. The ceaselesstribal wars had prevented their being drained and cleared; themiserable remnants of the Celtic tribes gained a precarious living byperiodical raids on the more peaceful inhabitants of the Pale. Duringthe whole of the reign of Edward VI fighting had gone on in Leix andOffaly with great loss of life and at enormous expense to the EnglishGovernment. The object of the confiscation was not to drive out thefew existing tribesmen; for the land, when cleared and drained, mightwell support them as well as the new settlers. Nor was it to confergreat estates on absentee proprietors, but to establish a fairlythickly settled district which might be a source of strength ratherthan a constant cause of trouble to the dwellers in the Pale. Noragain was it to introduce feudalism; for as I have shown, the systemalready in existence was feudalism without its advantages; thesubstitution of fixed dues for the barbarous custom of "coigne andlivery" was an unmixed benefit to the occupiers of land. And it cannotbe denied that the first "Plantation" was a thorough success--thrivingsettlements and prosperous farms took the place of forest and swamp. 

If the position of Henry VIII had been one of difficulty, that ofElizabeth was far more critical. The separation of the Church ofEngland from Rome was now complete. The great powers of the Continentwere united in one supreme effort to stamp out the new heresy. Themassacre of St. Bartholomew had taken place in France; Philip II hadordered a _Te Deum_ to be sung at Madrid, and the Pope had had a medalstruck to commemorate the glorious event. The lowest computation ofthose put to death for heresy in the Netherlands by Charles V was50, 000; and his successor had, at the instigation of the Holy Office, issued a proclamation sentencing to death the whole population--men, women and children--with the exception of a few persons speciallynamed. Alva boasted that he had put 18, 000 Dutchmen to death on thescaffold, and the Pope presented him with a consecrated hat andsword, an honour which had previously been bestowed only on reigningsovereigns. In Spain it was regarded not only as a sacred duty but apleasant amusement for the King and his Court to watch thetorturing of heretics. England alone--then a comparatively weakand insignificant country--stood out against this overwhelmingcombination. And in attempting to realize the position of affairs wemust remember that in the sixteenth century the Papacy was not merelya religious system but also a tremendous political power. We may nowregard the claim of the Pope to depose princes as a harmless dream;but at that time it was a stern reality. Thus matters came to a crisiswhen the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth and all who remained loyalto her, released her subjects from their allegiance, offered plenaryindulgence and remission of sins to all who would take up arms againsther, promised a liberal supply of graces and indulgences to Irishchieftains who would rebel, and gave Ireland to Philip of Spain. 

It can hardly be denied therefore that England was engaged in alife and death struggle. And unless Elizabeth would consent to theannexation of Ireland by Spain and to the conquest of England by somepower that would treat the people there much as the heretics of theNetherlands were being treated by Philip, it must be admitted that anymeasures, however violent, became a political necessity--a mere actof self-defence. But though Elizabeth had already on hand a war withFrance, Spain and Scotland, her difficulties did not end there. TheNorth of Ireland was being invaded by Celts from Scotland, and theprincipal chief, Shan O'Neill (who was described by the SpanishAmbassador as "so good a Christian that he cuts off the head of anyman who enters his country if he be not a Catholic") was in openrebellion with the avowed object of crushing out the English power, exterminating the rival tribes, and making himself King of Ulster. Toso miserable a state had that part of Ireland been reduced by pettylocal wars between rival chiefs that hundreds of people had diedof hunger. Can it be wondered that Elizabeth conceived the idea ofimitating her sister's policy and forming a "plantation" in the North?

Then came another formidable rebellion in Munster, headed by anErsefied Norman, Desmond. These rebellions were fomented by the Pope, and in the South the rebels were aided by Spanish troops. In theamount of the aid sent from Spain, however, the Irish rebels weresadly disappointed. That has been one of the characteristic featuresof all Irish rebellions; the foreign powers on which they have reliedhave been liberal enough with promises of aid, but when the time forperformance has come they have left the unfortunate Irish to theirfate. (Thus in 1641 not only did the rebels fully expect that apowerful Spanish force would come to their assistance, but they evenbelieved that 18, 000 Spanish troops had actually landed at Wexford. )That these rebellions were crushed by the forces of Queen Elizabethwith a savage violence that is more suggestive of the government ofthe Netherlands by Spain than of what should have been the action ofa Christian nation cannot be denied; but when reading the accountsof the terrible condition to which the country was reduced one cannothelp thinking that the stories of outrages committed by the Englishtroops must be exaggerated. In the first place, the writers, even wheneye-witnesses, seem to have assumed that the country was peaceful andprosperous up to that time; whereas not only had the tribal wars whichhad gone on incessantly until a few years before reduced the peoplealmost to a condition of famine, but the rebels themselves, suchas O'Neill and Desmond, had ravaged the country anew. And if it wasobvious that the object of Elizabeth was to exterminate the wholeIrish population and the Roman Catholic religion, it seems impossible(even allowing for the eccentricity of human nature in general and ofthe Irish character in particular) to believe that a large part of thequeen's forces should have been composed of Irish Roman Catholics; orthat the inhabitants of the towns, most of whom were also Irish RomanCatholics, should have taken her side; but such was undoubtedlythe case. Again, if nearly the whole native population had beenexterminated by slaughter and famine it would have taken at least acentury to recover. Yet--a few years after the commencement ofthe English settlement we find Spenser complaining that the newproprietors were acting as the Norman barons had done centuriesbefore; instead of keeping out the Irish they were making them theirtenants and thrusting out the English; and some of the proprietorswere themselves becoming "mere Irish. " Then, although no doubta certain proportion of the Elizabethan settlers renounced theirProtestantism and embraced the Roman Catholic religion, that canhardly have been the case with the mass of them; and yet before themiddle of the seventeenth century we find that the great majorityof the freeholders of Ireland and even of the members of the IrishParliament were Roman Catholics; surely they must have representedthe earlier population. And lastly, considering the wild exaggerationsthat occur in the accounts of every other event of Irish history, wecannot suppose that this period alone has escaped. 

Towards the end of the queen's reign occurred the last of thenative rebellions. It too was crushed; and, by the "flight of theearls"--Tyrone and Tyrconnell--was completed the work which had beencommenced by Henry II. And so the third chapter of Irish history wasended. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, UNTIL THE END OF THE REIGN OF JAMES II. 

The seventeenth century is a terrible period of European history. Ithas been described as "the age of religious wars"; and those wars werewaged with a savage ferocity which it is impossible even now to readof without a shudder. 

It is a plain matter of history that from the very commencement of theReformation the idea of toleration never entered into the heads ofany of the authorities of the Church of Rome. France, Spain, Portugal, Savoy and Germany all tell the same story. Except in countries such asEngland where the sovereigns adopted the new opinions, the only chancewhich the reforming party had of being able to exercise their religionwas by means of rebellion and all the horrors of civil war. What thatmeant, the history of the rise of the Dutch Republic tells us. As LordActon has said: "In the seventeenth century the murder of a hereticwas not only permitted but rewarded. It was a virtuous deed toslaughter Protestant men and women until they were all exterminated. Pius V held that it was sound Catholic doctrine that any man maystab a heretic; and every man was a heretic who attacked the papalprerogatives. " And it is equally true that in those cases where thereforming party succeeded in gaining the upper hand, they did not showmuch more mercy than had been shown to them previously or was beingshown to their co-religionists in other countries at the time. Yetit is only fair to add that when the idea of toleration did arise, itarose amongst the reformed churches. Probably the only Roman CatholicState in the world where toleration existed during the seventeenthcentury was the little English colony of Maryland, of which LordBaltimore was the proprietor. And when at length the religious warsdied out it was, as far as Catholic countries were concerned, becausethe lay mind had become thoroughly disgusted with the whole thing, andmen's minds were turning in other directions--not because the clericalrulers showed the slightest desire to relax their efforts or changetheir policy. 

It would be well if the whole dreadful period could be buried inoblivion. But it is necessary to mention the subject here, for theNationalist party are continually referring to the horrors of theCromwellian massacres and the penal laws; and if such matters are tobe gone into at all it is only fair, in order to make a just estimateof them, to glance at the great European struggle of which they formedan incident. In the century which saw Germany deluged with bloodfor thirty years, and which witnessed the revocation of the Edict ofNantes and the revival of vehement persecution in France, it was notlikely that Ireland should remain unaffected. 

Soon after James I came to the throne he commenced his famous Scotchplantation in the desolated and half-emptied province of Ulster. Thatit was even a greater success than the plantation formed by Philipand Mary everyone is of course aware; it is the descendants of thoseimmigrants who, though they live in a district not so highly favouredby nature as other parts of the country, form the only reallyprosperous and progressive section of the community at the presentday. The native Irish do not seem to have looked on the Scotchmen withmuch disfavour, perhaps partly because there being plenty of room forall in the desolated tract, and lands being assigned to them, theyrealised that they were safer in the immediate neighbourhood of apeaceful settlement than they would have been had they remained a preyto unscrupulous adventurers like Shan O'Neill. A member of the legalprofession must feel shame and sorrow in recording the fact thatthe chicanery of the lawyers added much to the harshness of thepoliticians. That, however, is only another way of saying thatthe humane policy of the nineteenth century was unknown in theseventeenth. Had courts been established in Ireland like the nativeland courts of New Zealand in which claims under customary law mightbe investigated, and equitable awards made, the later history ofIreland might have been very different. Yet one must remember thateven in the reign of Queen Victoria there was a strong party inEngland and there were not a few people in New Zealand who arguedthat Maori customary claims should be disregarded and the treatyof Waitangi ignored. And in the seventeenth century such ideas wereunheard of. Lawyers searched for every technicality of English lawby which the titles of holders of land could be upset, in favour ofEnglish claimants. Then matters became strangely complicated, as theyseem to be periodically throughout Irish history. The struggle betweenCharles I and the Parliament began, and it soon became evident thatthe Parliamentary party was the stronger of the two. To the Irish theParliamentarians meant the Puritans; and they believed, not whollywithout reason, that a determined attempt would be made not only toseize all their lands but also to stamp out their religion. (Itmust be observed that the Elizabethan anti-Roman Acts had never beenstrictly carried out in Ireland, and during the reign of James I theirseverity had been relaxed still further--a line of conduct which hadno parallel in any Roman Catholic country in Europe at the time. )Thereupon in 1641 the Roman Catholics of Ulster broke into openrebellion, and soon afterwards they applied to the kings of France andSpain for aid; and the Pope issued a bull granting a full and plenaryindulgence and absolute remission for all their sins to all who woulddo their utmost to extirpate and totally root out those workers ofiniquity who in the kingdom of Ireland had infected and were alwaysstriving to infect the mass of Catholic purity with the pestiferousleaven of their heretical contagion. 

The stories told of the actual outbreak of the rebellion areinteresting as an illustration of the universal habit of exaggerationabout Irish affairs, to which I have already alluded. Clarendonaffirms that 40, 000 English Protestants were murdered before theysuspected themselves to be in any danger; Temple states that inthe first two months of the rebellion 150, 000 Protestants had beenmassacred. The Jesuit, O'Mahony, writing in 1645, says "Persevere, my countrymen, in the path you have entered on, and exterminate yourheretical opponents, their adherents and helpers. Already within fouror five years you have killed 150, 000 of them, as you do not deny. Imyself believe that even a greater number of the heretics have beencut off; would that I could say all. " He had doubtless obtainedhis information from the returns made by the priests engaged in therebellion to the military leaders, the figures of which were much thesame. Yet Lecky (who, though in certain passages of his history heshows himself to be somewhat biassed in favour of the Irish RomanCatholic party, is on the whole a remarkably fair and impartialhistorian) argues with much force that there is no evidence ofanything like a general massacre, and brings down the number murderedto about 8, 000. Still, that there was a widespread rebellion and allthe consequent horrors of civil war, there can be no doubt. The rebelsof Ulster at one time tried to identify their cause with that ofCharles I by producing a forged commission from the king--whichannoyed the Royalists and made the Parliamentary party all the morebitter. Charles certainly did his utmost to bring about a peace--nodoubt being anxious to obtain the assistance of his Irish subjectsin his Scotch and English wars. But his efforts were thwarted by thePapal Nuncio, whose instructions from Rome were that the Holy Seecould never by any positive Act approve of the civil allegiance ofCatholic subjects to an heretical prince; and thus the Royalist causebecame as completely lost in Ireland as it was in England. Before thepeace was finally concluded, Charles was a prisoner in the hands ofhis enemies. 

Then came the terrible episode of the Cromwellian war, in whichRomanist and Royalist alike went down before the Puritan force. Still, though he would be a bold man who could attempt to excuse--much lessto justify--the barbarities that took place, it may be doubted whetherall the Cromwellian outrages put together equalled a single one ofthose which the Imperial troops had committed during the war whichhad been raging for thirty years in Germany--such for instance as thesacking of Magdeburg. It is estimated, however, that about 600, 000people (of whom 500, 000 were of the Irish race and 100, 000 of theEnglish) perished by the sword, pestilence or famine in the fearfulyears between 1641 and 1652--in other words, about a third part ofthe population was wiped out. And the war was followed by a wholesaleconfiscation--having fought for the king being considered as much anact of treason as having rebelled against him. The confiscated landswere allotted to soldiers, to persons who had supplied money to theParliamentary forces, and to other supporters of the new Government. It is but just, however, to add that 700, 000 acres of profitable landin Connaught were allotted to dispossessed Romanists, and that theywere allowed to occupy 100, 000 acres in other parts of the country; astriking contrast to the lot of the unhappy Waldenses who were at thattime being driven from their homes and slaughtered without mercy forno crime but heresy; or to the treatment a few years later by LouisXIV of his Huguenot subjects whose lands were confiscated withoutcompensation and who were only given the choice of death or thegalleys. 

At the Restoration some effort was made to undo the injustice of theCromwellian confiscations. But the matter was one of great difficulty. In many cases land had been allotted by Cromwell in payment for moneyreceived; in others the grantees had sold their holdings to purchaserswho had paid in cash, regarding the original grant as indefeasible. A reconfiscation of such lands would obviously have worked a greatinjustice; and it is a common maxim of law that between two claimantseach with a good title the one in possession is to be preferred. Stillit cannot be said that the decisions of the Royal Commissioners werealways equitable according to our ideas; for instance, the award of80, 000 acres to the Duke of York (afterwards James II) of land whichhad been forfeited under Cromwell because the owner had fought for hisfather, would be hard to justify on any possible grounds. Still, anAct of Settlement was passed, by which a certain amount of justicewas done; it is difficult to arrive at the figures accurately, butit appears that after the passing of the Act nearly one-third ofthe Island was vested in Roman Catholic proprietors. Archbishop Kingestimated that at the time when he was writing--1689--two-thirdsof the Protestant landowners held their estates under the Act ofSettlement. And Lecky says, "Only an infinitesimal portion of the soilbelongs to the descendants of those who possessed it before Cromwell. "But Archbishop King was influenced by the fear he had felt as to whatthe effect of a repeal of the Act would be; and there can hardly bea doubt that his feelings led him to overestimate the number. Withregard to Lecky's remark, one can only take it as a strange instanceof a gross exaggeration having crept into a book which is usuallycareful and accurate. It may be that the statement was not veryincorrect according to the evidence the author had before him; but ifso, that only proves that the evidence was wrong; for the proceedingsin the Land Courts which have been set up in Ireland during the lasthalf century have shown that the proportion of titles to estates whichdate from an earlier period was far larger than people had supposed. 

During the peaceful and tolerant reign of Charles II the country madesteady progress. 

Under James II, however, everything was reversed. That unhappymonarch, having ascended the throne tranquilly, with manyprotestations of toleration and justice to all, succeeded in less thantwo years in making it clear to the people of England that his objectwas to confine liberty to those who professed his own creed and thathis idea of good government was something like that which was thenexisting in France and Savoy. Driven from Great Britain, on hisarrival in Ireland he issued a proclamation declaring that hisProtestant subjects, their religion, privileges and properties werehis especial care; and he had previously directed the Lord Lieutenantto declare in Council that he would preserve the Act of Settlementinviolable. But the Protestants soon had reason to fear that hispromises were illusory and that the liberty which might be allowed tothem would be at best temporary. In a word, what the one party lookedforward to with hope and the other with dread was "a confederacy withFrance which would make His Majesty's monarchy absolute. "

In order to understand what that meant, to Irish Protestants, it iswell to glance at the condition of France at the time. Louis XIV hadbegun by directing that the Edict of Nantes was to be interpreted bythe strictest letter of the law; and soon after that the conditionof the Huguenots became more unhappy than that of the Irish RomanCatholics ever was during the penal laws. The terrible "Dragonnades"commenced in 1682; soldiers were billeted on heretics, and unfortunatewomen were insulted past endurance; Huguenots were restricted evenas to holding family prayers; children at the age of seven wereencouraged to renounce their faith, and if they did so they weretaken from their parents who, however, were obliged to pay for theirmaintenance in convent schools. Protestant churches were closed, andtheir endowments handed over to Roman Catholic institutions. Huguenotchildren were forbidden all education except the most elementary. Noheretic was allowed to sue a Catholic for debt. All this, however, didnot satisfy the monarch or his ecclesiastical advisers. On the 18thof October 1685, he issued his famous Revocation of the Edict ofNantes:--

 "We by the present Edict which is perpetual and irrevocable, revoke the Edict given at Nantes in 1583 together with every concession to the Protestants of whatever nature they be. We will that all temples of that religion be instantly demolished. We prohibit our Protestant subjects to assemble for worship in any private house. We prohibit all our lords to exercise that religion within their fiefs under penalty of confiscation of property and imprisonment of person. We enjoin all ministers of the said faith to leave the kingdom within fifteen days of the publication of this Edict, under penalty of the galleys. We enjoin that all children who shall be born henceforth be baptized by the Catholic curates. Persons awaiting the enlightening grace of God may live in our kingdom unhindered on account of their religion on condition that they do not perform any of its exercises or assemble for prayer or worship under penalty of body and wealth. "

This Edict met with cordial approval from the Catholic party inFrance. The famous Madame de Sevigné wrote: "I admire the king for themeans he has devised for ruining the Huguenots. The wars and massacresof former days only gave vigour to the sect; but the edict justissued, aided by the dragoons, will give them the _coup de grace_. "

The Irish Protestants saw with alarm that amongst the soldiers whocame from France to aid King James were some who had taken an activepart in the dragonnades organized by Louis XIV in order to carry outhis edict. Then one Act was passed by the Dublin Parliament repealingthe Act of Settlement; and by another 2, 461 persons were declaredguilty of high treason unless they appeared before the Dublinauthorities on a certain day and proved they were not guilty. Whatsteps King James was prepared to take in order to subdue the rebels ofDerry who held out against him can be gathered from the proclamationwhich he directed Conrade de Rosen, his Mareschal General, to issue. He warned the rebels that if they did not surrender immediately, allthe members of their faction, whether protected or not, in the wholeneighbourhood, would be brought close to the walls of the city andthere starved to death; that he would ravish the countryside, and seethat no man, woman or child escaped; and that if the city still heldout he would give no quarter and spare neither age nor sex, in case itwas taken by force. 

Even if there had been no Derry to relieve and no Protestants inother parts of the country, the conquest of Ireland was a politicalnecessity to King William. England was at this time in much the sameposition that it had been in the days of Elizabeth, substituting thename France for Spain. The continental powers were again united in asupreme effort to stamp out Protestantism, and England once morestood almost alone. In Spain and Portugal, heresy was of course stillpunishable with death; the Pope had celebrated the Revocation of theEdict of Nantes with a triumphal _Te Deum_; a terrible persecution wasraging not only throughout the Protestant districts of France but alsoon the Rhine, in Hungary, Savoy and the Alpine Valleys; if Irelandhad remained a separate kingdom ruled by the ally and admirer of LouisXIV, the next step would certainly have been an invasion of Englandby the joint forces of France and Ireland. All that we in moderntimes include in the term "religious liberty" hung on the issue of thebattle that was fought and won on the banks of the Boyne. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE PERIOD OF THE PENAL LAWS. 

The flight of James II brings us to the era of the "penal laws. " Toone who lives in the twentieth century and is embued with the spiritof modern thought, the whole subject is more than painful--it isdetestable. But to pass it over in silence is impossible; and in orderto get a clear view of the position it is necessary to examinewhat the penal laws were, what they were not, and what were thecircumstances of the time during which they were in force. 

The penal laws were a series of enactments carefully planned so as toharass the Roman Catholics at every moment of their lives, in the hopeof inducing them to abandon their religion. The unhappy people wereprohibited from becoming or voting for members of Parliament; theywere excluded from corporations, the army, the navy and the legalprofession. They were forbidden to bear arms, or even to possess ahorse worth more than £5. Education was denied to them, as they couldnot send their sons to the university and were forbidden either tohave schools of their own in Ireland or to send their children abroad. They were not allowed to possess freehold estates in land, and even asto leaseholds they were seriously restricted. On the death of a RomanCatholic his estate was divided amongst his children equally, unlessthe eldest son became a Protestant, in which case he inherited thewhole. And as no Roman Catholic was allowed to act as a guardian, aman never knew that if he should die his children might not be broughtup in a faith that he detested. The performance of Roman Catholicworship was barely tolerated, as no bishops or other dignitaries wereallowed to remain in Ireland, and the only priests authorized tosay mass were those who were "registered" and had taken the oath ofabjuration--that is, an oath declaring that the Pretender had no rightto the throne. 

Such in brief were those terrible statutes. But without attemptingto excuse them, there are various matters which must be taken intoaccount if we are to judge them fairly. In the first place, thepolitical aspect of the question should not be forgotten. TheProtestant minority might justly fear that if the Roman Catholic partywere as powerful as their numbers would naturally cause them to be, they would aid in bringing about a French invasion for the restorationof the Stuarts and the re-establishment of the system which had beenin evidence under James II. An army was actually formed in France, andon more than one occasion was in readiness to start. The Stuarts wereregarded by the Pope as the rightful sovereigns. The Roman Catholicprelates whose entry into Ireland was forbidden were appointed bythe Pretender and were his political agents; it was that fact, and nodoctrinal reason, that caused their expulsion. It is necessary to makethis quite clear, as there has been as much exaggeration on this pointas on most other subjects connected with Irish history. The words ofthe "oath of abjuration" were as follows:

 "I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe in my conscience that the person pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James and since his decease taking upon himself the style and title of King of England by the name of James III hath not any right or title whatever to the crown of this realm. "

A modern Roman Catholic writer has thus described the oath:--

 "By the Oath of Abjuration the priest was ordered to swear that the sacrifice of the mass and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the saints were damnable and idolatrous. In other words, the priest was ordered to apostatize, or fly for his life. "

And even if Roman Catholics took the oath of allegiance, the olddifficulty arose as to the papal right to depose princes and to ordertheir subjects to rebel. So late as 1768, when a declaration was drawnup which it was hoped the leaders of the Roman Catholic party wouldsign, so that the penal laws might be finally done away with, thePapal Nuncio vetoed the proposal because the declaration contained areprobation of the doctrines that faith need not be kept with hereticsand that if the Pope banned a sovereign his subjects might depose andslay him. It is but fair to add, however, that a large number of RomanCatholics did sign the declaration; and the penal laws (which had beenrelaxed from time to time when it was seen that the Irish took nopart in the Stuart rebellions of 1715 and 1745) were soon afterwardspractically abolished. 

Then it must be borne in mind that the Irish penal laws, althoughto some extent modelled on the legislation of Louis XIV against theHuguenots, were absolutely insignificant compared with those whichwere in force at the time in every Roman Catholic country in Europe. Galling though the Irish laws were, they never went so far as tomake the mere holding of heretical opinions criminal. Thus no one inIreland was ever put to death for believing in transubstantiation;whereas in one diocese of Portugal 20, 000 people were sent to thestake for denying it. As every one who has visited the Madrid picturegallery will recollect, it was still the custom in the eighteenthcentury for the King of Spain to preside in state at the burning ofheretics; and it was not until that century was drawing to a closethat it was for the first time enacted in Portugal that sentence ofdeath for heresy when passed by the ecclesiastical court should not becarried into effect unless the order was countersigned by the king. InFrance, for two or three heretics to meet for worship anywhere (theirchurches had of course all been pulled down) was a crime punishablewith death; and any Huguenot caught whilst attempting to escape fromthe country was sent to the galleys--a fate worse than mere death, for it meant death by slow torture. And every child was forciblytaken from its heretic parents at the age of five, and educated in aconvent. 

But more than that: Roman Catholics who fled from the tyranny of thepenal laws at home had no scruple, when they reached the Continent, intaking part in persecutions far more terrible than anything they hadseen in Ireland. During the dragonnades in Languedoc, Louis XIV'sIrish brigade joined eagerly in the butchery of old men, womenand children and the burning of whole villages. The same heroesdistinguished themselves by destroying everything they could find inremote Alpine valleys so that the unfortunate Waldenses might die ofstarvation. And the Irish troops under Lord Mountcashel aided in theburning of 1, 000 villages in the Palatinate of the Rhine, in whichall the inhabitants--men, women and children--were slain by the sword, burnt to death, or left to perish from hunger. These persecutions werepractically brought to an end by the French Revolution and the riseof modern ideas; but the ecclesiastical authorities, though theyhave lost their power, have shown no sign of having changed theirprinciples. Even in the middle of the nineteenth century King VictorEmmanuel was excommunicated by Pope Pius IX for allowing his Vaudoissubjects to build a church for themselves at Turin. 

Of course it may be said with perfect truth that two blacks do notmake one white. Still, the constant complaints about the tyranny ofthe penal laws have less force when they come from the representativesof a party who acted in the same way themselves whenever they had theopportunity. 

It is indeed frequently urged as a matter of aggravation that whereasother persecutions were those of a minority by a majority, this was ofa majority by a minority. To me, so far as this makes any differenceat all, it tells the other way. As a matter of morality, I fail tosee any difference; putting all the inhabitants of an Alpine valleyto death as heretics does not seem to me one whit the less horriblebecause the sovereign also ruled a large Catholic population onthe plains. On the other hand, the fact that the Roman Catholicsin Ireland formed the majority of the population prevented thepersecution from being strictly carried out. It was comparativelyeasy for Louis XIV to surround a heretic district with a cordon ofsoldiers, and then draw them closer together searching every house asthey went, seizing the clergy and taking them off to the galleys; butit was impossible to track unregistered priests through the mountainsand valleys of Munster. Hence the law as to the registration ofpriests soon became a dead letter. 

There was indeed one great difference, between Irish and continentalpersecution. On the continent it was the holiest and best men who werethe keenest persecutors. (This may seem strange to modern readers;but anyone who has studied the lives of Bossuet and San Carlo Borromeowill admit that it is true. ) Hence the persecution was carried outwith that vigour which was necessary to make it a success. In Spain, if a heretic under torture or the fear of it consented to recant, theHoly Office was not satisfied with a mere formal recantation; for therest of his life the convert was watched day and night to see thatthere was no sign of back-sliding; and even the possession of afragment of the New Testament was considered as sufficient evidenceof a relapse to send the wretched man to the stake. Consequently, in ageneration or two heresy became as extinct as Christianity did amongstthe Kabyles of North Africa after the Mohammedan persecution. InIreland, however, persecution was always against the grain withreligiously-minded Protestants. Seven bishops protested against thefirst enactment of the Penal Laws; and during the period when theywere in force, the bishops repeatedly spoke and voted in favour ofeach proposed mitigation of them. (With this one may contrast theaction of the French bishops who on the accession of Louis XVI in1774 presented an address to the new king urging him to increase thepersecution of the Huguenots which had become somewhat slack duringthe later years of his predecessor. By the irony of fate the same menwere a few years later pleading vainly for the mercy which they hadnever shown in the days of their power. ) Nor was this tolerant feelingconfined to the bishops. By the aid of the Protestant gentry, the lawswere continually being evaded. Protestants appointed by the Court asguardians of Roman Catholic children, used to carry out the wishes ofthe Roman Catholic relations; Roman Catholic proprietors frequentlyhanded over their estates to Protestant friends as Trustees, and, though such Trusts were of course not enforceable at law, there werevery few instances in which they were not faithfully performed. Manystrange stories are told of the evasions of the Acts. On one occasionwhilst it was still illegal for a popish recusant to own a horse ofa greater value than £5, a man met a Roman Catholic gentleman whowas riding a handsome horse; he held out £5 in one hand, and with theother caught hold of the bridle. The rider, naturally infuriated atthis, struck the man with his whip so heavily that he fell down dead. When he was tried for murder, the judge decided that as the man hadlaid a hand on the bridle, the rider had reason to suppose that heintended to take it as well as the horse, which would have beenan illegal act; consequently he was justified in defending himselfagainst highway robbery; and therefore the charge must be dismissed. Again, a Roman Catholic proprietor found out that an effort was likelyto be made to deprive him of his estate. He rode up to Dublin on aSaturday; on Sunday he received the Holy Communion at a ProtestantChurch; on Monday he executed a deed transferring his estate to aProtestant friend as Trustee; on Tuesday he was received back intothe Church of Rome; and on Wednesday he rode home again, to enjoy hisestate free from further molestation. 

The schools which were founded in order to convert the risinggeneration were a strange contrast to the admirably conductedinstitutions established in France and Spain for a similar purpose. They were so disgracefully mismanaged that the pupils who had passedthrough them looked back on everything that had been taught them therewith a lifelong disgust. 

It is needless to say that laws thus carried out were a dead failureas far as winning converts was concerned. On the other hand, theybecame in one sense the more galling as the enforcement of them fellinto the hands of a low class of informers who had no object beyondmaking money for themselves. Still, public feeling was so strong thatby the middle of the century the laws had almost fallen into abeyance. Brook, writing in 1762, says: "Though these laws are still in force, it is long since they have been in action. They hang like a sword by athread over the heads of these people, and Papists walk under them insecurity and peace; for whoever should adventure to cut this threadwould become ignominious and detestable. " And in 1778 and 1782 (thatis, when, as an Irish Roman Catholic writer has pointed out, there wasstill neither toleration nor peace for Protestant populations in anyCatholic state in Europe) the Irish Protestant Parliament formallyrepealed nearly all the penal laws. 

Probably their most lasting effect was that relating to the tenureof land. If free purchase and sale regardless of religion had beenallowed throughout the eighteenth century, one may conjecture thatthe effect of the Cromwellian confiscations would long since have diedaway. But these laws perpetuated that peculiar state of things whichhas been the cause of so much unhappiness in Ireland--the landlordsgenerally belonged to one religion, and their tenants and dependentsto another. 

It may be asked, As these odious laws all came to an end generationsago, what is the good of recalling the sorrows of the past which hadmuch better be forgotten? I reply, None whatever; and very glad Ishould be if the whole subject were quietly dropped. But unfortunatelythat is just what the Roman Catholic party in Ireland will not do. Oneof the ways in which religious animosity is being kept alive (and Iregret to say is being steadily increased) is by the teaching inthe Roman Catholic schools of exaggerated accounts of the penal lawswithout referring to any of the mitigating circumstances. Even in thepresent year--1913--the Lenten pastoral of one of the bishops goesback to the same old subject. If other countries acted in a similarmanner, how could the grievances of bygone centuries ever beforgotten? The Jews, cruelly treated though they were during the timeof the Norman kings, do not harp on the subject in England to-day. Itmay be doubted whether all the religious persecutions of Europeput together were as great a disgrace to Christendom as the slavetrade--in which, I am ashamed to say, England strove to obtain thepre-eminence amongst European nations and which she forced upon hercolonies against their will. Yet I should regret it deeply if thatwere the one passage of history selected for study in the schools andcolleges for coloured pupils in the West Indies at the present day. When a man who has suffered wrong in former years broods over itinstead of thinking of his present blessings and his future prospects, one may be sure that he is a man who will not succeed in life; andwhat is true of individuals is true also of nations. 

The expression "Protestant ascendancy, " although it never came intouse during the period with which we are dealing, has so frequentlysince then been employed with reference to it, that it is necessaryto explain its meaning. Probably no word in the English languagehas suffered more from being used in different senses than the word"Protestant. " In Ireland it frequently used to be, and still sometimesis, taken as equivalent to "Anglican" or "Episcopalian"; to anIrishman of the last century it would have appeared quite natural tospeak of "Protestants and Presbyterians, " meaning thereby two distinctbodies. This is a matter of historical importance; for so far fromthe Presbyterian element being favoured during the period of the PenalLaws, the English Toleration Act had not been extended to Ireland;Presbyterians were by the sacramental test excluded from all municipaloffices; their worship, though never in practice interfered with, remained technically illegal. Their share in "Protestant ascendancy"was therefore very limited. 

But if the Established Church was the one favoured body, it had to paydearly for its privileges. In truth, the state of the Irish Churchat this period of its history, was deplorable. All the positions ofvalue--bishoprics, deaneries and important parishes--were conferredon Englishmen, who never resided in their cures, but left the dutieseither to be performed by half-starved deputies or not at all. Manyof the churches were in ruins, and the glebes had fallen into decay;a union of half-a-dozen parishes would scarcely supply a meagresalary for one incumbent. A large proportion of the tithes had beenappropriated by laymen; how small a sum actually reached the clergyis shown by the fact that the first-fruits (that is, the year's incomepaid by incumbents on their appointment) did not amount to more than£500 a year in all. It may be that the standard of religious lifewas not lower in Ireland than it was in England when thespiritually-minded non-Jurors had been driven out and Hanoveriandeadness was supreme; but in England there was no other Church to forma contrast. In Ireland the apathy and worldliness of the Protestantclergy stood out in bold relief against the heroic devotion of thepriests and friars; and at the time when the unhappy peasants, forcedto pay tithes to a Church which they detested, were ready to starvethemselves to support their own clergy and to further the cause oftheir religion, the well-to-do Protestant graziers and farmers werestraining the law so as to evade the payment of tithes, and neverthought of doing anything further to support the Church to which theywere supposed to belong. (It is but fair, however, to state thatthis condition of things has long since passed away; the Evangelicalrevival breathed new life into the dry bones of Irish Protestantism. )

But it was not merely in religious matters that Ireland sufferedduring this melancholy period. Students of modern history whoseresearches usually commence with the early part of the nineteenthcentury, are wont to gather from text-books the idea that the policyof the manufacturing party in England has always been liberal, progressive and patriotic; whereas that of the landed interest hasbeen retrograde and selfish. There cannot be a greater delusion. English manufacturers have been just as self-seeking and narrow-mindedas other people--no more and no less; they have been quite as readyto sacrifice the interests of others when they believed them to beopposed to their own, as the much-abused landowners. At this timeevery nation in Europe regarded the outlying portions of the Empireas existing only for the benefit of the centre; in fact, the Englishdevelopment of the "Colonial System" even then was more liberal thanthose of Spain or Holland. The English system, if perfectly carriedout, was by no means unfair. The ground idea was that the mothercountry voluntarily restricted herself in matters of trade for thebenefit of the Colonies, and the Colonies had to do the same for thebenefit of the mother country. Thus, when England refused to admittimber from the Baltic in order to benefit the Canadian lumber trade;and placed a prohibitive duty on sugar from Cuba so as to secure theEnglish market for Jamaica; it was but fair that the trade in otherarticles from Canada and Jamaica should be directed to England. Tosay that the whole thing was a mistake, as such restrictions reallyinjured both parties, is no answer, as no one at that time dreamed ofsuch a thing as free trade. The real answer is that it was impossibleto keep the balance true; some slight change of circumstances mightrender that unfair which up to then had been perfectly equal. Andas the English merchants were on the spot and commanded votes inParliament, any injustice against them would be speedily rectified;the colonists living at a distance and having no means of making theirvoice heard, would be left to suffer. 

In applying the colonial system to Ireland, it is true that in theoryEngland undertook to protect her by means of the British army andnavy, from foreign foes; but beyond that, the system was to Irelandall loss and no gain. Every branch of Irish industry was deliberatelyruined by the English Government. By the Navigation Act of 1663, tradebetween Ireland and the British Colonies was forbidden; soon after, the importation of Irish beef, mutton, pork and butter intoEngland was prohibited; then, at the request of the English woollenmanufacturers, the export of woollen goods from Ireland to any countrywas stopped; and finally, with a refinement of cruelty, the export oflinen articles--the one industry that had hitherto been left tothe unfortunate country--was restricted to the coarsest and poorestvarieties, for fear of offending the Dutch. 

The result of all this wretched misgovernment was not merelydestitution bordering on famine, but a wholesale emigration. Whilstthe Roman Catholics were leaving the country to avoid the penal laws, the most skilful and industrious of the artizan class, --the verybackbone of the nation--were being driven out by the prohibition oftheir trades. It is said that no less than 30, 000 men were thrown outof employment by the destruction of the woollen industry alone. Thesewere nearly all Protestants; to encourage them would have done more toProtestantize the country than all the penal laws and charter schoolsput together; but they were ruthlessly sacrificed to the greed of theEnglish manufacturers. Some went to the Continent, many more to NewEngland and the other American colonies, where they prospered, andthey and their sons became some of Washington's best soldiers in theWar of Independence. 

It was only natural that thoughtful men in Ireland should cast enviouseyes on Scotland, which had recently secured the benefit of unionwith England, and consequently was able to develop her commerceand manufactures unhindered. But though the subject of a union wasdiscussed, and even referred to in addresses from the Irish Parliamentto Queen Anne, no active steps were taken. 

Still, in considering these commercial restrictions, as in the case ofthe penal laws, we must not lose sight of the fact that the stateof circumstances we are dealing with has long passed away. It isnecessary for a historian to refer to it, even if he finds it hard todo so in a perfectly dispassionate way; but it is waste of time andenergy for the present generation to go on brooding over woes whichhad come to an end before their grandfathers were born. Yet that iswhat the Nationalists of to-day are doing. Not long ago, the OldBoys' Association of an Irish Roman Catholic College resolved, verylaudably, to found an annual prize at their alma mater. The subjectthey selected was an essay on the treatment by England of Irishindustries before the year 1800! Had it been a Scotch or a GermanCollege, the subject chosen would probably have been, The progressin scientific knowledge during the last century, or, Improvements inmeans of travel since 1820; and one must ask, which subject of studyis likely to be most profitable to young men who have to make theirway in the modern world?

It may be asked, why did the Irish Parliament do nothing to stay thisnational ruin? The answer is that the Irish Parliament possessed verylittle power. The Bill of Rights of course did not apply to Ireland;general elections were very rare, and a large number of memberswere paid officers of the Government; the English Parliament had aco-ordinate power of legislating for Ireland; and since Poyning's Act(as explained by the declaratory Act of George I) was still in force, no Bill could be introduced into the Irish Parliament until it hadbeen approved both by the Irish and the English Councils; and theIrish Parliament might then pass it or reject it but had no power toamend it. 

And the use which the English Government made of the Irish Parliamentwas as disgraceful as their treatment of Irish industries. Miserablypoor though the country was, it was burdened by the payment ofpensions of a nature so scandalous that the English Parliament even ofthat period would not have tolerated them. 

The conditions of land tenure also added to the miseries of thecountry. It is often said that the land belonged to wealthy Englishabsentees, and the unfortunate occupiers, who had no security oftenure, were ground down by the payment of exorbitant rents. This isliterally true; but, like most partial statements, misleading. Muchof the land was owned by wealthy Englishmen--which of itself was aserious evil; but they let it in large farms at low rents on longleases, in the hope that the occupiers would execute their ownimprovements. Instead of that, however, their tenants sublet theirholdings in smaller lots to others; and these subtenants did the sameagain; thus there were sometimes three or four middlemen, and the rentpaid by the actual occupier to his immediate landlord was ten timesthe amount the nominal owner received. As the rate of wageswas miserably low, and the rent of a cabin and a plot of groundscandalously high, how the wretched occupiers managed to keep body andsoul together is a mystery. Much has been written about the useless, dissipated lives of these middlemen or "squireens"; and no doubt it isto a great extent true, although, like everything else in Ireland, ithas been exaggerated. Travellers have told us of some landlordswho resided on their estates, did their utmost to improve them, andforbade subletting (in spite of the unpopularity caused by their doingso). And one of the remarkable features of later Irish history is thatwhenever there was a period of acute difficulty and danger there werealways country gentlemen to be found ready to risk their lives andfortunes or to undertake the thankless and dangerous duties of countymagistrates. 

It is curious how close a parallel might be drawn between the wayin which Norman Ireland was Ersefied and that in which CromwellianIreland was Catholicized. Many of those who became large landownersby the Cromwellian confiscations, having no religious prejudices (somemight say, no religious or humane feelings), when the leases oftheir tenants fell in, put the farms up to auction regardless of thefeelings of the occupiers. As the Roman Catholics were content witha simpler manner of life than the Protestants, they generally offeredhigher rents; the dispossessed Protestants, driven from their homes, joined their brethren in America. Then in the South, the poorer ofCromwell's settlers, in some cases, neglected by their own pastors, joined the religion of the majority; in others, intermarrying with thenatives, allowed their children to be brought up in the faith of theirmothers. Hence we arrive at the curious fact that at the present daysome of the most ardent Romanists and violent Nationalists, who arestriving to have the Irish language enforced all over the country, and pose as the representatives of ancient Irish septs, are really thedescendants of Cromwell's soldiers. 

So passed the greater part of the eighteenth century; and the unhappycountry seemed as far off from progress and prosperity as ever. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE EARLIER PART OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. THE ACQUISITION OFINDEPENDENCE BY THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 

When we come to the reign of George III we have arrived at a speciallyinteresting period of Irish history. For we are no longer dealing witha state of society that has wholly passed away; the great events thatoccurred towards the close of the eighteenth century are continuallyreferred to as bearing, at least by analogy, on the questions of thepresent day. It is for the honest historian to examine how far thatanalogy is real, and how far it is delusive. 

For some time after the accession of George III, the state of Irelandwas almost as miserable as before. Trade and manufactures being nearlycrushed out, want of employment brought the people in the towns to thebrink of starvation. In the country, although the middle classes wereon the whole becoming more prosperous, the condition of the labourersand cottiers was wretched in the extreme. It is not to be wondered attherefore that we now hear of the commencement of two movements whichwere destined later on to play so important a part in the history ofIreland--the agitation against the payment of tithes and the rise ofsecret societies. Few men at the present day could be found who wouldattempt to justify the tithe system as it prevailed in the eighteenthcentury. It was not merely that the starving peasantry were forced tocontribute towards the maintenance of a religion in which they did notbelieve, but the whole manner of levying and collecting the titheswas bad; and what made them still more annoying was the fact that theclergy never thought of performing the duties for which tithes weresupposed to exist; the large majority of the rectors did not evenreside in their parishes. The principal secret societies were theOakboys and the Steelboys of the north, and the Whiteboys ofthe south. The northern societies soon came to an end; but theorganization of the Whiteboys continued to spread, and for a timeit assumed alarming proportions. Commencing as a war against titheproctors, the enclosure of commons, and the substitution of grazingland for tillage, they went on to commit outrages of various sorts, and something like a reign of terror spread over a large tract ofcountry. But it may safely be said that generally speaking theirconduct was not nearly so violent as that of other secret societies ofa later date; and the evidence of any foreign influence being atwork, or of religious animosity being connected with the movement, isslight. 

It is interesting to observe that, whenever there was a violent andabnormal outbreak of crime, the Irish Parliament did not hesitate topass special laws to meet the case. Such measures as the Whiteboy Actof 1787, or the Insurrection Act and the Habeas Corpus SuppressionAct of 1796, which were readily passed whilst the Irish Parliament wascompletely independent, are frequently referred to by modern agitatorsas amongst the brutal Coercion Acts which the tyranny of England hasforced on an innocent people. 

The harshness of the Penal Laws was steadily being relaxed. Allrestrictions on worship, or the number of clergy allowed, had longsince fallen into abeyance. Roman Catholic students were admittedinto Trinity College, Dublin; and the authorities of the Universityexpressed their readiness to appoint a Divinity Professor of their ownfaith for them if they wished it. The restrictions on property werebecoming obsolete; and political restrictions were not felt so keenlysince most of the Roman Catholics would have been ineligible for thefranchise on the ground of their poverty even if the stumbling blockof religion had been removed. And the loyal sentiments expressed bythe Roman Catholics made the best of the Protestants all the moreanxious to repeal the laws which they had never regarded with favour. Then amongst educated people not only in Ireland but elsewhere, religion was ceasing to be the great line of cleavage; othermatters--political, social, and commercial--were occupying men'sthoughts and forming new combinations. 

The political state of the country was peculiar. The real governmentwas carried on by the Lord Lieutenant and his officials; but as thehereditary revenue did not supply funds sufficient for that purpose, it was necessary to have recourse to Parliament. And the constitutionof that Parliament was as extraordinary as most things in Ireland. A session was usually held every second year, but a Parliament mightlast for a whole reign. The House of Commons consisted of 300 members, of whom only 64 represented counties, and most of the rest nominallysat for small boroughs, but really were appointed by certainindividuals. It was at one time computed that 124 members werenominated by 53 peers, whilst 91 others were chosen by 52 commoners. A large number of the members--a third of the whole house, it issaid--were in receipt of pensions, or held offices of profit under theCrown. Of course there was no such thing as party government--in fact, parties did not exist, though individuals might sometimes vote againstthe wish of the government. The Lord Lieutenant, however, managed toretain a majority by what would now be called flagrant and wholesalebribery. Peerages, sinecures and pensions were bestowed with a lavishhand; and every appointment, ecclesiastical or civil, was treated asa reward for political services. But history affords many instances ofhow assemblies constituted in what seems to be the most unsatisfactoryway possible, have been remarkable for the ability and patriotism theyhave shown; and certainly this was the case with that unrepresentativecollection of Protestant landlords, Dublin barristers, and paidofficials, who composed the Irish Parliament. A "National" party arose(I shall presently explain what was the meaning attached to that wordat the time) who strove to win for Ireland the laws which in Englandhad been enacted long before and which were regarded as the veryfoundations of British liberty. Statutes were passed limiting theduration of Parliament to eight years; establishing the _HabeasCorpus_; and making judges irremoveable. Afterwards, most of thePenal Laws were repealed; and at the same time the disabilities of theProtestant Dissenters were abolished. 

But meanwhile foreign affairs were tending to bring about changes yetmore sweeping. When England went to war with both France and Spain, the condition of Ireland was well-nigh desperate. The country wasalmost denuded of regular troops; steps had indeed been taken for theestablishment of a militia, and arms had actually been purchased; butin the hopelessly insolvent condition of the Irish Exchequer, it wasimpossible to do anything further. And a French invasion might arriveat any moment. At this crisis the country gentlemen came forward. Theyformed their tenants and dependants into regiments of volunteers, ofwhich they took command themselves, and strained their resources tothe utmost in order to bear the expense of the undertaking. Andthe rank and file--farmers and labourers--seemed fired by the sameenthusiasm. The movement spread rapidly over the country, but itpossessed more vitality in Ulster than elsewhere. It soon becameevident that Ulster volunteers may form a body not to be disregarded. 

The troubles of England, however, were not limited to the Continent. The American War broke out. We, who view the question impartiallythrough the long vista of years, can see that there was much to besaid for the English claim. The mother country had been brought to theverge of bankruptcy by a long and exhausting war waged with France forthe protection of the American colonies; surely it was only fair thatthose colonies, who had taken but a very small part in the war, shouldat least bear a fraction of the cost. But the cry of "No taxationwithout representation" was raised; the Americans rebelled; andEngland was placed in the humiliating position of being defeated byher own colonists. During that period Ireland remained thoroughlyloyal; the efforts of Franklin and his party to enlist Irelandon their side were as complete a failure as those of the Frenchemissaries had been shortly before. But it was inevitable that thesuccess of the American revolution should have a strong effect onIrish affairs. Amongst the northern Presbyterians there had alwaysbeen a feeling somewhat akin to Republicanism; and (as we have seen)many of their relations were fighting in Washington's army. Thenin Ireland there was something much worse than taxation withoutrepresentation: the English Parliament, in which Ireland had no part, claimed to legislate for Ireland and was actually at that momentkeeping the country in a state of semi-starvation by imposing severerestrictions on commerce. Irish politicians read the offers ofconciliation made by the English Government to the revolted colonies, in which not only was the power of taxation given up and freedom ofinternal legislation established, but all power of the Parliament ofGreat Britain over America was renounced; and began to ask whetherEngland could withhold from loyal Irishmen the boons which she offeredto rebellious Americans. The claims were urged in Parliament andat meetings of the volunteers and other public bodies; the EnglishGovernment for some time refused to grant any concession; but atlength, fearing an Irish Revolution, gave way on every point. Theygranted, in fact, as an Irish statesman expressed it, "everythingshort of separation. " First (in spite of the opposition of the Englishmanufacturing classes) all restrictions on trade were swept away;then, in 1782, the Declaratory Act of George I, by virtue of which theEnglish Parliament had claimed the right to legislate for Ireland, wasrepealed, and with it went the right of the English House of Lords toact as a court of final appeal for Ireland; the restrictions imposedby Poyning's Act on the legislative powers of the Irish Parliamentwere abolished; and the Irish Executive was made practically dependenton the Irish Parliament by the Mutiny Act, which had previously beenperpetual, being limited to two years. 

Thus Ireland became a nation in a sense she had never been before. Theonly tie to any power beyond sea was that the King of England was alsoKing of Ireland; Ireland could legislate for itself, and enter intocommercial treaties with foreign powers; but, on the other hand, ithad to pay its own debts and provide its own army and navy. 

As Grattan was not merely the most prominent politician of the period, but also the leader of the now triumphant "National" party, we mayfairly take the views expressed by him as representative of those ofthe party that followed him. A study of his speeches and letters willshow how utterly different were the ideas and aims of the Nationalparty of 1782 from those of the Nationalists of to-day. In the firstplace, Grattan was intensely loyal; that is to say, it never occurredto him that Ireland could ever wish to be independent in the sense ofnot being subject to the King of England, or could seek to be unitedto any other power. Secondly, he was intensely aristocratic. His ideawas that Government should and would always be in the hands of thepropertied and educated classes; that Parliament should consist ofcountry gentlemen and professional men from the towns, elected on anarrow franchise. (It must be remembered that the country gentlemenhad recently given evidence of their patriotic zeal by theinauguration of the Volunteer movement; and the ability and eloquenceof the Irish Bar at that period is proverbial). Thirdly, he regardedProtestant ascendancy as a fundamental necessity. It is true thatother politicians at the time saw that they were faced with a seriousdifficulty: the very principles to which they had appealed and byvirtue of which they had obtained their legislative independencemade it illogical that three-fourths of the community should beunrepresented; whereas if votes were given to the Roman Catholicmajority it was inevitable that they would soon become eligible forseats in the Legislature; and if so, the Protestant minority must beswamped, and the country ruled by a very different class and accordingto very different ideas from those which prevailed in the Parliamentof which Grattan was a member. And would a Roman Catholic Parliamentand nation care to remain subject to a King of England whose titledepended on his being a Protestant? Grattan, however, swept all suchconsiderations aside with an easy carelessness. He believed that underthe influences of perfect toleration large numbers of Roman Catholicswould conform; and the remainder, quite satisfied with their position, would never dream of attacking the Church or any other existinginstitution. We may smile at his strange delusions as to the future;but he was probably not more incorrect than many people are to-day intheir conjectures as to what the world will be like a hundred yearshence; and if we try to place ourselves in Grattan's position, there is something to be said for his conjectures. At that time theinfluence of the Church of Rome was at its lowest; Spain had almostceased to exist as a European power; and in France the state ofreligious thought was very different from what it had been in the daysof Louis XIV. Irish Roman Catholic gentlemen who sent their sons tobe educated in France found that they came back Voltaireans; even theyoung men who went to study for the priesthood in French seminariesbecame embued with liberalism to an extent that would make a modernUltramontane shudder. Then in Ireland all local power was in the handsof the landlords; the Roman Catholic bishops possessed hardly anypolitical influence. It would have required more keenness than a mereenthusiast like Grattan possessed to foresee that the time would comewhen all this would be absolutely reversed. What was there in theeighteenth century to lead him to surmise that in the twentieth thelandlords would be ruined and gone, and that local government wouldhave become vested in District Councils in which Protestants wouldhave no power, but over which the authority of the bishops would beabsolute?

So Grattan and his party entered on the new conditions of politicallife with airy optimism. But there were, both in England and France, shrewder and more far-seeing men than he, who realised from the firstthat the new state of affairs could not possibly be a lasting one, butmust lead either to union or complete separation. Of course so longas all parties happened to be of the same mind, no difficultieswould arise; but it was merely a question of time when some causeof friction would occur, and then the inherent weakness of thearrangement would be apparent. A moment's thought will show thatfor Ireland to be subject to the English King but independent of theEnglish Parliament was a physical impossibility. The king would acton the advice of his ministers who were responsible to the EnglishParliament; either the Irish Parliament must obey, or a deadlock wouldensue. Then, suppose that England were to become engaged in a war ofwhich the people of Ireland disapproved, Ireland might not onlyrefuse to make any voluntary grant in aid, but even declare herports neutral, withdraw her troops, and pass a vote of censure on theEnglish Government. Again, with regard to trade; Ireland might adopt apolicy of protection against England, and enter into a treaty for freetrade with some foreign country which might be at the moment England'sdeadliest rival. The confusion that might result would be endless. 

Considerations such as these presented themselves at once to themaster-mind of Pitt. He pointed out that as England had relinquishedher right to limit Irish trade for the benefit of English, she was infairness relieved from the corresponding duty of protecting Irelandagainst foreign foes; the two countries should therefore bothcontribute to their joint defence in proportion to their means. Heproposed that regular treaties should be drawn up between the twocountries, by which Ireland should contribute a certain sum to thenavy, free trade between Ireland and England should be established, and regulations made whereby the duties payable on foreign goodsshould be assimilated. By such measures as these he hoped to makethings run smoothly for a time at least; but when his projects wererejected by the Irish Parliament, he saw more clearly than ever thatsooner or later the Gordian knot would have to be cut, and that theonly way of cutting it would be the Union. 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENT. THE REGENCY QUESTION. THE COMMENCEMENT OFTHE REBELLION. 

That Ireland increased in prosperity rapidly towards the end of theeighteenth century, there is no doubt. Politicians will say that thisprosperity came from the increased powers gained by the Parliament in1782; economists will reply that that had little if anything to sayto it; far more important causes being the abolition of traderestrictions and the relaxation of the Penal Laws, which encouragedpeople to employ their money in remunerative works at home instead ofhaving to send it abroad. It may sound somewhat Hibernian to mentionthe rise in rents, as another cause of prosperity; yet anyone whoknows Ireland will admit that it is not impossible; and it wascertainly put forward gravely by writers of the period who were by nomeans biassed towards the landlord interest. Thus McKenna, writing in1793, says:--

 "In several parts of Ireland the rents have been tripled within 40 years. This was not so much the effect as the cause of national prosperity; . . . Before the above-mentioned period, when rent was very low and other taxes little known, half the year was lavished in carousing. But as soon as labour became compulsory, fortunes have been raised both by the tenantry and landlords, and civilization has advanced materially. "

There was also another cause of prosperity, which modern economistscannot look on with much favour. It was the policy of the IrishGovernment to grant enormous bounties for the development of variousindustries, especially the growth of corn. This no doubt gave muchemployment, promoted the breaking up of grass lands, the subdivisionof farms and the erection of mills; and so long as the price of cornwas maintained, brought much prosperity to the country, and thus wasindirectly one cause of the enormous increase of population, whichrose from about 2, 370, 000 in 1750, to about 4, 500, 000 in 1797. Butwhen, during the nineteenth century, prices fell, the whole structure, built on a fictitious foundation, came down with a crash. 

Not long after the Irish Parliament had acquired its independence, acontroversy arose which, although it had no immediate result, yetwas of vast importance on account of the principle involved. The kingbecame insane. It was necessary that there should be a Regent, and itwas obvious that the Prince of Wales was the man for the post. Butthe British constitution contained no provision for making theappointment. After much deliberation, the English Parliament decidedto pass an Act appointing the Prince Regent and defining his powers, the Royal assent being given by Commission. The two houses of theIrish Parliament, however, without waiting for the Prince to beinvested with the Regency in England, voted an address to him askinghim to undertake the duties of Regent, without naming any limitations. As the king recovered almost immediately, the whole matter ended innothing; but thoughtful men realized what was involved in the positionwhich the Irish Parliament had taken up. Grattan's resolution wasto the effect that in addressing the Prince to take upon himselfthe government of the country the Lords and Commons of Ireland wereexercising an undoubted right and discharging an indispensable duty towhich in the emergency they alone were competent. By the Act of HenryVIII the King of England was _ipso facto_ King of Ireland. An IrishAct of William and Mary declared that the Crown of Ireland and all thepowers and prerogatives belonging to it should be for ever annexed toand dependent on the Crown of England. And the Act of 1782 made theGreat Seal of Great Britain necessary to the summoning of an IrishParliament and the passing of Irish Acts. Now did the words "King"and "Crown" merely refer to the individual who had the right to weara certain diadem, or did they include the chief executive magistrate, whoever that might be--King, Queen or Regent? It was ably contended byLord Clare that the latter was the only possible view; for the Regentof Great Britain must hold the Great Seal; and so he alone couldsummon an Irish Parliament; therefore the Irish Parliament in choosingtheir Regent had endangered the only bond which existed betweenEngland and Ireland--the necessary and perpetual identity of theexecutive. If the Irish Parliament appointed one person Regent and theEnglish Parliament another, separation or war might be the result; andeven as it was, the appointment of the Prince with limited powers inEngland and unlimited in Ireland, must lead to confusion. But morethan that; suppose that the House of Brunswick were to die out, andanother Act of Settlement were to become necessary, might not theIrish Parliament choose a different sovereign from the one chosen byEngland? Constitutional lawyers recollected that such a difficultynearly arose between Scotland and England, but was settled by the Actof Union; and that it was the recognition of Lambert Simnel by theIrish Parliament that was the immediate cause of the passing ofPoyning's Act; and saw what the revived powers of the Irish Parliamentmight lead to. 

Although the Parliament had now become independent, there was stillnothing like a responsible ministry as we now understand it, and thegovernment managed to maintain its control, partly by the peculiarcomposition of the Parliament (to which I have already referred), andpartly by the disposal of favours. And it cannot be denied that theParliament passed much useful legislation. Two questions, however, were now coming forward on which the whole political condition of thecountry depended, and which were closely entwined with one another. The first was the reform of the legislature, so as to make the Houseof Commons a really representative body; the second was the finalabolition of the Penal Laws. As to reform, the Parliament wasnaturally slow (did any political assembly in the world ever divestitself of its own privileges without pressure from without?); but asto the abolition of the Penal Laws there was a cordiality which isremarkable, and which is seldom referred to by the Nationalist writersof the present day when they discourse about the Penal Laws. Withregard to social matters--such as admission to Corporations, takingDegrees at the University, and holding medical professorships, --therewas hardly any hesitation; the political question, however, was moredifficult. In both England and Ireland at that time a forty-shillingfreehold gave a vote. That was a matter of slight importance inEngland, as the number of small freeholders was limited, land beingusually let for a term of years. In Ireland, however, the ordinaryarrangement was for peasants to hold their scraps of land for life;and land having recently increased in value enormously, a largeproportion of these were of the value of forty shillings. Hence, thewhole constituency would be altered; thousands of new electors, all ofthem poor and illiterate, would be added in many constituencies;and the representation of the country would at once pass into RomanCatholic hands. To fix a higher qualification for Roman Catholics thanfor Protestants would be not to abolish but to perpetuate the PenalLaws; to deprive the existing voters of the franchise was out of thequestion; hence the franchise was granted but not without considerablehesitation on the part of the more thoughtful members. On the otherhand it was urged with great force that to give these privileges tothe uneducated mass but to continue the disabilities of the RomanCatholic gentry by not allowing them to sit in Parliament was absurd. The proposal to abolish the religious test in the case of Members ofParliament was, however, defeated. 

Looking back, with the light of later history to aid us, it isinteresting to see how much more correct were Lord Clare's predictionsof the future than Grattan's. Grattan (as I have already explained), taking his ideas from his lay friends among the cultured classes, andseeing the decline of the Papal influence on the continent, consideredthat anyone who regarded Popery as a political influence of the futuretotally misunderstood the principles which then governed human action;for controverted points of religion (such as belief in the RealPresence) had ceased to be a principle of human action. He maintainedthat the cause of the Pope, as a political force, was as dead as thatof the Stuarts; that priestcraft was a superannuated folly; andthat in Ireland a new political religion had arisen, supersedingall influence of priest and parson, and burying for ever theologicaldiscord in the love of civil and religious liberty. Clare, who wasnot only a shrewder observer but a much more deeply read man, realizedthat in order to find out what would guide the Roman Catholic Churchin the future one must look not at the passing opinions of laymen butat the constitution of the Church; he foresaw that if the artificialsupports which maintained the Protestant ascendancy were removed, themere force of numbers would bring about a Roman Catholic ascendancy;and in enumerating the results of that he even said that the timewould come when the Church would decide on all questions as tomarriage. 

In order to show how far Lord Clare's expectations have been verified, I will quote, not the words of an Orange speaker or writer, but ofan eminent Roman Catholic, the Rev. J. T. McNicholas, O. P. , in hisrecently published book on "The New Marriage Legislation" which, beingissued with an _Imprimatur_, will be received by all parties as a workof authority. He says:--

 "Many Protestants may think the Church presumptuous in decreeing their marriages valid or invalid according as they have or have not complied with certain conditions. As the Church cannot err, neither can she be presumptuous. She alone is judge of the extent of her power. Anyone validly baptised, either in the Church or among heretics, becomes thereby a subject of the Roman Catholic Church. "

But whilst politicians were amusing themselves with fervid but uselessoratory in Parliament, stirring events were taking place elsewhere. To trace in these pages even a bare outline of the main incidents ofthose terrible years is impossible; and yet without doing so it is noteasy to obtain a correct view of the tangled skein of Irish politicsat the time. In studying any history of the period, we cannot but bestruck by observing on the one hand how completely in some respectscircumstances and ideas have changed since then; it is hard to realizethat Ulster was for a time the scene of wild disorder--assassination, arson, burglary and every form of outrage--brought about mainly by asociety which claimed to be, and to a certain extent was, formed by aunion of the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic parties--whilst the southand west remained fairly orderly and loyal. And yet on the other handwe find many of the phenomena which have been characteristic of laterperiods of Irish political agitation, already flourishing. Boycottingexisted in fact, though the name was not yet invented; also nocturnalraids for arms, the sacking of lonely farmhouses, the intimidation ofwitnesses and the mutilation of cattle. Again, we see all through thehistory of Irish secret societies that their organization has been sosplendid that the ordinary law has been powerless against them; forwitnesses will not give evidence and juries will not convict if theyknow that to do so will mean certain ruin and probable death; and yetthose same societies have always possessed one element of weakness:however terrible their oaths of secrecy have been, the Governmenthave never had the slightest difficulty in finding out, throughtheir confidential agents, everything that has taken place at theirmeetings, and what their projects are. 

As early as 1785 there had been two societies carrying on somethinglike civil war on a small scale in the north. How they originated, is a matter of dispute; but at any rate before they had long been inexistence, the religious element became supreme--as it does sooneror later in every Irish movement; whatever temporary alliances may beformed for other reasons, religion always ultimately becomes the lineof cleavage. In this case, the "Peep of Day Boys" were Protestants, the "Defenders" Roman Catholic. Some of the outrages committed bythe Defenders were too horrible to put in print; many Roman Catholicfamilies fled the country on account of the treatment which theyreceived from the Peep of Day Boys, and took refuge among theirco-religionists in the south. 

But now a greater crisis was at hand. The terrible upheaval of theFrench Revolution was shaking European society to its foundation. Theteaching of Paine and Voltaire had borne fruit; the wildest socialismwas being preached in every land. Ulster had shown sympathy withRepublican ideas at the time of the American War of Independence; andnow a large number of the Presbyterians of Belfast eagerly acceptedthe doctrines of Jacobinism. Nothing can sound more charminglyinnocent than the objects of the United Irish Society as put forwardpublicly in 1791; the members solemnly and religiously pledgedthemselves to use all their influence to obtain an impartial andadequate representation of the Irish nation in Parliament; and as ameans to this end to endeavour to secure the co-operation of Irishmenof all religious persuasions. Some writers have tried to make out thatif the Relief Act of 1793 had been extended in 1795 by another Actenabling Roman Catholics to become Members of Parliament; and ifa Reform Bill had been passed making the House of Commons reallyrepresentative, the society would never have been anything but aperfectly legal and harmless association. Of course it is alwayspossible to suggest what might have been; but in this case it is farmore probable that if Parliament had been so reformed as to be a fairreflex of the opinion of the country, it would immediately have passeda resolution declaring Ireland a Republic and forming an alliance withFrance; for whatever objects were stated in public, the real guidingspirits of the United Irish Society from the beginning (as of othersocieties of a later date with equally innocent names) were ardentrepublicans, who joined the society in order to further those views;it is absurd to suggest that men who were actually in correspondencewith the leaders of the Directory and were trying to bring about aninvasion from France in order to aid them in establishing a Republicon Jacobin lines would have been deterred by the passing of a Billmaking it lawful for Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament. Nor againis it reasonable to contend that earnest-minded Roman Catholics would, in consequence of the failure of such a Bill to become law, haverebelled against a Government under which they were able to exercisetheir religion in peace and which was at that moment founding andendowing a College for the training of candidates for the priesthood, in favour of one which had confiscated the seminaries and was sendingthe priests to the guillotine. The fact seems to have been that thesociety was formed by Presbyterians, for political reasons; they triedto get the Roman Catholics to join them, but the lower class RomanCatholics cared very little about seats in Parliament; so the foundersof the society cleverly added abolition of tithes and taxes, andreduction of rents, to their original programme; this drew in numbersof Roman Catholics, whose principles were really the very antithesisof Jacobinism. 

It is a fair instance of the confusion which has always reignedthroughout Irish politics, that after the Relief Act of 1793 had beenpassed, the Catholic Committee expressed their jubilation by voting£2, 000 for a statue to the King, and presenting a gold medal to theirSecretary, Wolfe Tone, who was at that moment scheming to set up aJacobin Republic. 

This celebrated man, Wolfe Tone, was not unlike many others who haveposed as Irish patriots. Hating the very name of England, he schemedto get one appointment after another from the English Government--atone time seeking to be put in command of a filibustering expedition toraid the towns of South America, at another time trying for a post inIndia; hating the Pope and the priests, he acted as Secretary to theCatholic Committee; then hating Grattan and the Irish Parliament andeverything to say to it, he showed his patriotism by devoting hisenergies to trying to persuade the French Republican Government toinvade Ireland. 

On the 21st of September, 1795, an incident occurred which, thoughapparently trivial at the time, was destined to be of great historicalimportance. Ulster had now for some time been in a state borderingon anarchy; not only were the secret societies constantly at war, but marauding bands, pretending to belong to one or other of thesocieties, were ravishing the country. Something like a pitched battlewas fought between the Protestants and the Defenders, in which theDefenders, although they were the stronger party and made the attack, were utterly routed. In the evening, the victors agreed to formthemselves into a society which should bear the name of William ofOrange. There had previously been some societies called by that name;but this was the foundation of the Orange Society of the present day. The oath which at first was taken by every member of the society wasto defend the king and his heirs so long as he or they support theProtestant ascendancy. (This conditional form of oath of allegiancehas long since been abolished. ) It was industriously circulated bythe United Irishmen that the actual words of the oath were: "I will betrue to the King and Government and I will exterminate as far as I amable the Catholics of Ireland. " There is no evidence, however, thatany words of the kind ever formed part of an oath prescribed by theOrange Society; and those who make the statement now must be awarethat they are repeating a calumny. 

After this time, the quarrel gradually tended more and more to becomea religious one; the Peep of Day Boys becoming merged in the OrangeSociety, and the Protestants slowly withdrawing from the United IrishSociety; on the other hand, the Defenders ultimately coalescedwith the United Irishmen and thus, by an illogical combination ofinconsistent forces, formed the party which brought about the terriblerebellion. 

The close of the year 1796 was one of the most critical moments in thehistory of England. On the continent the power of republican Franceunder the genius of Napoleon and his generals was sweeping all beforeit. England was in a state of bankruptcy, and almost as completelyisolated as she had been in the time of Elizabeth. Wolfe Tone and hisIrish plotters saw their opportunity as clearly as their predecessorshad in the times of Edward Bruce and Philip II. They laid a statementof the condition of Ireland before the French Government which, though as full of exaggerations as most things in Irish history, wassufficiently based on fact to lead the French Government to believethat if a French force were landed in Ireland, the Irishmen in theBritish Army and Navy would mutiny, the Yeomen would join the French, and the whole of the North of Ireland would rise in rebellion. 

Accordingly a French fleet of forty-three sail, carrying about 15, 000troops, sailed from Brest for Bantry Bay. No human power could haveprevented their landing; and had they done so, they could havemarched to Cork and seized the town without any difficulty; the UnitedIrishmen would have risen, and the whole country might have beentheirs. But the same power which saved England from the Armada ofCatholic Spain 200 years before now shielded her from the invasion ofrepublican France. Storms and fogs wrought havoc throughout the Frenchfleet. In less than a month from the time of their starting, WolfeTone and the shattered remains of the invading force were back atBrest, without having succeeded in landing a single man on the Irishshore. 

Had this projected invasion taken place fifty years before, amongstthe French troops would have been the Irish brigade, who were alwaysyearning for the opportunity of making an attack on their native land. But half a century had caused strange changes; the Irish brigade hadfallen with the collapse of the French monarchy; and some of the fewsurvivors were now actually serving under King George III. 

It was a remarkable fact that no one in the neighbourhood of Bantryshowed the slightest sympathy with the Frenchmen. The few residentgentry, the moment the danger was evident, called together theyeomanry and organized their tenantry to oppose the foe--though theutmost they could have done would have been to delay the progressof the invaders for a little at the cost of their own lives; and thepeasantry did all in their power to support their efforts. 

If it is possible to analyse the state of political feeling atthis time, we may say that first there was a very limited number ofthoughtful men who saw that after the Acts of 1782 and 1793 eitherseparation or union was inevitable, and who consequently opposed allidea of parliamentary reform, because they thought it would tend toseparation and make union more difficult. A second party (a leadingmember of which was Charlemont) approved of the existing state ofthings, and believed that it could be continued; a third (of whichGrattan was one) fondly imagined that all would go smoothly if only aCatholic Relief Bill and a Reform Bill were carried, and so directedall their efforts towards those objects; and a fourth believed thatno reform would be granted without pressure, and so were ready even towork up a rebellion in order to obtain it; but that was a very smallparty at best, and was soon carried away by the whirlwind of thoserevolutionists who cared nothing about the Parliament then sittingin Dublin, or about any other possible Parliament which might ownallegiance to the King of England, for their real aim was to severIreland from England altogether and establish a separate republic. AsWolfe Tone wrote: "To break the connection with England and to assertthe independence of my country were my objects. "

It is this party that is represented by the Nationalists of to-day, except that when they look for foreign aid, their hopes lie in thedirection of Germany rather than France. I know that this remark maycall forth a storm of denials from those who judge by the speecheswhich Nationalist leaders have made in England when trying to win theRadical vote, or in the Colonies when aiming at getting money frompeople who had not studied the question. But I judge not by speechessuch as those, but by statements continually put forward by politicalwriters and orators when they have cast off the mask and areaddressing their sympathizers in Ireland and America:--

 "The Nationalists of Ireland stand for the complete independence of Ireland, and they stand for nothing else. In the English Empire they have no part or lot, and they wish to have no part or lot. We stand for the Irish nation, free and independent and outside the English Empire. "--(_Irish Freedom_. )

 "Our aim is the establishment of an Irish Republic, for the simple and sole reason that no other ending of our quarrel with England could be either adequate or final. This is the one central and vital point of agreement among all who are worthy of the name of Irish Nationalists--that Ireland is a separate nation--separate in thought, mind, in ideals and outlooks. Come what may, we work for Ireland as separate from England as Germany is separate. "--(Ib. )

 "Year by year the pilgrimage to the grave of Theobald Wolfe Tone grows more significant of the rising tide of militant and uncompromising Nationalism, more significant of the fact that Young Ireland has turned away from the false thing that has passed for patriotism, and has begun to reverence only the men and the things and the memories that stand for Ireland an independent nation. Paying tribute to the memory of men like Tone, lifting up the language of Ireland from the mire, linking up the present with the old days of true patriotic endeavour--these are the doings that will eventually bring our land from the mazes of humbug into the clear dawn that heralds Nationhood. "--(_The Leinster Leader_. )

 "The object aimed at by the advanced National party is the recovery of Ireland's national independence and the severance of all political connection with England. "--(_J. Devoy_. )

 "In the better days that are approaching, the soil of Ireland will be populated by a race of Irishmen free and happy and thriving, owning no master under the Almighty, and owning no flag but the green flag of an independent Irish nation. "--(_W. O'Brien, M. P. _)

 "In supporting Home Rule for Ireland we abandon no principle of Irish nationhood as laid down by the fathers in the Irish movement for independence, from Wolfe Tone and Emmett to John Mitchell, and from Mitchell to Kickham and Parnell. "--(_J. Redmond_. )

 "Our ultimate goal is the national independence of our country. "--(Ib. )

 "In its essence the National movement is the same to-day as it was in the days of Hugh O'Niell, Owen Roe, Emmett, or of Wolfe Tone. "--(Ib. )

 "We are as much rebels to England's rule as our forefathers were in '98. "--(Ib. )

 "I remember when Parnell was asked if he would accept as a final settlement the Home Rule compromise proposed by Mr. Gladstone. I remember his answer. He said 'I believe in the policy of taking from England anything we can wring from her which will strengthen our hands to go for more. '"--(Ib. )

 "When we have undermined English misgovernment we have paved the way for Ireland to take her place among the nations of the earth. And let us not forget that that is the ultimate goal at which all we Irishmen aim. None of us, whether we be in America or in Ireland, or wherever we may be, will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England. "

 (_C. S. Parnell_. )

 "I know there are many people in America who think that the means which we are operating to-day for the good of Ireland are not sufficiently sharp and decisive . . . I would suggest to those who have constituted themselves the censors of our movement, would it not be well to give our movement a fair chance--to allow us to have an Irish Parliament that will give our people all authority over the police and the judiciary and all government in the nation, and when equipped with comparative freedom, then would be the time for those who think we should destroy the last link that binds us to England to operate by whatever means they think best to achieve that great and desirable end? I am quite sure that I speak for the United Irish League in the matter. "

 (_J. Devlin, M. P. _)

 "What was it, after all, that Wolfe Tone, and Fitzgerald, and Mitchell, and Smith O'Brien, and O'Meagher Condon, and Allen, Larkins and O'Brien, and all the other gallant Irishmen strove for, who from generation to generation were inspired with the spirit of revolution? . . . In what respect does our policy differ from the purpose of these men?"--(Ib. )

 "In my opinion, and in the opinion of the vast majority of the advanced Nationalists of Ireland, the Repeal of the Union is not the full Nationalist demand; separation is the full Nationalist demand; that is the right on which we stand, the Nationalist right of Ireland. "--(_J. Dillon, M. P. _)

 "I should never have dedicated my life to this great struggle if I did not see at the end the crowning and the consummation of our work--a free and independent nation. "--(Ib. )

 "We aim at nothing else than establishing a new nation upon the map of Europe. "--(_Dr. Douglas Hyde_. )

 "If there is any man in this audience who says to us as representing that Parliamentary movement--'I don't believe in your Parliamentary ideas, I don't accept Home Rule, I go beyond it; I believe in an independent Irish nation'--if any man says this, I say that we don't disbelieve in it. These are our tactics--if you are to take a fortress, first take the outer works. "--(_T. M. Kettle, M. P. _)

 "We want to carry on the work that the Fenians tried to do to a triumphal issue. The Fenians stood for an Irish Republic, and so do we. No policy which left England in control of the Irish Nation could be regarded as final. There is only one way, and that is to get the absolute and complete independence of Ireland, free from English rule and English domination. The Fenians did not go to the Prime Minister for concessions. No: they started into arms, and if people of the present day believed in that they should arm themselves to get the independence of Ireland. "--(_B. Hobson_, speaking at a demonstration at Cork, on the anniversary of the "martyrdom" of Allen, Larkins, and O'Brien. )

 "Should the Germans land in Ireland, they will be received with willing hearts and strong hands, and should England be their destination, it is to be hoped that they will find time to disembark 100, 000 rifles and a few score of ammunition for the same in this country, and twelve months later this Ireland will be as free as the Lord God meant it should be. "--(_Major McBride_, who organized an Irish force to aid the Boers against England, and has consequently been appointed to a municipal inspectorship by the Corporation of Dublin. )

 "I appeal to you most earnestly to do all in your power to prevent your countrymen from entering the degraded British army. If you prevent 500 men from enlisting you do nearly as good work, if not quite so exciting, as if you shot 500 men on the field of battle, and also you are making the path smoother for the approaching conquest of England by Germany. "--(Ib. )

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE REBELLION. 

Early in 1797 it became evident to all but the most shortsighted ofpoliticians that a rebellion, of which none could foretell the result, was imminent. As one shrewd observer wrote: "I look upon it thatIreland must soon stand in respect to England in one of threesituations--united with her, the Legislatures being joined; separatedfrom her, and forming a republic; or as a half-subdued Province. " Thesupporters of law and order were naturally divided in opinion as tothe course to pursue. Some were in favour of a policy of conciliation. Grattan induced his friend Ponsonby to bring forward another ReformBill, abolishing the religious test and the separate representationof boroughs, and dividing each county into districts; and when he sawthat the motion could not be carried, delivered an impassioned speech, declaring that he would never again attend the House of Commons, andsolemnly walked out. It was a piece of acting, too transparent todeceive anybody. Grattan was a disappointed man--disappointed notso much because his proposals were not adopted, as because his ownfollowers were slipping away from him. They had begun to realize thathe was an orator but not a statesman; his ideas were wild, fancifuldreams. Whilst vehemently upholding the English connection he wasplaying into the hands of England's opponents by reminding them thatEngland's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity; whilst hating thevery idea of a Union, he was making the existing system impossibleby preventing the passing of a commercial treaty; whilst passionatelysupporting Protestant ascendancy, he was advocating a measure whichat that moment would have brought about the establishment either of aRoman Catholic ascendancy or more probably of a Jacobin Republic. He saw his supporters dwindling slowly from seventy-seven in 1783 tothirty in 1797. Men were now alive to the fact that the country was inan alarming condition. They saw what had happened in France but a fewyears before, and how little Louis XVI had gained by trying to poseas a liberator and a semi-republican; and, knowing that the rebellionwith which they were faced was an avowed imitation of the FrenchRevolution, they were coming to the opinion that stern measures werenecessary. In almost every county of three Provinces conspirators wereat work, trying to bring down on their country a foreign invasion, andstirring up the people to rebellion and crime by appealing to theiragrarian grievances and cupidity, their religious passion, and thediscontent produced by great poverty. For a second time it appearedthat Wolfe Tone would succeed in obtaining aid from abroad--this timefrom Spain and Holland; and the rebel party in Ireland were now sowell organized, and Jacobin feeling was so widespread, that had hedone so, it was almost inevitable that Ireland would have been lost toEngland. But once more the unexpected was destined to occur. Early inFebruary Jervis shattered the power of the Spanish Fleet off Cape St. Vincent; and in the summer, just when the Dutch ships, with 14, 000troops on board, were ready to start, and resistance on the part ofEngland seemed hopeless, a violent gale arose and for weeks the wholefleet remained imprisoned in the river; and when at length they didsucceed in making a start, the English were ready to meet them withina few miles of the coast of Holland; after a tremendous battle thebroken remnant of the Dutch fleet returned to the harbour defeated. The rage and mortification of Wolfe Tone at his second failure knew nobounds. 

In the North of Ireland, however, the rebellion had practically begun. The magistrates were powerless; the classes who had supported thegentry during the Volunteer Movement were amongst the disaffected. Thecountry was in a state of anarchy; murders and outrages of everysort were incessant. That the measures which the Government andtheir supporters took to crush the rising rebellion were illegaland barbarous, cannot be denied; that they in fact by their violencehurried on the rebellion is not improbable. But it is still moreprobable that they were the means of preventing its success; just as, had the Government of Louis XVI shown more vigour at the outset of theRevolution, the Reign of Terror would probably never have taken place. Through evidence obtained by torture, the Government got possessionof vast stores of arms which the rebels had prepared; by twiceseizing the directors of the movement they deprived it of its centralorganization; and if they were the cause of the rebellion breaking outsooner than had been intended, the result was that they were ableto quell it in one district before it had time to come to a head inanother. 

War at best is very terrible; and there were two circumstances whichmade the war in Ireland more terrible than others. It was a religiouswar, and it was a civil war. It often happens that when religion isturned to hatred it stirs up the worst and most diabolical passionsof the human breast; and the evil feelings brought on by a civil warnecessarily last longer than animosity against a foreign foe. Thehorrors of 1798 make one shudder to think what must happen in Irelandif civil war ever breaks out there again. 

From Ulster the United Ireland movement spread during 1797 toLeinster, as far south as Wexford, and began to assume a moredecidedly religious character. As a contemporary historian wrote:--

 "So inveterately rooted are the prejudices of religious antipathy in the minds of the lower classes of Irish Romanists, that in any civil war, however originating from causes unconnected with religion, not all the efforts of their gentry, or even priests, to the contrary could (if I am not exceedingly mistaken) restrain them from converting it into a religious quarrel. "

(Had he lived a century later, he might have used the same words. )But though this was generally the case, there were complications asembarrassing as they usually are in Irish affairs. The yeomanrywere mainly Protestants, but the majority of the militia were RomanCatholics, and those commanded by Lord Fingall entirely so. Therewas much disaffection in both branches of the service; besides which, officers and men alike lacked the discipline and experience ofregular troops; but as the supply of soldiers from England was whollyinadequate for the situation, the Government were obliged to rely onany forces they could obtain. As the rebellion drifted into being aRoman Catholic movement, the Orangemen became intensely loyal, andwere eager to fight on the king's side, but the Government dreadedlest by employing them they might offend the militia. By 1798, whenthe rebellion in the south was at its height, the north had becomecomparatively calm. The severities of the previous year had had somesalutary effect; the staunch Protestants had no desire to aid in whathad become a Roman Catholic rebellion; and the republican party hadseen that the universal fraternity of the Jacobin Government of Francehad turned into a military despotism which was engaged in crushing theneighbouring republics and was almost at war with the sister Republicof America. 

But whilst Ulster was growing calmer, the condition of the southwas becoming daily more appalling. On the 23rd of May the rebellionactually broke out in the counties of Dublin, Kildare and Meath; andmany skirmishes took place in which the losses on the king's side werecomparatively few but those of the rebels enormous, in consequence oftheir ignorance of the use of firearms. The better-trained forces soongot to know that an Irish peasant when armed with a pike was a deadlyfoe; but when armed with a musket was almost harmless. This part ofthe campaign will always be specially memorable for the attack madeon the little town of Prosperous, in the county of Kildare. It wascleverly made in the early morning; the garrison, taken unawares, werenearly all killed; the Commander, Captain Swayne, being amongst thevictims. It was soon afterwards found out that the leader of therebels was Dr. Esmonde, a gentleman of good family, and firstlieutenant in a regiment of yeomanry stationed a few miles off, whohad been dining with Captain Swayne the previous evening. He appearedin his regiment the next day, but was identified by a yeoman who hadseen him at Prosperous; arrested, tried, and hanged as a traitor. 

A Nationalist has recently referred to him as a martyr to the cause ofIrish liberty. 

By the month of June Wexford had become the centre of the rebellion. In that county it had assumed an essentially religious character(there being, however, a few exceptions on each side), and in noother part of Ireland was the war so terrible either on account of itsmagnitude or barbarity. The passions of the ignorant peasantry wereinflamed by all Protestants being spoken of as Orangemen and a reportbeing diligently circulated that all Orangemen had sworn to destroythe Catholic Faith--exactly the same course that was followed ahundred years later. Roman Catholic priests, wearing their sacredvestments and carrying crucifixes, led the rebel forces; and theignorant peasants, believing them to be endowed with miraculouspowers, followed them with the blind adherence that only fanaticismcan inspire. And yet--so strangely contradictory is everything inIreland--there is clear evidence that amongst those priestly agitatorsmany were at heart deists, who were making use of religion in thehope of furthering Jacobinism. Many Protestants saved their lives byapostatizing, or by allowing their children to be rebaptized; it isbut fair to add, however, that several of the older priests, shockedat the conduct of the rebels, concealed heretics in their houses andchurches; and that all through the war many priests, in spite of thedifficulty of their position, remained loyal and did what they couldto aid the king's troops. 

The rebels for some weeks held command of the town and county ofWexford, their chief camp being at a place called Vinegar Hill. Thecountry around was searched and plundered; the Protestants who werecaptured were brought into the rebel camp, and there deliberatelybutchered in cold blood. How many perished it is impossible to say;the number must have been at the least 400. 

I would willingly pass over this dreadful episode. I have no moredesire to dwell on it than I have on Cromwell's conduct at Drogheda. I regard it merely as one of those terrible incidents which alas havetaken place in almost every campaign. It was probably equalled incharacter if not in magnitude by several outrages committed by theother side; and certainly parallels could be found in the Frenchinvasion of Algeria fifty years later and in many other wars of thenineteenth century. When men have been fired with the diabolicalpassions that war arouses, and have grown accustomed to the ghastlysights on battlefields, they cease to be reasoning beings; they becomefiends. But unfortunately it is necessary to explain what reallyoccurred, as it is to Vinegar Hill and its terrible associations thatthe Nationalists of to-day refer with triumph. Songs in praise of themassacre are sung at Nationalist gatherings; and W. Redmond, speakingat Enniscorthy (close to the scene of the massacre) on the 110thanniversary of the outrages said: "The heroic action of the men whofought and died around Vinegar Hill was the heritage of all Ireland. Whatever measure of comparative freedom we now enjoy was entirelyattributable to the Insurrection of '98. It was the pikemen of '98 whomade the world and England understand that Irishmen knew how to fightfor their rights, and it is to the knowledge of that fact by Englandthat we may look for the real driving force of any effort we may makefor our liberty. The Irish people are in no position to resort toarms, but the spirit is there, and by demonstrations like this we showour rulers that it is essential for any real and lasting peace thatthe aspirations of the patriots of '98 must be satisfied, and that afull measure of National freedom must be granted to Ireland. "

(It will be observed that in the opinion of this orator--a prominentNationalist Member of Parliament, who was selected to go round theColonies collecting money for the Home Rule cause--the possession ofan Independent Parliament, of everything in fact short of separation, goes for nothing; it is only those who rebelled against thatParliament who are to be regarded as models for modern Nationalists tofollow. It is interesting also to note the different views which havebeen put forward by Irish politicians with regard to the rebellion. In 1843 the leaders of the Repeal Association stated in one of theirmanifestoes, as an argument in favour of repeal, that England hadresorted to the diabolical expedient of fomenting a rebellion in orderto distract the country and give excuse for military violence and sobring about a Union. But the Nationalists of to-day have so completelyidentified themselves with the rebels of 1798 that within the last fewyears splendid monuments have been erected in all the towns of Wexfordand the adjoining counties; some of these are bronze figures ofpatriots brandishing pikes, others are representations of the priestlyleaders of the rebel forces. These monuments have been unveiled withgreat ceremony, impassioned speeches being made on the occasion byleading orators, both clerical and lay). 

In order to realize the terrible position in which the loyalistswere placed, we must recollect that whilst the Wexford rebels weretriumphant in that county, and the movement seemed to be spreadinginto Kilkenny and Carlow, there was a fresh outbreak in the north;it appeared probable that Dublin might rise at any moment; the Frenchfleet was hourly expected, and the long looked-for aid from Englandwas still delayed. But the Irish loyalist minority showed the samedogged determination that they had done in the time of James II, andthat they will show again in the future. 

The numbers engaged in the different battles and skirmishes havebeen variously estimated; it seems that at the battle of Arklow theloyalists did not exceed 1, 600, of whom nearly all were militia andyeomanry, with a few artillery; whilst the rebels, commanded by FatherMichael Murphy, amounted to at least 20, 000. Yet after a terribleafternoon's fighting the rebels, disheartened by the fall of theirleader (whom they had believed to be invulnerable) retired, leavingmore than 1, 000 dead on the field. 

Soon, however, the reinforcements from England began to arrive; andthe French invasion, on which the rebels were building their hopes, was still delayed. By July, although fighting was still going on inthe Wicklow mountains and some other parts of the country, the worstof the rebellion in Wexford was crushed, and an Act of Amnesty wascarried through Parliament. It is worthy of note that the trials ofthe rebels which took place in Dublin were conducted with a fairnessand a respect for the forms of law which are probably unparalleled inthe history of other countries at moments of such terrible excitement;we can contrast them for instance with the steps that were taken inputting down the outbreak of the Commune in Paris in 1871. It is easynow to argue that, as the force of the rebellion was being broken, itwould have been more humane to have allowed those who had plotted anddirected it to go unpunished. But as Lecky has pointed out, "it wasscarcely possible to exaggerate the evil they had produced, and theywere immeasurably more guilty than the majority of those who hadalready perished. 

"They had thrown back, probably for generations, the civilization oftheir country. They had been year by year engaged in sowing the seedwhich had ripened into the harvest of blood. They had done all intheir power to bring down upon Ireland the two greatest curses thatcan afflict a nation--the curse of civil war, and the curse of foreigninvasion; and although at the outset of their movement they hadhoped to unite Irishmen of all creeds, they had ended by lashingthe Catholics into frenzy by deliberate and skilful falsehood. Theassertion that the Orangemen had sworn to exterminate the Catholicswas nowhere more prominent than in the newspaper which was therecognised organ of the United Irish leaders. The men who had spreadthis calumny through an ignorant and excitable Catholic population, were assuredly not less truly murderers than those who had fired thebarn at Scullabogue or piked the Protestants on Wexford Bridge. "

A strong party, however, led by Lord Clare were in favour of clemencywherever possible; and there seemed good reason for hoping that therebellion would slowly die out. Cooke, the Under Secretary, wroteon the 9th of August: "The country is by no means settled nor secureshould the French land, but I think secure if they do not. " Suddenly, however, the alarming news came that the French were actually inIreland. Wolfe Tone and his fellow-plotters, undaunted by theirprevious failures, had continued ceaseless in their efforts to induceNapoleon to make an indirect attack on England by invading Ireland;and if they had succeeded in persuading the French Government to sendan expedition two months earlier when the rebellion was at its heightand the English reinforcements had not arrived, Ireland must have beenlost. Once again, however, fortune favoured the English cause. Thefirst instalment of the French fleet, carrying 1, 000 soldiers, didnot start until the 6th of August, and only arrived on the 22nd. Theylanded at Killala, in Mayo, and were not a little surprised at thestate of things existing there. They had expected to find a universalfeeling of republicanism; but instead of this, whilst the Protestantsrefused to join them, the Roman Catholic peasantry received them withdelight, and declared their readiness to take arms for France and theBlessed Virgin. "God help these simpletons, " said one of the officers, "if they knew how little we care about the Pope or his religion, theywould not be so hot in expecting help from us!"

Arriving at the wrong time and the wrong place, the expedition wasforedoomed to failure. The French were brave men and trained soldiers;but they found their Irish allies perfectly useless. They succeededin capturing Castlebar, and routing a force of militia; buttheir campaign was brief; on the 8th of September the whole forcesurrendered. The Connaught rebellion was speedily and severely putdown. 

The second instalment of the French invasion consisted of one ship. They landed on the Island of Arran on the 16th of September; but afterspending eight hours on shore, re-embarked and sailed away to Norway. 

The third instalment was, however, more serious. It consisted of aship of the line, eight frigates and a schooner, having on boardan army of about 3, 000 men. They arrived at Lough Swilly early inOctober, where they were met by a more powerful English fleet, andnearly all were destroyed or captured. Amongst the prisoners takenwas Wolfe Tone; who soon afterwards in order to avoid a felon's death, ended his life by suicide. [See note at the end of the Volume]

A fortnight later the fourth and last instalment arrived at KillalaBay; but the Admiral, hearing that the rebellion was over, promptlyweighed anchor and returned to France. Thus ingloriously ended theFrench attempts at the invasion of Ireland. The calling-in of theforeigner had been of as little use to the cause of Irish rebellion asit had been two centuries before. 

By the end of the year the worst of the rebellion was over. But theevil it had wrought was incalculable. How many had perished duringthat terrible summer will never be known; the numbers have beenvariously computed at from 15, 000 to 70, 000. At the outset of therebellion--in February 1798--Lord Clare had made a memorable speech inthe House of Lords, which has been so often misquoted that it is wellhere to cite the passage in full:--

 "If conciliation be a pledge of national tranquillity and contentment; if it be a spell to allay popular ferment; there is not a nation in Europe in which it has had so fair a trial as in the Kingdom of Ireland. For a period of nearly twenty years a liberal and unvaried system of concession and conciliation has been pursued and acted on by the British Government. Concession and conciliation have produced only a fresh stock of grievances; other discontents of Ireland have kept pace with her prosperity; for I am bold to say there is not a nation on the habitable globe which has advanced in cultivation and commerce, in agriculture and in manufactures with the same rapidity in the same period. Her progress is now retarded, and it is a heart-breaking spectacle to every man who loves the country to see it arrested only by the perverse and factious folly of the people, stimulated and encouraged by disappointed statesmen. "

Within a few months after that speech was made, Ireland was well-nighruined. All the progress in material prosperity which had taken placein the years immediately following 1782 was swept away. The nationaldebt, which in 1791 had stood at £2, 442, 890, involving an annualcharge of £142, 716, had risen to £26, 662, 640, with an annual charge of£1, 395, 735; the exports of woollen goods had almost ceased, and thoseof linen gone down by more than a third; other industries showeda decay nearly as lamentable; public bankruptcy seemed inevitable. Though the violent outbreak of rebellion had been put down, many partsof the country were in a state of anarchy. In the west, armed bandswent about every night houghing the cattle and murdering all who daredto oppose them. If any man prosecuted one of the offenders, he didit at the moral certainty of being murdered. The same fate hung overevery magistrate who sent a hougher to gaol, every witness who gaveevidence against him, every juryman who convicted him. In Limerick oneman ventured on his own part and on that of eight others to prosecutean offender who had destroyed their property. All nine were murderedin one night. It was not safe to travel along the high road withinsix miles of Dublin. The militia had, from their misbehaviour inthe field, and their extreme licentiousness, fallen into universalcontempt and abhorrence; officers of English regiments declared thatit would be impossible to maintain discipline amongst their troopsif they remained in such a country. It was discovered that the rebelswere forming another Directory, and, still expecting aid from France, planning a fresh outbreak. Religious animosities were more violentthan ever. Government was becoming impossible; for the Roman Catholicpopulation, now thoroughly disaffected, would not continue to submitto the rule of the Protestant oligarchy; but the only way to put anend to it would be by another rebellion which if successful would(as the Roman Catholic bishops and educated laymen fully realized)probably result in the establishment of a Jacobin republic;clear-headed men of all parties were beginning to think that there wasbut one solution of the problem; and that was--the Union. 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE UNION. 

We come now to the great turning point in the modern history ofIreland--the Union. It has been so constantly and so vehementlyasserted that this momentous event was prompted by the wicked desireof England to ruin Ireland, and was carried out by fraud, bribery, intimidation, and every form of political crime, that not onlyordinary readers, but even writers who are content to receivetheir information at second hand without investigating evidence forthemselves, generally assume that no other view is possible. ThusO'Connell boldly asserted that the Irish Catholics never assentedto the Union. Others have blindly repeated his words; and from thosereiterated statements has been developed an argument that as theCatholics did not assent to the Union, they cannot be bound by it. 

I believe that there has been as much exaggeration about this as aboutmost other episodes of Irish history; and that anyone who, fairly andwithout prejudice, takes the trouble to go through the history of theUnion as it may be gathered from contemporary documents, will come tothe conclusion that it was devised by great and earnest statesmen whohad the good of both countries at heart. As to the means by which itwas carried, there is much to be said on both sides of the question;Lecky has stated the case against the Union ably and temperately;other writers, equally honourable, have taken the opposite side. Thereis at any rate very much to be said for the opinion, that, consideringthe circumstances and the peculiar constitution of the IrishParliament, there was nothing which the Government did that was notperfectly justifiable. As to whether it was in accordance with thewish of the people or not, there are several points which ought to beborne in mind but to which sufficient attention is not usually given. A very large part of the nation were ignorant peasants, who did notand could not properly understand the question; and as a matterof fact cared little about it. Then of those who were against themeasure, many opposed it not because they wished the existing stateof things to continue, but because they thought that the Union wouldprevent the one object of their ambition--total separation and theestablishment of a republic; their opinion therefore has but littleweight. When we come to the more educated and propertied classes, itseems that the majority were in favour of the measure; and as to theopinion of the Roman Catholic section (which after all was far thelargest part of the nation) I think there can be no doubt whatever. Fortunately it is no longer necessary to wade through the mass oforiginal papers; for the evidence has been so carefully investigatedduring recent years by various impartial writers, and has beenpresented to the general reader in so clear and concise a mannerthat no one now has any excuse for being led away by the impassionedstatements of partisan orators. I refer specially to the "History ofthe Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland, " by Dr. DunbarIngram, published in 1887. 

That careful writer commences his work by stating that, dissatisfiedwith endless assertions unaccompanied by proof, he had determined toinvestigate the subject for himself, examining closely the originaland contemporary authorities. He soon found that there was no evidenceto sustain the accusations made against the manner in which the Unionwas carried; and that all the charges against the Government restedfinally on Harrington's worthless romances or the declamatorystatements of the Opposition during the sessions of 1799 and 1800, which, when challenged, they declined to substantiate. Then, as heproceeded in his work, he discovered that, after its terms were knownand the public had had time for reflection, the Union was thankfullyaccepted by the two communities which made up Ireland; that theProtestants, after the first burst of clamour, were as a bodyconverted and became well-wishers to the measure; and that the RomanCatholics, after a short hesitation, gave the Union their heartyassent and support. And finally, the whole inquiry left a strongconviction on his mind that the Union was undertaken from the purestmotives, that it was carried by fair and constitutional means, andthat its final accomplishment was accompanied with the hearty assentand concurrence of the vast majority of the two peoples that dwelt inIreland. 

I feel that I cannot do better than follow some of the lines of hisargument. 

It is true that in the time of the Plantagenets representatives fromIreland were on several occasions summoned to attend the EnglishParliament; and that during the Commonwealth Ireland was incorporatedwith the rest of the Empire and sent members to the Parliaments of1654 and 1657. These incidents, however, are unimportant; it is moreto the purpose to point out that from the time of the Restorationonwards we find a long list of distinguished thinkers recommendingsuch a Union; and in the beginning of the eighteenth century bothHouses of the Irish Parliament twice petitioned Queen Anne to thesame effect. It may be asked why the English politicians, who were soanxious to bring about the Union with Scotland, turned a deaf earto these petitions. The answer is simple. The Scotch Parliamentwas independent, and the impossibility of having two independentParliaments under one sovereign had become manifest. Trade jealousieshad arisen; the action of the Scotch had nearly involved England in awar with Spain; the Scotch Parliament had passed an Act declaring thatuntil provision was made for settling the rights and liberties of theScotch nation independently of England the successor to the ScotchCrown should not be the same person that was possessed of the Crownof England. The Parliament of England commenced arming the militia andfortifying the towns near the Border. England being at war with Francethe Scotch Parliament passed an Act allowing Scotchmen to trade withthat country; it therefore was a choice between Union and War; andthe two countries wisely chose Union. In the case of Ireland, however, England saw no such danger; the Irish legislature was subordinate;Ireland was bound by English statutes; and the Irish Parliamentrepresented not the whole people but only that one section of it whichwas necessarily bound to the English connection; the Irish petitionsfor Union therefore remained unheeded. The great Bishop Berkeley, writing in 1735, strongly advocated a union; at a later time AdamSmith wrote: "By a union with Great Britain Ireland would gain besidesthe freedom of trade other advantages much more important . . . Withouta union with Great Britain the inhabitants of Ireland are not likelyfor many ages to consider themselves as one people. " But, as wehave seen, by the Act of 1782, the Irish Parliament had becomeindependent--that is, it was placed in the same position as theScotch Parliament had been; and by the Act of 1893, the bulk of theconstituencies in the counties had become Roman Catholic. Exceptin the opinion of thoughtless optimists like Grattan, matters wereapproaching a deadlock; for sooner or later the Roman Catholicelectors would demand representation in Parliament; the boroughmembers would most probably refuse it, in which case war might breakout again; and if they granted it, the Irish Parliament, then almostentirely Roman Catholic, would be anxious to break the tie that boundIreland to England. 

But apart from the religious question, it was evident that theconstitution, as fixed by the Act of 1782, was fraught with dangers. And it is no answer to say that not many difficulties had arisenin the few years between 1782 and 1799; for, even though that ispartially true, the question for a statesman to consider was whetherthey were likely to arise in the future; and the rebellion, whichwas still seething, had made this all the more probable. First, on adeclaration of war by England, Ireland might refuse to take part init; and her refusal would paralyse the Empire. As early as 1791, WolfeTone had pointed out that Ireland need not embark on the side ofGreat Britain in the contest which was then pending; and one of hisfollowers had advocated an alliance with France. (This is of all themore importance at the present day, when the Nationalists state thattheir principles are the same as those of Wolfe Tone. ) Secondly, during a war, Ireland might refuse supplies to England. This coursewas actually hinted at by Grattan. Thirdly, she might provoke acommercial war of rates with England. This course was proposed in theIrish House of Commons in 1784. Fourthly, she might put pressure onthe Sovereign to declare war against a country with which England wasat peace. This also was proposed in the Irish House, in the case ofPortugal. Fifthly, she might differ from England in any internationalquestion in reference to the connection between them, as she did inthe Regency question. Sixthly, she might refuse--as she did--to makea commercial treaty with Great Britain; and thus keep open the mostfertile sources of mutual jealousies and discontent. Grattan's bestfriends had urged upon him in vain that refusing to assent to acommercial treaty made the permanent government by two independentlegislatures impossible, and would bring about separation; he refusedto be guided by their advice, and at that time he still had supremepower in the House. It is remarkable that even at a later date, whilstvehemently opposing the Union, he took a delight in pointing outhow many ways there were in which an Irish Parliament might injureEngland; seeming not to realize that he was supplying a forcibleargument in favour of the measure he was opposing. 

The dangers of the situation were summed up by Pitt in a fewwords:--"A party in England may give to the Throne one species ofadvice by its Parliament. A party in Ireland may advise directlyopposite upon the most essential points that involve the safety ofboth; upon alliance with a foreign power, for instance; upon the army;upon the navy; upon any branch of the public service; upon trade; uponcommerce; or upon any point essential to the Empire at large. " Andlong afterwards Sir Robert Peel pointed out that within the shortperiod of six years from the establishment of what is called theindependence of the Irish Parliament--from 1782 to 1788--the foreignrelations of the two countries, the commercial intercourse of the twocountries, the sovereign exercise of authority in the two countries, were the subjects of litigation and dispute; and it was more owingto accident than to any other cause that they did not produce actualalienation and rupture. 

The idea of a Union was first brought before Parliament by the LordLieutenant (Lord Cornwallis) in his speech at the opening of theSession in January 1799. It appeared at first that a majority of thePeers were in favour of the proposal, but a small majority of theHouse of Commons hostile--some to the scheme altogether, others toits being brought forward at that time. This small majority, however, rapidly diminished; and before many weeks had passed, the Governmentpossessed a majority in both Houses. The citizens of Dublin werenaturally strongly against the measure, thinking that it would injurethe prestige of the capital; as were also the proprietors of boroughsand the legal members of the House; and soon after the scheme hadbeen proposed, several counties held meetings and passed resolutionsagainst it; but as the year went on, when the details of the measurehad been more carefully considered, there was a general change offeeling throughout the country. Lord Cornwallis went on tours bothnorth and south, through both Protestant and Roman Catholicdistricts, everywhere receiving addresses in favour of the Union fromcorporations, grand juries, leading residents, and especially fromRoman Catholic bodies. And, if we may believe Lord Cornwallis's ownletters, these addresses were entirely spontaneous, and representedthe real feelings of the community. Before Parliament met in March1800, twenty-two counties had passed resolutions in favour of theUnion; and Lord Castlereagh was able to say in the House that thegreat body of the landed property of Ireland, and all the greatcommercial towns except Dublin and Drogheda, were friendly to themeasure. The Opposition attempted to meet this by presenting a numberof petitions showing that the people of Ireland were against it. Ofthe fifty-four petitions presented, five were not against the Union atall, but merely requests for compensation in the event of its comingabout; three were from individuals or commercial firms; and eight werefrom Dublin alone. The number therefore was much smaller than appearsat first sight. Besides obtaining these petitions, the Oppositionalso collected a large sum of money for the purchase of seats; in thecircumstances and according to the ideas of the time, I do not saythat they were in the least morally wrong in doing so; but the facttakes away from the value of the votes given; and it neutralizesanything that was done by the Government in the same way--if it can beproved that the Government so acted. 

But as the Roman Catholics constituted three-fourths of the populationof Ireland, it is more important to investigate what their feelingswere than to scrutinize the division lists of the House, if we wish toascertain what was really the wish of the nation. Fortunately we havean opportunity of testing whether there is any truth in the statementof O'Connell to which I have already referred--that the IrishCatholics did not assent to the Union. The evidence shows conclusivelythat the Roman Catholic peerage, episcopate, priesthood and laity allgave the movement their hearty concurrence and co-operation. LordsKenmare and Fingall assured Lord Cornwallis that the Catholics werein favour of a Union; the entire episcopate--that is, the fourarchbishops and nineteen bishops, three sees being vacant--expressedthe same view by their letters which are still extant or byresolutions signed by them; for instance, the Archbishop of Tuamwrote: "I have had an opportunity of acquiring the strongestconviction that this measure alone can restore harmony and happinessto our unhappy country. " The Bishop of Cork wrote: "Nothing in myopinion will more effectively tend to lay these disgraceful andscandalous party feuds and dissensions, and restore peace andharmony amongst us, than the great measure in contemplation, ofthe legislative Union, and incorporation of this Kingdom with GreatBritain. I am happy to tell you it is working its way, and dailygaining ground in the public opinion. Several counties which appearedmost adverse to it have now declared for it, and I have no doubt but, with the blessing of God, it will be effected, notwithstanding theviolent opposition of Mr. Foster and his party. The Roman Catholics ingeneral are avowedly for the measure. In the south, where they are themost numerous, they have declared in its favour. " The Bishop of Fernspresided at a meeting of Catholics of Wexford at which an addressin favour of incorporation of both legislatures was signed by 3, 000persons; and throughout the country meetings, presided over by parishpriests, were held to further the movement; and the laity were quiteas eager as the clergy in the matter. Plowden, the Roman Catholichistorian, says: "A very great preponderancy in favour of the Unionexisted in the Catholic body, particularly in their nobility, gentryand clergy. " Thomas McKenna, the Secretary to the Catholic Committee, wrote two pamphlets in the same interest; whilst on the other hand nota single petition against it was presented by any Roman Catholic body. 

When the Session of 1800 commenced, a leading member of the Oppositionsadly confessed that the people had deserted them. But the strugglein the House of Commons was tremendous. The Anti-Unionists had theadvantage of the oratory of Grattan, who, though he had not been inParliament since 1797, now purchased a seat for £2, 400, and enteredthe House in a theatrical manner in the midst of the discussion. Buthis vehement and abusive style of declamation could not in debatebe compared with the calm reasoning of Castlereagh. The most ablespeeches against the measure were not those of Grattan, but Foster. Many divisions were taken, the Government majority steadily risingfrom forty-two to sixty-five, and comprising an actual majority ofthe members of the House. In the House of Lords it was relativelymuch larger. But it is constantly affirmed that this majority was onlybrought about by bribery and intimidation. The word "bribery" has anugly sound; and in such a case as this, it is only fair to examinewhat is exactly meant by the term. There is no doubt that compensationwas given to the proprietors of boroughs which were not allowedrepresentation in the United Parliament; and it is said that as thereturn of members to Parliament is a public trust and not a species ofproperty, this was not a fair matter for pecuniary compensation; henceit amounted to bribery. But the ownership of boroughs had grown upinsensibly; and they had long been looked upon and treated as privateproperty, not only in Ireland but in England and Scotland also; andthere were many honest men in all three countries who contended thatthe system worked well, as it was the means whereby a large numberof distinguished men obtained their first introduction into publiclife--amongst them being Pitt, Canning, and Fox in England, Grattan, Flood and Plunkett in Ireland. Then in other cases when powers whichhad long been regarded as property have been abolished, compensationhas been given. This was the case when the heritable jurisdictions inScotland were abolished, and when by the disestablishment of the IrishChurch the right of patrons to nominate to livings was taken away. Andeven granting for the sake of argument that this is wrong, is it fairto call it bribery? Eighty-four places were disfranchised, and a sumof £1, 260, 000 (which did not nearly amount to the price which theboroughs at that time fetched in the market) was paid. Of this, £67, 500 was paid to Englishmen who owned seats in the IrishParliament; £60, 000 to boroughs who had no owners; £30, 000 to theexecutors of a deceased owner; £18, 750 to two ladies; and£1, 100, 000 to Irishmen who owned boroughs--of which £400, 000 went toAnti-Unionists who opposed the Bill. In many cases, of course, theactual occupant of the seat was a different person from the owner whoreceived the compensation; for instance, there is reason to believethat all the fifty barristers in the house had purchased their seats, but not one of them was the permanent owner. Now, if compensationis bribery, who was bribed? Really it must be admitted thaton investigation the charge of bribery, so far as it refers tocompensation to borough-owners, falls to the ground. 

Then it is said that the Government made actual payments to membersfor their votes. This charge was brought forward in a general way atthe time in both Houses; the Government indignantly denied it, andcalled on the Opposition to prove their accusation; but they failed todo so. To repeat it now is therefore unjust. It may be admitted thatamongst Lord Castlereagh's letters there is one which taken by itselflooks as if a certain sum of money was to be used in bribery; but, as Dr. Ingram has pointed out, a careful investigation of the mattershows that it refers to proposed changes in the tariff, and not tobribery at all. 

Again, it is argued that the lavish distribution of titles amountedto bribery. If so, it is hard to find any Government in England orIreland that has not been to some extent guilty of bribery--though itis true that no British Premier has ever created peerages or salariedoffices on anything like the scale that Mr. Asquith has done. Afterthe Bill had passed, Pitt created twenty new Irish peerages and fourEnglish ones; and promoted sixteen peers a step in their order; whichafter all is not very much more than Lord North had done in 1779, onno special occasion, when he had created eighteen Irish peerages andpromoted twelve existing peers. 

As to the charges of intimidation, they may be dismissed at once; thevery few that were brought forward were so completely answered at thetime, that even the Opposition dropped them. The presence of such alarge number of troops in Ireland was quite accounted for by the factthat the rebellion was still to some extent going on, and that therewas again a danger of a French invasion. 

And I must contend further that even admitting that there weresome acts on the part of the Government which will not bear strictinvestigation according to present ideas, it is only fair to rememberthe tremendous difficulties of the occasion. The English House ofCommons was almost unanimously in favour of the Union--not more thanthirty members ever voted against it; and in the opinion of LordCornwallis, who throughout his long and varied career showed himselfto be a shrewd observer and an upright, honourable man, "This countrycould not be saved without the Union. "

But really the whole discussion is beside the mark. The Nationalistscontinually repeat the charge that the Union was carried by fraud; andso it must be answered; but it has no bearing on anything existing atthe present day. For the old Irish Parliament has disappeared--mergedin the greater and more honourable Assembly of the United Kingdom; andto revive it now would be a physical impossibility. The whole stateof circumstances has changed; no assembly that could now be formed inIreland would bear the faintest resemblance to that which met in theeighteenth century. As Lecky has well expressed it:--

 "To an historian of the eighteenth century, however, few things can be more grotesquely absurd than to suppose that the merits or demerits, the failure or the successes of the Irish Parliament has any real bearing on modern schemes for reconstructing the Government of Ireland on a revolutionary and Jacobin basis; entrusting the protection of property and the maintenance of law to some democratic assembly consisting mainly of Fenians and Land-leaguers, of paid agitators and of penniless adventurers. The Parliamentary system of the eighteenth century might be represented in very different lights by its enemies and by its friends. Its enemies would describe it as essentially a government carried on through the instrumentality of a corrupt oligarchy, of a large, compact body of members holding place and pensions at the pleasure of the Government, removed by the system of rotten boroughs from all effectual popular control. Its friends would describe it as essentially the government of Ireland by the gentlemen of Ireland and especially the landlord class. 

 "Neither representation would be altogether true, but each contains a large measure of truth. The nature of the Irish constituencies and the presence in the House of Commons of a body of pensioners and placemen forming considerably more than a third of the whole assembly, and nearly half of its active members, gave the Government a power, which, except under very rare and extraordinary circumstances, must, if fully exercised, have been overwhelming . . . On the other hand, the Irish Parliament was a body consisting very largely of independent country gentlemen, who on nearly all questions affecting the economical and industrial development of the country, had a powerful if not a decisive influence . . . And it was in reality only in a small class of political questions that the corrupt power of government seems to have been strained. The Irish House of Commons . . . Comprised the flower of the landlord class. It was essentially pre-eminently the representative of the property of the country. It had all the instincts and the prejudices, but also all the qualities and the capacities, of an educated propertied class, and it brought great local knowledge and experience to its task. Much of its work was of that practical and unobtrusive character which leaves no trace in history. "

CHAPTER X. 

THE PERIOD FROM THE UNION UNTIL THE REJECTION OF THE FIRST HOME RULEBILL. 

As soon as the Union had become law, the opposition to it died downrapidly. All the members who had voted for it who became candidatesfor the Imperial Parliament were elected, and Irish orators soon beganto make their mark in the greater Assembly. In 1805, however, therewas another slight rebellion, led by Robert Emmett. It never hada chance of success; the mass of the people, thoroughly tired ofanarchy, refused to take part in it; and though the rebels succeededin committing a few murders, the movement was speedily quelled, mainlyby the yeomen of Dublin. At the trial of Emmett, Plunket, who had beena vehement opponent of the Union, was counsel for the prosecution, andin his speech bitterly denounced the conduct of those men who, having done their utmost to oppose the Irish Parliament, now made theabolition of that Parliament the pretext for rebellion. "They call forrevenge, " said he, "on account of the removal of the Parliament. Thesemen, who, in 1798, endeavoured to destroy the Parliament, nowcall upon the loyal men who opposed its transfer, to join them inrebellion; an appeal vain and fruitless. "

It will be observed from statements already quoted, that theNationalists of to-day claim that they are the successors ofEmmett; he is counted amongst the heroes who fell in the cause ofIreland--thus making it all the more clear how wide is the gulfbetween the Parliamentary opponents of the Union and the modernNationalists. 

During the early part of the century, Ireland had another period ofprosperity. Travellers through Ireland at the present day cannot failto notice how many of the country seats (now, in consequence of laterlegislation, mostly deserted and already beginning to fall into ruin)were built at that time. No doubt much of the prosperity was causedby the rebound which often takes place after a period of anarchy anddesolation; and it would not be fair to attribute it wholly to theeffect of the Union; but at least it proves that the melancholyprognostications of the opponents of the measure were happilyunfulfilled. The total value of the produce and manufactures exportedfrom Ireland between 1790 and 1801 amounted to £51, 322, 620; between1802 and 1813 it amounted to £63, 483, 718. In 1800 the populationof Ireland was under 5, 000, 000; in 1841 it was over 8, 000, 000. Thetonnage in Irish ports in 1792 was 69, 000; by 1797 it had fallen to53, 000; before 1852 it had risen to 5, 000, 000. The export of linenin 1796 was 53, 000, 000 yards; in 1799 it had fallen to 38, 000, 000;in 1853 it had risen to 106, 000, 000; and every other department ofindustry and commerce showed figures almost as satisfactory. 

There were, however, three important measures which the leadingadvocates of the Union had desired to see carried as soon as possibleafter the great change had been effected, but which--as many writersof various schools of thought to this day consider unfortunately--werepostponed. The first was a provision by the State for the payment ofthe Roman Catholic clergy. The bishops had fully expected that thiswould be carried. Some modern Nationalists, wishing to win thefavour of the English Nonconformists, have represented that the RomanCatholic Church refused to accept the money; but that is not the case. Whether the policy of "levelling up" would have been a wise oneor not, it is useless now to conjecture; for once the policy of"levelling down" had been decided upon, and the Irish Church had beendisestablished and disendowed, it became impracticable. The secondmeasure was Roman Catholic emancipation. This had been intended byPitt and other statesmen who helped to bring about the Union; butunforeseen difficulties arose; and unfortunately nothing was doneuntil the agitation led by O'Connell brought matters to a crisis;and the emancipation which might have been carried gracefully yearsbefore, and in that case would have strengthened the Union, wasgrudgingly yielded in 1829. 

The third measure was a readjustment of tithes. All will now admit, and very many politicians and thinkers at the time fully realized, that the old law as to tithes was a cruel injustice; but no changewas made until the opposition to the payment of tithes amounted tosomething like civil war, involving a series of murders and outrages. Then the fatal precedent was set of a successful and violent revoltagainst contracts and debts. In 1838 an Act was passed commutingthe tithes into a rent-charge payable not by the occupiers but thelandlords. Some modern writers have argued that the change was merelya matter of form, as the landlords increased the rents in proportion;and it seems such a natural thing to have happened that earlierwriters may well be excused for assuming that it actually occurred. But there is no excuse for repeating the charge now; for inconsequence of recent legislation it has been necessary for the LandCourts to investigate the history of rents from a period commencingbefore 1838; and the result of their examination has elicited thestrange fact that in thousands of cases the rent remained exactly thesame that it had been before the Tithe Commutation Act was passed. 

But ere long economic causes were at work which tended to check theprosperity of Ireland. It was soon found that the proportion which bythe Act of Union Ireland was to contribute to the Imperial Governmentwas too large for the country to bear. The funded debt of Irelandwhich amounted to £28, 000, 000 in 1800 rose by 1817 to £130, 000, 000;in that year the whole liability was taken over by the ImperialGovernment. Then the fall in prices which naturally resulted fromthe peace of 1815 pressed heavily on an agricultural community. Improvements in machinery and the development of steam power squeezedout the handlooms of Ulster and the watermills of other parts of thecountry. Wages were low; and the people who depended mainly on thepotato were underfed and undernourished. In 1846 and 1847 came thetwo terrible blows to Ireland--first, the potato disease; and then theRepeal of the Corn Laws, which made the profitable growing of wheatwith its accompanying industries, impossible. During the fearful yearsof the potato famine, it is only too probable that some of the effortsfor relief were unwisely conducted and that some persons sadly failedin their duties; no measures or men in the world are ever perfect; andthe difficulties not only of obtaining food but of getting it to thestarving people in days when there were few railways and no motorswere enormous. But when modern writers shower wholesale abuse overthe landlords of the period, and even hint that they brought about thefamine, it is well to turn to the writings of an ardent Home Ruler, who was himself an eye-witness, having lived as a boy through thefamine time in one of the districts that suffered most--Mr. A. M. Sullivan. He says:--

 "The conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period has been variously described, and has been, I believe, generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them too sweeping. I hold it to be in some respects cruelly unjust. On many of them no blame too heavy could possibly fall. A large number were permanent absentees; their ranks were swelled by several who early fled the post of duty at home--cowardly and selfish deserters of a brave and faithful people. Of those who remained, some may have grown callous; it is impossible to contest authentic instances of brutal heartlessness here and there. But granting all that has to be entered on the dark debtor side, the overwhelming balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour . . . No adequate tribute has ever been paid to the memory of those Irish landlords--they were men of every party and creed--perished martyrs to duty in that awful time; who did not fly the plague-reeking work-houses or fever-tainted court. Their names would make a goodly roll of honour . . . If they did too little compared with what the landlord class in England would have done in similar case, it was because little was in their power. The famine found most of the resident gentry of Ireland on the brink of ruin. They were heritors of estates heavily overweighted with the debts of a bygone generation. Broad lands and lordly mansions were held by them on settlements and conditions that allowed small scope for the exercise of individual liberality. To these landlords the failure of year's rental receipts meant mortgage fore-one and hopeless ruin. Yet cases might be named by the score in which such men scorned to avert by pressure on their suffering tenantry the fate they saw impending over them. . . . They 'went down with the ship. '"

Soon after the famine, the Incumbered Estates Act was passed, by whichthe creditors of incumbered landlords could force a sale. This ineffect worked a silent revolution; for whatever might have been saidup to that time about the landed proprietors being the representativesof those who acquired their estates through the Cromwellianconfiscations, after those proprietors had been forced to sell and thepurchasers had obtained a statutory title by buying in the Court, thecharge became obsolete. The motive of the Act was a good one; itwas hoped that land would thus pass out of the hands of impoverishedowners and be purchased by English capitalists who would be able toexecute improvements on their estates and thus benefit the countryas a whole. But the scheme brought with it disadvantages which theframers of the Act had not foreseen. The new purchasers had none ofthe local feelings of the dispossessed owners; they regarded theirpurchases as an investment, which they wished to make as profitable aspossible, and treated the occupants of the land with a harshness whichthe old proprietors would never have exercised. Like most things inIreland, however, this has been much exaggerated. It is constantlyassumed that the whole soil of Ireland after this belonged to absenteeproprietors who took no interest in the country. That absenteeism is agreat evil to any country, and to Ireland especially, no one can deny;but a Parliamentary enquiry in 1869 elicited the fact that the numberof landed proprietors in the rural area of Ireland then (and thereis no reason to suppose that any great change had taken place inthe previous eighteen years) was 19, 547, of whom only 1, 443 couldbe described as "rarely or never resident in Ireland"; and theserepresented 15. 7 per cent. Of the rural area, and only 15. 1 per cent. Of the total poor-law valuation of that area. 

Between 1841 and 1851 the population of the country fell from8, 200, 000 to 6, 574, 000. The primary causes of this were of course thefamine and the fever which broke out amongst the half-starved people;but it was also to a large extent caused by emigration. A numberof devoted and noble-hearted men, realizing that it was hopeless toexpect that the potato disease would disappear, and that consequentlythe holdings had become "uneconomic" (to use the phrase now sopopular) as no other crop was known which could produce anythinglike the same amount of food, saw that the only course to prevent acontinuation of the famine would be to remove a large section of thepeople to a happier country. In this good work the Quakers, who hadbeen untiring in their efforts to relieve distress during the famine, took a prominent part; and the Government gave assistance. At thetime no one regarded this as anything but a beneficent course; for theemigrants found better openings in new and rising countries thanthey ever could have had at home, and the reduced population, earninglarger wages, were able to live in greater comfort. One evidence ofthis has been that mud cabins, which in 1841 had numbered 491, 000had in 1901 been reduced to 9, 000; whilst the best class of housesincreased from 304, 000 to 596, 000. In 1883 the Roman Catholic bishopscame to the conclusion that matters had gone far enough, and that infuture migration from the poorer to the more favoured districts wasbetter than emigration from the country; but they did not say anythingagainst the work that had been done up to that time. Yet a recentNationalist writer, wishing to bring every possible charge against thelandlords, has hinted that the total loss of population from 1841 to1901 was caused by the brutality of the landlords after the famine, who drove the people out of the country! To show the fallacy of this, it is sufficient to point out that the powers of the landlords forgood or evil were considerably reduced by the Land Act of 1870, andafter that they were further diminished by each successive Act untilthe last shred was taken away by the Act of 1887; yet the populationwent down from 5, 412, 377 in 1871 to 4, 453, 775 in 1901--the emigrationbeing larger in proportion from those counties where the NationalLeague was omnipotent than from other parts of Ireland. 

In the early thirties O'Connell commenced his famous agitation for theRepeal of the Union. After he had disappeared from the scene, his workwas taken up by those of his followers who advocated physical force;and in 1848 an actual rebellion broke out, headed by Smith O'Brien. Itended in a ridiculous fiasco. The immediate cause of its failure, asA. M. Sullivan has pointed out, was that the leaders, in imitation ofthe movement of half a century before, endeavoured to eliminate thereligious difficulty and to bring about a rising in which Orangeand Green should be united; but their fight for religious toleranceexposed them to the charge of infidelity; the Roman Catholic priests(who now possessed immense political influence) denounced them; andtheir antagonism was fatal to the movement. 

But one of the most far-seeing of the party--J. F. Lalor--perceivedthat mere repeal would never be strong enough to be a popular cry--itmust be hitched on to some more powerful motive, which could drag italong. As he clearly explained in his manifesto, his objects were theabolition of British government and the formation of a National one. He considered that neither agitation nor the attempt at militaryinsurrection were likely to attain those objects, but that the wisestmeans for that end were the refusal of obedience to usurped authority;taking quiet possession of all the rights and powers of government andproceeding to exercise them; and defending the exercise of such powersif attacked. He saw that the motive power which would carry itselfforward and drag repeal with it, was in the land. He held that thesoil of the country belonged as of right to the entire people of thatcountry, not to any one class but to the nation--one condition beingessential, that the tenant should bear true and undivided allegianceto the nation whose land he held, and owe no allegiance whatever toany other prince, power or people, or any obligation of obedience orrespect to their will, their orders, or their laws. The reconquestof the liberties of Ireland, he argued, would, even if possible byitself, be incomplete and worthless, without the reconquest of theland; whereas the latter, if effected, would involve the former. Hetherefore recommended (1) That occupying tenants should at once refuseto pay all rent except the value of the overplus of harvest produceremaining in their hands after deducting a full provision for theirown subsistence during the ensuing year; (2) that they should forciblyresist being made homeless under the English law of ejectment; (3)that they ought further on principle to refuse _all_ rent to thepresent usurping proprietors, until they should in National Conventiondecide what rents they were to pay and to whom they should pay them;and (4) that the people, on grounds of policy and economy, shoulddecide that those rents should be paid to themselves--the people--forpublic purposes for the benefit of the entire general people. Inthat way a mighty social revolution would be accomplished, and thefoundation of a national revolution surely laid. 

But these views, though shared by J. Mitchel and other leaders, werenot at the time generally adopted; and the next agitations were moredistinctly political than agrarian. The Fenian movement of 1865--1867, the avowed object of which was the establishment of an independentrepublic, arose in America, where it was cleverly devised and ablyfinanced. In Ireland it met with little sympathy except in the towns;and the attempted outbreaks, both there and in Canada, were dismalfailures. Two of their efforts in England, however, led to importantresults. Gladstone made the remarkable statement that it was theirattempt to blow up Clerkenwell prison that enabled him to carrythe Act for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. Many yearsafterwards, when this encouragement to incendiarism had done its work, he denied that he had ever said so; but there is no doubt that he did. 

Here I must digress for a moment to refer to the position of the IrishChurch. By the Act of Union it had been provided that the Churches ofEngland and Ireland as then by law established should be united, andthat the continuation and preservation of the United Church should bedeemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union;and at the time of the agitation for Catholic emancipation the RomanCatholic Bishops of Ireland solemnly declared that their Churchwould never attempt to destroy the Protestant Establishment. This isinteresting as showing how futile are the attempts of one generationto bind posterity by legislation; and how foolish it is to expectthat men will regard themselves as bound by promises made by theirancestors. (The same remark may be made with reference to the promisesnow being made by Nationalists as to the Home Rule Bill. ) The generalprovisions of the Disestablishment Act were simple. Existing clergywere secured in their incomes for life; the disestablished Churchwas allowed to claim all churches then in actual use, and to purchaserectory houses and glebes at a valuation; and a sum of £500, 000 wasgiven to the Church in lieu of all private endowments. Everythingelse--even endowments given by private persons a few years before theAct was passed--was swept away. The members of the Church showed aliberality which their opponents never anticipated. They bought theglebes, continued to pay their clergy by voluntary assessments, andcollected a large sum of money towards a future endowment. Nationalistwriters now state that the Act left the Irish Church with an incomeadequate to its needs and merely applied the surplus revenues to otherpurposes; and hint that the capital sum now possessed by the Churchreally came from the State, and that therefore the future Home RuleGovernment can deal with it as they please. The alarm felt by IrishChurchmen at the prospect can be understood. 

The other Fenian attempt in England which has historical importancewas of a different kind. Two Fenian prisoners were being conveyed in aprison van at Manchester. Their friends tried to rescue them by force;and in the attempt killed the officer in charge. For this crime, threeof them--Allen, Larkin and O'Brien--were tried, convicted and hangedin November 1867. These were the "Manchester Martyrs, " in honour ofwhose unflinching fidelity to faith and country (to quote the wordsof Archbishop Croke) so many memorial crosses have been erected, and solemn demonstrations are held every year to this day. At theunveiling of the memorial cross at Limerick the orator said: "Allen, Larkin and O'Brien died as truly for the cause of Irish Nationality asdid any of the heroes of Irish history. The same cause nerved the armsof the brave men of '98, of '48, of '65 and '67. For the cause thathad lived so long they would not take half measures--nothing elsewould satisfy them than the full measure of Nationality for which theyand their forefathers had fought. "

Meanwhile another movement was going on, which seems to have been atfirst wholly distinct from the Fenian conspiracy--the constitutionalagitation for Home Rule or Repeal, led by Isaac Butt. It commenced itsParliamentary action in 1874; but was ere long broken up by the moreviolent spirits within its own ranks. As had so frequently happened insimilar movements in Ireland, France and elsewhere, the moderatemen were thrust aside, and the extremists carried all before them. Fenianism, though apparently crushed in Ireland, continued to flourishin America. Michael Davitt, who had been a prominent member both ofthe Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood and of the Fenian Society, hadbeen convicted of treason felony, and sentenced to penal servitude. Onhis release in 1877, he was received as a hero, and amongst those whotook part in the welcome to him were C. S. Parnell, J. G. Biggar, J. Carey, D. Curley and J. Brady. He went to America and there maturedthe plan of his operations on the lines laid down by Lalor, which heproceeded to carry out in Ireland in 1879 by means of a Society whichwas at first called the "Land League" but which has since been knownby various other names. Amongst his allies were J. Devoy, O'DonovanRossa, and Patrick Ford. Devoy and Rossa took an active part inestablishing the Skirmishing Fund, which was subscribed for thepurpose of levying war on England with dynamite. Rossa afterwardspublicly boasted that he had placed an infernal machine onboard H. M. S. "Dottrell, " and had sent it and all its crew to the bottom of theocean. As a reward for his patriotic conduct he was some years latergranted a pension by the County Council of Cork, payable out of therates. Ford was the ablest and most powerful of the number, for bymeans of his paper--the _Irish World_--he collected vast sums for theParliamentary party. In this paper he strongly advocated the use ofdynamite as a blessed agent which should be availed of by the Irishpeople in their holy war; and elaborated a scheme for setting fire toLondon in fifty places on a windy night. After D. Curley and J. Bradyhad been hanged for the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke, he collected money for a testimonial to them as heroes, andprayed that God would send Ireland more men with hearts like that ofJ. Brady. Mr. Redmond has recently described him as "the grand oldveteran, who through his newspaper has done more for the last thirtyor forty years for Ireland than almost any man alive"; Mr. T. P. O'Connor has congratulated him on the great work he is doing forIreland; and Mr. Devlin has eulogized him for "the brilliancy in theexposition of the principles inculcated in our programme. "

By 1880 the union between the Dynamite party in America (which boremany names, such as the Fenian Society, the Irish RevolutionaryBrotherhood, the Invincibles, the Clan-na-gael, and the PhysicalForce party, but was essentially the same movement throughout), theconstitutional agitators for Home Rule in Parliament, and the LandLeaguers in Ireland, was complete. It was but natural that it shouldbe so, for their objects were the same, though their methods differedaccording to circumstances. The American party (according to their ownstatements) desired the achievement of a National Parliament so asto give them a footing on Irish soil--to give them the agencies andinstrumentalities for a Government _de facto_ at the very commencementof the Irish struggle--to give them the plant of an armed revolution. Hence they gladly contributed large sums for the Parliamentary Fund. Parnell, the leader of the Parliamentary party, stated that a truerevolutionary movement should partake of a constitutional andan illegal character; it should be both an open and a secretorganization, using the constitution for its own purpose and alsotaking advantage of the secret combination; and (as the judges at theParnell Commission reported) the Land League was established with theintention of bringing about the independence of Ireland as a separatenation. 

In the preceding autumn the agitation against the payment of rent hadbegun; and persons of ordinary intelligence could see that a freshoutbreak of anarchy was imminent. But Gladstone, when coming intopower in March 1880, assumed that air of easy optimism which hissuccessors in more recent times have imitated; and publicly statedthat there was in Ireland an absence of crime and outrage and ageneral sense of comfort and satisfaction such as had been unknownin the previous history of the country. His Chief Secretary, Forster, however, had not been long in Ireland before he realized that thiswas the dream of a madman; and that the Government must either act orabdicate in favour of anarchy; but the Cabinet refused to support him. Before the end of the year the Government had practically abdicated, and the rule of the Land League was the only form of Government inforce in a large part of the country. The name of the unfortunateCaptain Boycott will be for ever associated with the means the Leagueemployed to enforce their orders. What those means were, was explainedby Gladstone himself:--

 "What is meant by boycotting? In the first place it is combined intimidation. In the second place, it is combined intimidation made use of for the purpose of destroying the private liberties of choice by fear of ruin and starvation. In the third place, that which stands in the rear of boycotting and by which alone boycotting can in the long run be made thoroughly effective is the murder which is not to be denounced. "

And a few years later--1886--the Official Report of the CowperCommission stated it more fully:--

 "The people are more afraid of boycotting, which depends for its success on the probability of outrage, than they are of the judgments of the Courts of Justice. The unwritten law in some districts is supreme. We deem it right to call attention to the terrible ordeal that a boycotted person has to undergo, which was by several witnesses graphically described during the progress of our enquiry. The existence of a boycotted person becomes a burden to him, as none in town or village are allowed, under a similar penalty to themselves, to supply him or his family with the necessaries of life. He is not allowed to dispose of the produce of his farm. Instances have been brought before us in which his attendance at divine service was prohibited, in which his cattle have been, some killed, some barbarously mutilated; in which all his servants and labourers were ordered and obliged to leave him; in which the most ordinary necessaries of life and even medical comforts, had to be procured from long distances; in which no one would attend the funeral, or dig a grave for, a member of a boycotted person's family; and in which his children have been forced to discontinue attendance at the National School of the district. "

This was the ordinary form of Government as conducted by theNationalists; and any attempt to interfere with it and to enforce themilder laws of England, is now denounced as "coercion. "

In 1881 Gladstone carried another and a more far-reaching Land Act. Toput it shortly, it may be said that all agricultural land (except thatheld by leaseholders, who were brought in under the Act of 1887)was handed over to the occupiers for ever (with free power of sale), subject only to the payment of rent--the rent not being that which thetenants had agreed to pay, but that which a Land Court decided to Bea "fair rent. " This was to last for fifteen years, at the end of whichtime the tenant might again claim to have a fair rent fixed, and so_ad infinitum_. The Land Court in most cases cut down the rent byabout 20 or 25 per cent. ; and at the end of fifteen years did thesame again. As tithes (which had been secularized but not abolished), mortgages and family charges remained unchanged, the result was thata large proportion of landlords were absolutely ruined; in very manycases those who appear as owners now have no beneficial interest intheir estates. 

In examining the Act calmly, one must observe in the first place thatit was a wholesale confiscation of property. Not of course onethat involved the cruelty of confiscations of previous ages, but aconfiscation all the same. For if A. Bought a farm in the IncumberedEstates Court, with a Parliamentary title, and let it to B. For twentyyears at a rent of £100; and the Act gave B. The right of occupying itfor ever subject to the payment of £50 a year, and selling it for anyprice he liked, that can only mean the transfer of property from A. ToB. Secondly, the Act encouraged bad farming; for a tenant knew thatif his land got into a slovenly state--with drains stopped up, fencesbroken down, and weeds growing everywhere--the result would be thatthe rent would be reduced by the Commissioners at the end of thefifteen years; as the Commissioners did not go into the question ofwhose the fault was, but merely took estimates as to what should bethe rent of the land in its actual condition. That farms were in manyinstances intentionally allowed to go to decay with this object, hasbeen proved; and this pressed hard on the labouring class, as lessemployment was given. Thirdly, although the remission of debt maybring prosperity for a time, it may be doubted whether it willpermanently benefit the country; for it will be noticed that theattempt to fix prices arbitrarily applied only to the letting andhiring and not to other transactions. To give a typical instance ofwhat has occurred in many cases: a tenant held land at a rent of £1. 15s. 0d. Per acre; he took the landlord into Court, swore that theland could not bear such a rent, and had it reduced to £1. 5s. 0d. ;thereupon he sold it for £20 an acre; and so the present occupier hadto pay £1. 5s. 0d. To the nominal landlord, and the interest on thepurchase-money (about £1 per acre) to a mortgagee; in fact, he hasto pay a larger sum annually than any previous tenant did; and thispayment is "rent" in the economic sense though it is paid not to aresident landlord but to a distant mortgagee. In other words, rentwas increased, and absenteeism became general. Fourthly, it sowedthe seeds for future trouble; for it was the temporary union of twoantagonistic principles. On the one hand it was said that "the man whotills the land should own it, " and therefore rent was an unjusttax (in fact it was seriously argued that men of English and Scotchdescent who had hired farms in the nineteenth century had a moralright to keep them for ever rent free because tribal tenure hadprevailed amongst the Celts who occupied the country many hundreds ofyears before); on the other it was said that the land belonged to thepeople of Ireland as a whole and not to any individuals. If that isso, what right has one man to a large farm when there are hundreds ofothers in a neighbouring town who have no land at all? The passing ofthe Land Acts of 1881 and 1887 made it inevitable that sooner or latera fresh agitation would be commenced by "landless men. " And fifthly, when an excitable, uneducated people realize that lawlessness andoutrages will be rewarded by an Act remitting debts and breakingcontracts, they are not likely in future to limit their operationsto land, but will apply the same maxims to other contracts. Thedemoralizing of character is a fact to be taken into consideration. 

However, the Act was passed; and if Gladstone really imagined thatit would satisfy the Nationalist party he must have been grievouslydisappointed. During 1881, 4, 439 agrarian outrages were recorded. TheGovernment declared the Land League to be illegal, and lodged some ofthe leaders in gaol. Thereupon Ford, carrying out the plan laid downby Lalor in 1848, issued his famous "No Rent" proclamation. It was notgenerally acted upon; but his party continued active, and in May 1882Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke (the Chief and Under Secretary)were murdered in the Phoenix Park. This led to the passing of theCrimes Prevention Act, by which the detectives were enabled to secureevidence against the conspirators, many of whom (as is usual in Irishhistory) turned Queen's evidence. The Act was worked with firmness;and outrages, which had numbered 2, 507 during the first half of 1882, fell to 836 in the latter half, to 834 in 1883, and to 774 in 1884. 

In the autumn of 1885, Gladstone, expecting to return to power atthe ensuing election, besought the electors to give him a majorityindependent of the Irish vote. In this he failed; and thereupon tookplace the "Great Surrender. " He suddenly discovered that everythinghe had said and done up to that time had been wrong; that boycotting, under the name of "exclusive dealing, " was perfectly justifiable;that the refusal to pay rent was just the same as a strike of workmen(ignoring the obvious facts that when workmen strike they cease bothto give their labour and to receive pay, whereas the gist of the "NoRent" movement was that tenants, whilst ceasing to pay, should retainpossession of the farms they have hired; and that a strike arises froma dispute between employers and employed--usually about rates of payor length of hours; whereas Ford's edict that no rent was to be paidwas issued not in consequence of anything that individual landlordshad done, but because Gladstone had put the leaders of the Land Leaguein gaol); that the men whom he had previously denounced as "marchingthrough rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire" were heroes whodeserved to be placed in charge of the government of the country; andintroduced his first Home Rule Bill. Some of his followers went withhim; others refused. His life-long ally, John Bright, said: "I cannottrust the peace and interests of Ireland, north and south, to theIrish Parliamentary party, to whom the Government now propose tomake a general surrender. My six years' experience of them, of theirlanguage in the House of Commons and their deeds in Ireland, makes itimpossible for me to consent to hand over to them the property andthe rights of five millions of the Queen's subjects, ourfellow-countrymen, in Ireland. At least two millions of them are asloyal as the population of your town, and I will be no party to ameasure which will thrust them from the generosity and justice of theUnited and Imperial Parliament. "

The Bill was rejected; at the general election which ensued the peopleof England declared against the measure; Gladstone resigned, and LordSalisbury became Prime Minister. 

CHAPTER XI. 

THE UNIONIST GOVERNMENT OF 1886. 

The Unionists, on returning to power in 1886, fully realized thedifficulty of the problem with which they were faced. The Nationalistsheld a great Convention at Chicago, at which they resolved to makeuse of the Land League not merely for the purpose of exterminatinglandlords but as a means for promoting universal disorder and sobringing about a paralysis of the law. As J. Redmond stated at theConvention: "I assert that the government of Ireland by England is animpossibility, and I believe it to be our duty to make it so. " And, ashe afterwards explained in Ireland, he considered that if the Torieswere able to carry on the government with the ordinary law, thecause of Home Rule might be set back for a generation; but if theNationalists could succeed in making such government impossible, andthe Tories were obliged to have recourse to coercion, the peopleof Great Britain would turn them out of office, and Gladstone wouldreturn to power and carry Home Rule. (This avowed determination on thepart of the Nationalists to reduce the country to anarchy should beborne in mind when people now express their horror at the Ulstermenbeing guilty of such conduct as breaking the law. ) With this object, the Nationalists in 1887 organized the "Plan of Campaign, " whichwas in fact an elaboration of the "No Rent" manifesto of 1881, anda scheme for carrying out, step by step, the programme laid down byLalor in 1848. One of Lalor's adherents had been a young priest namedCroke. By 1887 he had become Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel. Hehad considered the "No Rent" manifesto inopportune; but now formallysanctioned the "Plan of Campaign, " and in a violent letter urged thatit should be extended to a general refusal to pay taxes. The Planwas also approved by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin and theleaders of the Nationalist movement in Ireland and America, such asJ. Dillon and Ford; but Parnell seemed doubtful, and in England the_Daily News_ denounced it. 

However, the Unionist Government had decided on their policy, whichthey were determined to carry through. The main items of theirprogramme were (1) To enforce the law; (2) To facilitate landpurchase; (3) To develop the industries of the country; and (4) Toextend local government. It is well to examine these in detail, so asto arrive at a just estimate of the two rival policies. 

(i) The Crimes Prevention Act passed by Gladstone in 1882 had lapsed, having been limited to a period of three years. Mr. Balfour (who hadbecome Chief Secretary) was of opinion that the continual passing oftemporary measures was a mistake (as some one has said, it was likea man burning his umbrella every fine day and then complaining of theexpense of buying so many new ones), as was shown by the fact that theIrish Parliament had passed fifty-four of such Acts in the seventeenyears of its independent existence. He therefore, in spite of vehementopposition from the combined forces of the English Radicals andthe Irish Nationalists, carried the Crimes Act of 1887, which wasa permanent measure, to be put in force in disturbed districts byproclamation when necessary. This was the famous "Coercion Act"which has been the subject of so much violent denunciation. But inconsidering the matter, one must ask, What Government has there everbeen in the world that did not employ force in the carrying out of thelaw? It is true that in the early days of New Zealand Mr. Busby wassent out as a Commissioner with no means of enforcing his orders;but the only result was that he was laughed at by the natives as "aman-of-war without guns"; and no one can say that the scheme was asuccess. In fact, how can a law be a law unless it is enforced? TheAct does not make anything a crime that was not a crime before; itmerely provides a shorter form of procedure when a district is socompletely terrorized by an illegal association that injured personsdare not make complaints, witnesses dare not give evidence, and juriesdare not convict. This, as we have seen, had been the case in partsof Ireland at the beginning of the rebellion of 1798; and theNationalists, who claimed to be the modern representatives of therebels of that time, had succeeded in bringing about the same state ofthings. In some of its most stringent provisions the Act is a copy ofthe Police Act permanently in force in London; yet ordinary residentsin the Metropolis do not seem to groan much under its tyranny, nor dothe Radicals propose to repeal it. 

And certainly the Act has worked satisfactorily from the point ofview of those who desire to see the country in a state of peace andprosperity, though disastrously in the opinion of those who aim atmaking government impossible. Between July, 1887, when the Act cameinto force, and the end of the year, 628 persons were prosecuted, ofwhom 378 were convicted and 37 held to bail. In 1888 there were 1, 475prosecutions, 907 convictions, and 175 persons required to find bail. By 1891 (the last full year of Unionist Government) crime had sunk sorapidly that in that year there were only 243 persons prosecuted, of whom 105 were convicted, and 81 held to bail. In 1901 (when theUnionists were again in power) there were 29 prosecutions and 22convictions. In 1902 there was a revival of crime; the Act was againbrought into operation, with much the same result as before--therewere 157 prosecutions, 104 convictions, and 17 persons were held tobail. In 1903 there were 3 prosecutions and 3 convictions. 

(2) _Land Purchase_. The Unionist Government considered that the dualownership set up by the Act of 1881 would be a constant source oftrouble, and that its working could not be for the benefit of thecountry. They believed that the best solution of the land questionwould be a system of purchase whereby the occupiers would becomeowners. This of course was entirely opposed to the wishes of theNationalists; for if the land question was settled, the motive powerwhich was to carry separation with it, would be gone. 

Some efforts in the direction of Land Purchase had been made in 1870(at the instance of Mr. Bright) and in 1881; but nothing was done ona large scale until 1885, when the "Ashbourne Act" was passed;and various further steps were taken by the Unionist Government, culminating in the great "Wyndham Act" of 1903. By the earlier Acts, 73, 858 tenants became owners; by the Wyndham Act, 253, 625. As thetotal number of agricultural tenants of Ireland amounted to slightlyunder 600, 000, it will be seen that more than half of them have nowpurchased their holdings. To explain the general principles of theAct, it is sufficient to say that when the landlord and tenants ofan estate agree to a sale, the Government advance the money, andthe tenant purchasers undertake to repay it by annual instalmentsextending over a period of 68 years. As these annual payments must beless than the existing rent as fixed by the Land Court under the Actof 1881, the purchasing tenant has no ground for complaint; and thoughthe income of the landlord is reduced by the sale, he is freed fromfurther anxiety; and besides, the Government give a bonus to thevendor from Imperial funds. It will be seen at once that the schemewould have been impossible under Home Rule; for the English Governmenthad by the end of March 1911, agreed to advance the enormous sum ofnearly £118, 000, 000; an amount which no Irish Government could haveraised except at such an exorbitant rate of interest that it wouldhave been out of the question. On the other hand, England has becomethe creditor of the new Irish landowners for this vast amount; andin the event of Separation a serious difficulty may arise as to itsrepayment. 

It may interest readers in the Colonies to learn that the Governmentthoughtfully passed a Registration of Titles Act in 1891; so that theIrish purchasers under the various Land Acts have the benefits whichwere first introduced in Australia by Sir Robert Torrens. 

The Act of 1903 had the cordial support of a small minority ofNationalists; but to the majority it was gall and wormwood. Hence Mr. Birrell, when he became Chief Secretary, threw every obstacle he couldinto the way of its working; and in 1909 he passed a new measure, under which land purchase has practically ceased. 

(3)_The development of the Industries of the Country_. That has ofcourse taken various forms, of which only a few can be mentioned here. By the Light Railways (for which the country has to thank Mr. Balfourhimself) remote and hitherto inaccessible districts have been broughtinto touch with the rest of the world; and by an expenditure of£2, 106, 000 the railway mileage of Ireland has been increased from2, 643 miles in 1890 to 3, 391 in 1906. Then it is hardly too much tosay that the Labourers' Cottages Act, and the grants made under it, have transformed the face of the country. 

By this Act, District Councils are enabled, in localities whereaccommodation for labourers is insufficient, to take land compulsorilyand erect cottages, the money advanced by the Government for thepurpose being gradually repaid by the ratepayers. The wretched hovelswhich were the disgrace of Ireland from the dawn of history until aperiod within living memory, have almost disappeared; and comfortable, sanitary and pleasing dwellings have taken their place. 

Even this excellent Act, however, is now used by the Nationalists tofurther their own objects. One instance may suffice. In 1907 a farmerfell under the ban of the League and was ordered to be boycotted. TheDistrict Council found that one occupant of a "Labourer's Cottage"disregarded the order and continued to work for the boycotted farmer. They promptly evicted him. What would be said in England if a Torylandlord evicted a cottager for working for a Radical farmer?

But even more important than these measures has been the establishmentof the Department of Agriculture. The success of this has been due tothe ability, energy and unselfishness of Sir Horace Plunkett. The mainobject of the Department was to instruct the farming classes in themost effective methods of agriculture and the industries connectedwith it. This by itself would have been a great work; but Sir Horacehas also founded the Irish Agricultural Organization Society, toencourage co-operative organization amongst farmers, based onthe principle of mutual help; and the success of this, worked inconjunction with the Department, has been marvellous. More than ninehundred local societies have been established, for the promotion ofindustries such as dairying and poultry farming; co-operative creditbanks have been formed, based on what is known in Germany as theRaffeisen system. The turnover of these societies in 1908 amountedto more than £2, 250, 000. Agricultural Organization Societies, inimitation of the Irish one, have been formed in England and Scotland;and so far did its fame reach that the Americans sent over an agent toenquire into its working. 

Of course it is unfair to attribute the prosperity or the decline ofa country to any one measure; and more than that, it is only by takinginto consideration a number of circumstances and a long term of yearsthat we can decide whether prosperity is real or merely transitory. But that Ireland increased in prosperity under the influence ofthe Unionist Government, cannot be denied; indeed Mr. Redmond, whenshepherding the Eighty Club (an English Radical Society) throughIreland in 1911, did not deny the prosperity of the country, and couldonly suggest that the same reforms would have been introduced andbetter carried out under an Irish Parliament--regardless of the factsthat no Nationalist Government could have found the money forthem; and that Nationalists are orators and politicians, not menof business. The combined value of exports and imports rose from104, 000, 000 in 1904 to 125, 000, 000 in 1909; and the gross receipts onrailways from £4, 140, 000 to £11, 335, 000. The deposits in savings banksrose from £3, 128, 000 in 1888 to £10, 627, 000 in 1908. The tonnageof shipping in Irish ports was 11, 560, 000 in 1900; in 1910 it was13, 475, 000. 

Sir Horace had done his utmost to prevent the curse of politicalstrife from entering into his agricultural projects. He had beencareful to appoint Nationalists to some of the most important officesin his Department, and to show no more favour to one part of thecountry than another. But all in vain; the National League, when theirfriends returned to power, at once resolved to undo his labours, someof them openly saying that the increased attention devoted totrade and agriculture was turning men's thoughts away from the moreimportant work of political agitation. Mr. T. W. Russell, a man totallyignorant of agricultural affairs, whose only claim to the office wasthat he was a convert to Nationalism, was appointed in place ofSir Horace. He promptly declined to continue to the AgriculturalOrganization Society the support which it had previously receivedfrom the Department; and, with the aid of the United Irish League, succeeded in preventing the Society from receiving a grant from theBoard of Agriculture similar to those given to the English and Scotchsocieties; threw discredit on the Co-operative Credit Banks, anddenounced the Co-operative Farming Societies as injurious to localshopkeepers. And thus he made it clear that it is impossible inIreland to conduct even such a business as the development ofagriculture without stirring up political bitterness. 

Another effort of Mr. Balfour's--the establishment of the CongestedDistricts Board--has had a strange and instructive history. It wasestablished in 1891. Mr. Balfour decided to entrust to a small body ofIrishmen, selected irrespective of party considerations, the task ofmaking an experiment as to what could be done to relieve the poorestparts of Ireland; and with this object, the Board, though endowed withonly small funds, were given the widest powers over the area withinwhich they were to operate. They were empowered to take such steps asthey thought proper for (1) Aiding migration or emigration from thecongested districts, and settling the migrant or emigrant in hisnew home; and (2) Aiding and developing agriculture, forestry, and breeding of live stock and poultry, weaving, spinning, fishing(including the construction of piers and harbours, and supplyingfishing boats and gear and industries subservient to and connectedwith fishing), and any other suitable industries. Both the powers andthe revenues of the Board were increased from time to time, until by1909 its annual expenditure amounted to nearly £250, 000. It becameclear almost at the beginning of its labours that amongst the manydifficulties which the Board would have to face there were twopre-eminent ones; if it was desired to enlarge uneconomic holdings byremoving a part of the population to other districts, the people to beremoved might not wish to go; and the landless men in the district towhich they were to be removed might say that they had a better rightto the land than strangers from a distance, and the result might be afree fight. As the only chance of success for the labours of the Boardwas the elimination of party politics, Mr. J. Morley, on becomingChief Secretary in the Gladstonian Government of 1892, appointed asCommissioners Bishop O'Donnell of Raphoe (the Patron of the AncientOrder of Hibernians, and a Trustee of the Parliamentary Fund of theUnited Irish League); and the Rev. D. O'Hara, a leading ClericalNationalist of a violent type. It is needless to say that under theirinfluence the action of the Board has been conducted on strictlyNationalist lines. One instance may suffice. In 1900, the Board, having come into the possession of the Dillon estate, wished to sellit to the tenants; and when doing so, considering the sporting rightsto be a valuable asset, decided to reserve them. A considerable numberof the tenants expressed their readiness to purchase their holdingssubject to the reservation. The Board received an offer of £11, 000for the mansion, demesne and sporting rights over the estate. Thereservation of sporting rights when, taking the whole estate, theywere of pecuniary value, had been the common practice of the Board inother sales; but an agitation was at once got up (not by the tenants)against the reservation in this case, on the ground that it was notright for the Board to place any burden on the fee simple of theholdings; the offer of £11, 000 was refused, and soon afterwards theBoard sold the mansion and the best part of the demesne to a communityof Belgian nuns for £2, 100. The sporting rights, which became theproperty of the purchasing tenants, ceased to be of any appreciablepecuniary value, though in a few cases the tenants succeeded inselling their share of them for small sums to local agitators. When awitness before the Royal Commission of 1906 ventured to point out thatthe taxpayers thus lost £8, 900 by the transaction, he was severelyrebuked by the Clerical members of the Commission for suggestingthat the presence of the Belgian nuns was not a great benefit to theneighbourhood. 

This Royal Commission was appointed ostensibly for the purpose ofenquiring into and reporting upon the operations of the Board sinceits foundation. After going through a mass of evidence, the Chairman(Lord Dudley) said that the Board had tried for twenty years todevelop new industries and had failed; and another member (LordMacDonnell) said that it had only touched the fringe of the question;and, considering that in spite of all its efforts at promoting localindustries, emigration continued to be greater from the districtsubject to its control than from any other part of Ireland, it is hardto see what other view was possible. But the large majority of theCommission were ardent Nationalists--in fact, one of them a short timebefore his appointment had publicly advocated an absolute, rigorous, complete and exhaustive system of boycotting; and the witness whospoke for the United Irish League told the Commission that it was thestrong view of the League that the Board should be preserved. It wasonly natural therefore that the Commission should report that in theiropinion the powers and scope of its operations should be extended andits income largely increased. This was accordingly done by the BirrellAct of 1909. One of the most important functions of the Board wasthe purchase of land, for which they possessed compulsory powers. Thewitness who had appeared before the Commission as representing theUnited Irish League was Mr. FitzGibbon, Chairman of the RoscommonCounty Council, and now a Member of Parliament. He had previously beensent to prison for inciting to the Plan of Campaign, and for criminalconspiracy. He had also taken a leading part in the cattle-drivingagitation (to which I shall refer later) and had announced that hispolicy was "to enable the Board to get land at fag-end prices. " Hewas therefore appointed by Mr. Birrell to be a member of the Board, asbeing a suitable person to decide what compensation should be paidfor land taken compulsorily. He publicly stated that his object was tocarry out the great work of Michael Davitt. And he certainly has beenactive in doing so; and now the agitators, when they want to have anestate transferred to the Board, commence by preventing its beinglet or used, and so compelling the owner to leave it derelictand unprofitable; then, when by every description of villainy andboycotting it has been rendered almost worthless, the CongestedDistricts Board (who have carefully lain by until then) step in witha preposterous offer which the unfortunate owner has no choice butto accept. This may appear strong language to use with reference toa Government Department presided over by Roman Catholic bishops andpriests; but the words are not mine; they are taken from the judgmentof Mr. Justice Ross, in the case of the Browne Estate. 

At any rate, whatever else the Congested Districts Board may haveachieved, they have done one good thing; they have shown to Unionistsin Ireland what the principles of justice are by which the NationalistGovernment will be conducted. 

(4) The fourth division of the Unionist policy was the extension oflocal government. By the Act of 1898 County and District Councils wereformed, like those which had been existing in England for a fewyears previously; and the powers of the old Grand Juries (who itwas admitted had done their work well, but were now objected to onprinciple as not being elected bodies) were abolished. The importanceof the measure can hardly be overestimated; for not only did itre-organize local government on what would elsewhere be a democraticbut is in Ireland a Clerical basis; but also it may be described asHome Rule on a small scale. By examining into the practical working ofthe scheme we may form an idea as to what Home Rule is likely to be;and both parties refer to it as a ground for their opinion. It iscurious now to note that it was Gerald Balfour, the Unionist ChiefSecretary, who, when introducing the measure, appealed to the Irishgentry not to stand aloof from the new order of things, but to seekfrom the suffrages of their fellow-citizens that position which noothers were so well qualified to fill as themselves--in much the sameway that English Radical orators now accuse the Ulstermen of wantof patriotism when they declare that they will never take part in aNationalist Government. The Nationalists were of course loud in theirprotestations that in the noble work of local government all narrowpolitical and sectarian bitterness would be put aside, and allIrishmen irrespective of creed, class or party would be welcome totake part--just as they are now when they promise the same about theNational Parliament. Thus J. Redmond said:

 "No man's politics or religion will be allowed to be a bar to him if he desires to serve his country on one of the new bodies. Men of different creeds, who have had an almost impassable gulf between them all their lives, will be brought together for the first time in the working of this scheme of Local Government. . . . On every one of the juries in Ireland there have been county gentlemen who have shown the greatest aptitude for business, the greatest industry, and the greatest ability; and I say it would be a monstrous thing if, by working the election of these County Councils on narrow sectarian or political lines, men of that class were excluded from the service of their country. "

And another Nationalist Member added: "We are anxious for theco-operation of those who have leisure, wealth and knowledge. " IrishUnionists who refused to believe these assurances were denounced byNationalists as bigots and humbugs. The value of the assurances of1912 may be gauged by the manner in which those of 1898 have beenfulfilled. At the election of 1899 a few Protestants and Unionistswere returned. But the general feeling of the newly-formed Councilsmay be gathered from the following resolution which was passed by theMayo County Council in that year:

 "That we, the members of the Mayo County Council, congratulate the gallant Boers on their brilliant defeats of the troops of the pirate Saxon. That we hope that a just Providence will strengthen the arms of these farmer fighters in their brave struggle for their independence. And we trust that as Babylon fell, and as Rome fell, so also may fall the race and nation whose creed is the creed of greed, and whose god is the god of Mammon. "

And by 1902, when the next triennial elections were coming on, the mask was thrown off. The _Freeman's Journal_ (the principalNationalist organ) said:--

 "In every County or District Council where a landlord, however amiable, or personally estimable, offers himself for election, the answer of the majority must be the same: 'No admittance here. '"And J. Redmond stated the case still more plainly:

 "We have in our hands a weapon recently won, the full force of which is not yet, I believe, thoroughly understood by the English Government or by ourselves. I mean the weapon of freely-elected County Councils and District Councils who to-day form a network of National organizations all over Ireland, and who to-morrow, I doubt not, if the other organizations were struck, would be willing to come forward and take their place, and, in their Council Chambers, carry on the National work. "

Pledges in the following form were presented for signature to allcandidates by the United Irish League (except of course in north-eastUlster):--

 "I ---- hereby pledge myself, if elected to represent the ---- Division on the County Council, to promote the interests of the United Irish League, and to resign my position whenever called upon to do so by the ---- Divisional Executive. "

So completely has the policy been carried out that by 1911, toquote the words of Mr. FitzGibbon, M. P. (to whom I have previouslyreferred):--

 "There was not a landlord in the country who could get his agent returned as District Councillor or County Councillor, or even his eldest son or himself. The Organization had emancipated the people; it had given them the power which their enemies had wielded; it had cleared the road for Ireland's freedom. "

At present Unionists and Nationalists are pretty evenly divided in theCounty Councils of Ulster; in the other three Provinces amongst 703County Councillors there are only fifteen Unionists. In other words, the Act has enabled the Nationalist party to carry out the plan laiddown by Lalor of taking quiet and peaceable possession of allthe rights and powers of government, as a stepping-stone towardsIndependence. 

Of course it may be said with much truth that if the large majority ofthe people are Nationalists they are perfectly justified in choosingNationalists as their representatives. But that is not the point. Thereal point is that in spite of the protestations of the Nationalistsat the time of the passing of the Act, politics in their bitterestform have been brought in, and the Unionist minority have beendeprived of all share in the local government of the country. 

To illustrate this still further, I may add that a General Councilof County Councils was formed in 1900, for the purpose of promoting afair and equitable administration of the Act. In order that the UlsterCouncils might unite with the others, it was agreed that politicsshould be excluded. But after the election of 1902, that agreementwas abandoned; and, rather than take part in what had become a merepolitical gathering, the Ulster representatives withdrew. Leftto themselves, the Nationalist General Council in 1906 passed thefollowing resolution:--

 "That the Irish people are a free people, with a natural right to govern themselves; that no Parliament is competent to make such laws for Ireland except an Irish Parliament, sitting in Dublin; and that the claim by other bodies of men to make laws for us to govern Ireland is illegal, unconstitutional, and at variance with the rights of the people. "

If such a body as the General Council of County Councils pass aresolution like this, is there much probability that the NationalistParliament will refrain from doing the same, should the ImperialParliament attempt to exercise the power given to it by the presentBill, and to legislate for Ireland?

But again it may be said that though the Councils have thus becomepolitical bodies, they have conducted their business so admirablythat their conduct is a powerful argument to show that a NationalistParliament will be equally practical and liberal. This is the view putforward by Nationalist orators and their humble follower Mr. Birrell, who in November 1911, informed his friends at Bristol that the Irishhad shown a great capacity for local government and that from whatpeople who had seen a great deal of the south and west of Ireland toldhim there was no fear of persecution or oppression by the Catholicmajority of their Protestant fellow-subjects. In support of this, various facts are adduced, which it is well to examine in detail, remembering the poet's words that

 "A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies. "

One of the greatest powers possessed by the County Councils is theexercise of patronage. It would probably be generally admitted in anycountry but Ireland that there, if anywhere, religion and politicsshould be excluded, and men selected only for their qualifications. The Nationalists, wishing to demonstrate the fairness of the Councilswhich hold their views, contrast the bigotry shown by the UnionistCorporation of Belfast with the liberality of similar bodies in otherparts of the country. And certainly the figures they adduce, whenaddressing audiences in England or writing for English readers, arevery striking. Thus Mr. Birrell said at Skipton in November 1911 thathe had been told that in the great Unionist City of Belfast there wasonly one Roman Catholic in the employment of the Corporation, and hewas a scavenger. (It will be observed that here, as in many of hisspeeches, he carefully used the expression "he had been told"--sothat what he said may be literally true, even though when he heard thestatement he knew that it was false. ) And Stephen Gwynn, M. P. , in his"Case for Home Rule, " says: "In Belfast, Catholics are a third of thepopulation; but the Corporation pays £51, 405 in a year in salaries, of which only £640 goes to Catholics. " And about the same time asMr. Birrell's oration, Mr. Redmond, speaking at Swindon, said that inGalway, Cork, Westmeath and King's County (where Roman Catholics formthe large majority of the population) Protestants held 23 per cent. Ofthe salaried appointments in the gift of the Councils. 

But when we descend from the airy height of Nationalist rhetoric tothe prosaic region of fact, we find that the rates of the Cityof Belfast amount to about £342, 000; of this sum, Roman Catholicratepayers pay less than £18, 000. There are nine hundred RomanCatholics in the employment of the Corporation, and they receive insalaries about £48, 000 per annum. And as to the figures quoted by Mr. Redmond, we find that he omitted to state that not one of the 23 percent. Had been appointed by a County Council; they were all survivalsof the system in force before 1899, whose positions were secured bystatute; and in not one of the counties he mentioned has a Unionistbeen appointed to any salaried office since that date. To take theCounty of Cork as a specimen; there are ninety-four salariedoffices in the gift of the County Council; of these nine are heldby Protestants--but they were all appointed before 1899. Of thethirty-three salaried offices in the gift of the City Corporation, twoare held by Protestants--but these also were appointed before 1898;and yet the Protestants pay nearly half the rates. And in Irelandthere is not the slightest attempt at concealment in the matter;thus in one case a District Council adopted by formal resolution therequest of the local priests not to support any candidate who didnot produce a testimonial from the parish priest; as a Councillorremarked, it was the simplest way of stating that no Protestant needapply. 

But it is in the appointment of medical officers ("dispensary doctors"as they are technically called in Ireland) that the policy of theNationalists has been most marked. Many years ago, the late CardinalCullen ruled that it was a mortal sin to vote for a heretic for suchan office; now, however, the bishops have gone further. There arethree medical schools in Dublin--Trinity College, the College ofSurgeons, and the Catholic University School; and three in theprovinces--at Belfast, Cork and Galway. The Medical School of TrinityCollege has a world-wide reputation. The students are required tocomplete their Arts course before specializing in medicine (thusensuring that they shall be men of general culture and not merely ofprofessional training); the professors and lecturers are amongst theablest men of the day; the students have the advantage of the largecity hospitals for their clinical studies; and the standard requiredfor a degree is high. And not only is Trinity College open to allstudents without distinction of creed, but the College authoritieshave frequently offered a site within their grounds for a RomanCatholic Chapel and the salary of a Chaplain who would take spiritualcare of his flock. Nevertheless the Roman Catholic bishops haveordered that no candidate who has been trained at any College exceptthe Catholic University school shall be eligible for the post ofDispensary Doctor; and when an election takes place (as for instancethat at Kiltimagh in 1905) the question of professional qualificationis not taken into consideration--having been trained at a "godlesscollege" is a fatal bar to any candidate, however able. In theKiltimagh case, the resolution passed shortly after the election bythe local branch of the United Irish League is instructive reading:--

 "That we, the members of the Kiltimagh Branch of the United Irish League, take advantage of this our first meeting since the important Election of Medical Officer for the Kiltimagh Dispensary District, to express our appreciation of all the Guardians for the several divisions in this parish for the faithful honesty with which they represented us on that occasion. We feel proud to know that not one of our representatives voted for a Queen's College man against a Catholic University man. They voted for a man who is the stamp of man we want--a sound Catholic, a sound Nationalist, a Gaelic Leaguer, and a highly qualified medical man. We believe their action will meet with the approval of the Bishops and Priests of Ireland. "

To one who lives in Ireland it is sad enough to see year by year themost able and promising of the medical students being driven outof the country on account of their religion, and forced to look foropenings elsewhere; but to a thoughtful observer it is even worse thanthat; it is the beginning of the new Penal Laws. 

And when we turn to other matters, where the marvellous efficiency ofthe County Councils exists, is hard for an unprejudiced enquirerto find. The old Grand Juries handed over the roads and bridges inexcellent order; they are certainly not better now, and in many casesworse. In fact, one English theoretical Radical who paid a brief visitto Ireland, inhaled so much Hibernian logic during his hurried tourthat he solemnly argued that the badness of the roads proved that theCouncils had been governing too economically; and therefore what wasneeded was a central body--that is, an Irish Parliament--to stir upthe local administration! Nationalist writers claim that the ratesare going down; but that merely means that they are not so high now asthey were soon after the Act came into force, not that they are lowerthan before 1898. It was expected that the rates would be reduced bythe operation of the Old Age Pensions Act; but that has not proved tobe the case. And the increase in local indebtedness is alarming. 

To sum up, therefore, I trust that I have, even in this brief sketch, made it clear that the policy of the Unionist Government, taken asa whole, has been of immense benefit to the social and materialprosperity of Ireland; and that the points in which it has failedhave been those where their reforms have fallen under the power of theNationalists, who have either thwarted them, or made use of themto further their own ideas. I shall next proceed to examine thealternative policy, which is being carried out by the presentGovernment. 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE GLADSTONIAN GOVERNMENT OF 1892. THE POLITICAL SOCIETIES. 

During the Gladstone-Rosebery Government--from 1892 to 1895--mattersin Ireland were quiet. The Nationalists were at first on their bestbehaviour, in consequence of the promised introduction of the HomeRule Bill; and after its rejection by the Upper House, the time wastoo short for anything serious to happen. But the period was marked bythe commencement of one great change in Irish administration. It mustbe admitted by impartial observers that the old landlord party, with all their faults, made as a rule excellent magistrates. A largeproportion of them were retired military officers, who had gained someexperience in duties of the sort in their regiments; others were menof superior education, who studied with care the laws they were toadminister. Living in the locality, they knew the habits and feelingsof the people; and yet they were sufficiently separated from them tobe able to act as impartial judges; and no charges of bribery wereever made against them. And, the work being congenial, they gladlydevoted their spare time to it. Gladstone's Chief Secretary (thepresent Lord Morley) determined to alter all this; he accordinglyappointed to the Bench a large number of men drawn from a lower socialstratum, less educated and intelligent than those previously chosen, but more likely to administer "Justice according to Irish ideas. "Then the operation of the Local Government Act, by which Chairmen ofCouncils (all of course Nationalists) became _ex officio_ magistrates, completed a social revolution by entirely altering the character ofthe Bench. In some localities the magistrates previously appointedrealizing that, being now in a minority, they could be of no furtheruse on the Bench, withdrew; in others, though the old magistratescontinued to sit, they found themselves persistently outvoted on everypoint; so what good they have done by remaining, it is hard to see. Amongst the men appointed under the new system, there have beenseveral instances of justices who have continued to act without theslightest shame or scruple although they have been convicted of suchoffences as drunkenness, selling drink on unlicensed premises, orcorrupt practices at elections. But worse than that: the new orderof justices do not regard their duties as magisterial, but political;they give but little attention to ordinary cases, but attend infull strength to prevent the conviction of any person for an outrageorganized by the United Irish League; and do not hesitate to promisebeforehand that they will do so. If by any chance a sufficient numberare not present to carry their purpose, the names of the absentees arepublished in the Black List of the League--and the result of that isso well known that they are not likely to offend again. Hence comesthe contemptible exhibition--now not infrequent--of men being chargedbefore the Bench, and no evidence being offered for the defence;yet the Stipendiary Magistrate being obliged to say that though heconsiders the case proved, the majority of the Bench have decided torefuse informations. Even a Roman Catholic Bishop has confessed thatnow magistrates too often have no respect for their obligations todispense the law justly and without favour; and that the Bench issometimes so "packed" that the culprits, though guilty, are certain tobe acquitted. 

 * * * * *

Before discussing the policy of the present Government since itcame into power in 1906, it is well to explain what the principalsocieties--secret or other--are which now conduct the Government ofIreland. In one sense indeed the names are immaterial; for, as in1798, in whatever various ways the societies have commenced, they areall working towards the same end, and being controlled by the sameforces. 

The Land League, which was founded in 1879 as a league for ruininglandlords as a stepping-stone towards independence, having beensuppressed by Gladstone in 1881, was reformed under the name of theIrish National League. This was in its turn suppressed in 1887, and in1898 appeared once more under the name of the United Irish Leaguewith J. Redmond as President and J. Devlin as Secretary. In 1901 Mr. Redmond explained the objects of the League as follows:--

 "The United Irish League is not merely an agrarian movement. It is first, last, and all the time a National movement; and those of us who are endeavouring to rouse the farmers of Ireland, as we endeavoured twenty years ago in the days of the Land League, to rouse them, are doing so, not merely to obtain the removal of their particular grievances, but because we believe by rousing them we will be strengthening the National movement and helping us to obtain our end, which is, after all, National independence of Ireland. "

And to make the exact meaning of the phrase "National Independence ofIreland" quite clear, he soon afterwards stated that their object wasthe same as that aimed at by Emmett and Wolfe Tone--in other words, toplace Ireland in the scale of nations with a constitution resemblingthat of the United States. 

By March 1908 (that is, about two years after the present Governmentcame into power), to quote the words of Mr. Justice Wright, "the onlylaw feared and obeyed was the law not of the land but of the UnitedIrish League"; and before the end of that year Mr. Redmond was able toreport to his friends in America:--

 "We have in Ireland an organization which is practically a government of the country. There is in O'Connell Street, Dublin, a great office managed by the real Chief Secretary for Ireland, J. Devlin, the Member for Belfast. "

The organization of the League is admirable. The country is coveredwith a network of branches, to which people in the district areobliged to contribute under penalty of being boycotted; these branchesare united under provincial executives, whilst the Directory inDublin controls the whole. The union between the League and the RomanCatholic Church is as complete as the union between that Church andsome societies started on a non-sectarian basis became during therebellion of 1798; as we have seen, a bishop is one of the trustees, and other bishops are amongst the subscribers; the Sunday meetings ofthe various branches, at which boycotting and other measures of thekind are arranged, are usually presided over by the parish priests. Onthe other hand, few laymen, whatever their religion may be, who haveany stake in the country, can be got to join the League; in the wordsof A. J. Kettle, M. P. :--

 "On its roll of membership there are no landlords or ex-landlords, few merchants, fewer Irish manufacturers. There are few of the men who are managing the business of Ireland in city or town, connected with the League. The bankers who regulate our finances, the railway or transit men who control our trade, internal and external, even the leading cattle men who handle most of our animal produce, are not to be found in its ranks. "

In further evidence of this it may be noted that in spite of all theefforts of the League at collecting money, the subscriptions to theIrish Parliamentary Fund do not amount to a halfpenny per head of thepopulation; as J. Dillon has remarked: "The National cause in Irelandcould not live for six months if it were deprived of the support ofthe Irish across the Atlantic. "

Closely allied with the League is the Ancient Order of Hibernians, asecret political and exclusively Roman Catholic association, of whichJ. Devlin, M. P. (the Secretary of the League), is President. It isalso called the Board of Erin, to distinguish it from the Americanbranch. The American branch, I may remark, is also known as the MollyMaguires, as it was under that name that it conducted the series ofmurders and outrages at the Pennsylvanian mines thirty years ago. Hence the Irish branch is sometimes nicknamed the "Molly Maguires. "The Order is very religious, in the sense that part of its programmeis to deprive heretics of every means of earning their livelihood; asa Nationalist who did not sympathize with the operations of the Orderexpressed it: "If Protestants are to be robbed of their business, ifthey are to be deprived of public contracts, and shut out of everyoffice and emolument, --what is that but extermination?" The politicalprinciples of the Order can be gathered from the Address presented bythem to Captain Condon on the occasion of his visit to Dublin in 1909. Captain Condon, I may explain, had been a prominent Fenian and memberof the Irish Republican brotherhood, and had taken part in the riot atManchester in 1867 which resulted in the murder of Sergeant Brett; henow resides in America. In 1909 he visited Ireland on the invitationof J. Redmond; and the address presented to him by the Ancient Orderof Hibernians contained the following words:--

 "In you, O'Meagher Condon, we recognize one of those connecting links with the past which all nations cherish, and you are ready to-day with voice and pen to give your unflagging support to Ireland's leaders with as much enthusiasm as you grasped the sword to lead Ireland in the dark but historic '67. We are sure it will interest you to know that the ranks of the Hibernians to-day are composed of the men and children of those who swore allegiance to the Irish Republic with you. "

The Order has lately acquired additional strength by becoming an"Approved Society" under the Insurance Act of 1911. In Ireland it isno more possible for life insurance than for anything else to existwithout being dragged into the vortex of religious and politicalquarrels. 

The "Clan-na-gael"--that is, the Dynamite Club--still flourishesin America; but for obvious reasons it does not make any publicappearance in Ireland; and the exact part which it takes in themovement at the present time, it is impossible to say. 

"Sinn Fein" (which means "Ourselves") is another SeparatistAssociation, aiming at the establishment of Ireland as a SovereignState, and teaching that the election of Irishmen to serve in theBritish Parliament is treason to the Irish State. As its name implies, it desires to make use of the revival of the Irish language as a meanstowards the end for which it is working. It was founded in 1905. Why this Society and the United Irish League, whose objects seemidentical, should be ready to fly at one another's throats, is one ofthe things that those who are outside the Nationalist circle cannotunderstand. But the Clerical leaders, who do their utmost to furtherthe operations of the League, look askance at Sinn Fein; its ultimatesuccess therefore is very doubtful. 

Then, working in conjunction with these societies is the "GaelicLeague, " founded for the "de-Anglicizing" of Ireland, as helpingtowards separation. As J. Sweetman (who, besides being a prominentmember of the Gaelic League, is also Vice-President of Sinn Fein andVice-Chairman of the Central Council of Irish County Councils and maytherefore be regarded as speaking with authority) has expressed it:--

 "Out of the Gaelic League's de-Anglicizing propaganda have already grown a series of movements not only strongly political but each and all making for a separate independent Irish nation, freed from every link of the British connection. "

Were it not for its political object, the folly of this "revival ofthe Irish language" would be past belief. The language of Shakespeareand Milton, of Gibbon and Macaulay, ought surely to be good enough forordinary people; and it must be obvious to every reasoning being thatat the present moment of the world's history, English is one of themost useful languages in existence. It is spoken by 40, 000, 000 ofpeople in Europe and twice that number in America, not to mentionAustralasia and South Africa. It is the language of commerce, ofscience, and of a vast amount of literature. Europeans of variousnationalities learn it, for the sake of its convenience; although, aswe all know, one of the difficulties of modern life is that boys andgirls have too much to study; educationalists everywhere complainthat the curriculum is overloaded. Its position in Ireland can beseen exactly by the census returns; for the papers contain a "languagecolumn, " each person being required to state whether he speaksEnglish or Irish or both. According to the returns of 1891, the totalpopulation was in round numbers 4, 725, 000; of whom 4, 037, 000 spokeEnglish only, 643, 000 both languages, and 44, 000 Irish only. And thattrifling minority existed only in certain localities, and was confinedto the less educated classes. The only counties in which a majority ofthe population spoke Irish (including those who spoke both languages)were Mayo and Galway. Yet now it is solemnly said that Ireland, being an independent nation, must have a language of its own; even incounties where no language but English has been spoken for centuries, and where probably none of the ancestors of the present populationever spoke any other language, Irish is being taught in the RomanCatholic primary schools, and the unhappy children who might bestudying arithmetic or elementary geography, are wasting their timeover a totally useless language. I say "totally useless" deliberately;for the arguments usually brought forward in favour of the study, apart from the political one--that Irish is of use in the study ofphilology, and that the MSS. Of centuries ago contain fine specimensof poetry--are too absurd to be worth discussing. The real object ofthe Nationalists in "encouraging the revival of the Irish language"is clearly set out in the following words of T. MacSeamus in a recentnumber of the _Irish Review_:--

 "Most important of all, the Irish language is one of the things that distinguish us from England. It is a mark of that separateness which it is the business of every Nationalist to maintain and emphasise on every possible occasion. It is one of the signs--perhaps the chief sign--of nationality. . . . The Irish language is a weapon in our fight against England, and we cannot afford to throw away even the smallest weapon that may serve us in that struggle. "

And the policy of the League as regards the primary schools is madequite clear by the resolution passed unanimously at their annualmeeting in 1912:--

 "That we re-affirm the demand of the last Ard Fheis in regard to the position of Irish in the primary schools, viz. , that Irish be the sole medium of instruction in the Irish-speaking districts; that it be the medium as far as possible in all other schools, and that it be a compulsory subject in every school throughout the country where parents are not opposed to it; furthermore, that a knowledge of Irish be required from all teachers entering for training as teachers, and that no certificate be issued to those who fail to qualify in Irish at the final examination, and that none but inspectors having a knowledge of Irish be employed to inspect schools where Irish is taught. "

It will be seen therefore that if the League carry their point (asno doubt they will under a Home Rule Government) no graduate of theBelfast University who wishes to become a teacher in a Belfast schoolwill be allowed to do so unless he passes an examination in a languagewhich not one of his pupils will ever wish to learn; and this, not forthe purpose of ensuring general culture, but to further a politicalobject with which he has no sympathy. 

The League leave no stone unturned in their efforts to substitute theIrish for the English language. For instance, it is usually consideredin other countries that the names of the streets of a town are putup in order to help people who want to find their way, and not forpolitical reasons. But in Dublin, where not one per cent. Of thepeople can read Irish, the names have recently all been painted up inthat language, in the hope of de-Anglicizing the rising generation. Anincident occurred recently which will show how the movement is beingtaken up. There is in Dublin an excellent regulation that childrenmay not become "street traders" without a licence. A bright little boycame to apply for one. The magistrate, being a kindly man, enquiredof the lad what his circumstances were. The boy explained that part ofhis earnings went towards the support of his widowed mother; and thathe was trying to keep up his education by attending a night school. "And what are you learning there?" said the magistrate. "Irish, "replied the boy. Even the magistrate could not resist telling him thathe thought his time would be better spent at Arithmetic. Yet from theboy's point of view, there is something to be said. Irish may be ofuse to him in obtaining a Government appointment, however small; forlocal bodies (such as the Dublin Boards of Guardians) now refuseto appoint clerks who cannot send out notices of meetings in Irish, though no member of the Board to whom they are sent can read them; andthe League fully expect that the Home Rule Government will do the samewith regard to every appointment in their gift. If the railways aretaken over by the Government (as they probably will be) it can be seenwhat an immense impetus can be given to the movement. 

Then Secondary Schools have been established for the same object. The_Irish Educational Review_ recently contained the following account ofone of them:--

 "At Ring, in the County Waterford, there is already in existence an Irish secondary school where classics, modern languages and all the usual secondary school subjects are taught and where Irish and English fill their rightful places, the former being the ordinary language of the school, the latter a foreign language on no higher level than French or German. "

The Act of 1909, which founded the "National" University (to which Ishall refer again), gave power to County Councils to levy a rate forscholarships. Immediately the Gaelic League saw their opportunity. They endeavoured to persuade the Councils to refuse to do so unlessIrish were made compulsory at the University. The Councils generally(except of course in Ulster) agreed to the plan; but some of them(such as the Kildare Council) were faced by a difficulty. Not a singlechild in the county spoke Irish; and so if that language were madecompulsory, no one could compete for the scholarships. So theycompromised matters, by deciding that they would levy a rate if Irishwere made compulsory after 1915, by which time some of the youngpeople in the county would have been able to learn it; and theUniversity agreed to do so. 

This rating power, I may remark, looks extremely liberal as it appearsin the Act; for the scholarships are to be tenable at any University. The Irish Unionist members, knowing quite well how it would beworked, opposed the clause; and as usual were denounced as bigotsand fanatics. It is needless to add that as soon as the Act came intoforce, County Councils and Corporations at once passed resolutionsthat scholarships derived from the rates should not be tenable atTrinity College, Dublin, or at Belfast, but only at the NationalUniversity--thus practically saying that no Protestants need compete. 

Beyond forcing the children to acquire a smattering of Irish, itcannot be said that so far the efforts of the League as to thelanguage have been very successful; for the census returns show thatthe proportion of the population who could speak Irish in 1891 was14'5; in 1901, 14'4; and in 1911, 13'3; and the numbers who spokeIrish only fell from 20, 953 in 1901 to 16, 870 in 1911. 

But the efforts of the League are not confined to the language. English games, such as cricket, are forbidden; if football is played, it must be the Gaelic variety with rules totally different fromthose observed by the hated Saxon. Even the patients in asylumsare forbidden to play cricket or lawn tennis. And some of the moreenthusiastic members of the League have actually "donned the saffron, "in imitation of the Ersefied Normans of 400 years ago. However, itis so hideously ugly, and so suggestive of the obnoxious Orange, thatthat phase of the movement is not likely to extend. 

Even the "Boy Scout" movement has been made use of for the sameobject. As soon as some corps had been established in Ireland, theNationalists started a rival organization with an Irish name, inwhich all the boys solemnly undertake to work for the independenceof Ireland, and never to join England's armed forces. The boys take aprominent part in the annual ceremonies in honour of Wolfe Tone, theManchester martyrs, and other Nationalist heroes. 

The whole thing would be laughable if it were not so very sad. Evensuch matters as sports and education, where all creeds and partiesmight be expected to work together amicably, must be used asinstruments to bring about separation; and the result already is notso much to widen the gulf between Ireland and England as the gulfbetween the two parties in Ireland; for the Protestant minority inthe south, who know that most of their children will have to leave thecountry, are not likely to let them fritter away their youth in thestudy of a language which can be of no possible benefit to them inany part of the world to which they may go; and the idea that theUlstermen will ever adopt a Celtic tongue is too ridiculous to beconsidered. But perhaps the most painful thought of all is that theNationalists should be ready even to sacrifice the prospects in lifeof the rising generation of the country in order to satisfy theirblind hatred of England. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

IRELAND UNDER THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT. 

I come now to the policy which has been pursued by the presentGovernment since 1906. It must be remembered that the Radical partyreturned to power pledged to Home Rule as a principle, but with asufficient majority to enable them to retain office without dependingon the Irish vote. Hence there was no necessity for them to introducea Home Rule Bill; but of course they set aside the policy of theUnionist Government, and resolved to govern Ireland according to theirown ideas. What those ideas were, and what the result has been, Ishall now proceed to show; but in doing so I shall as far as possibleconfine myself to quotations and statistics which can be verified, sothat I may not be accused of giving an unfair report. 

The Chief Secretary for the first year was Mr. Bryce, who wasafterwards appointed British Ambassador at Washington. The Governmentat once repealed the Act which forbade the carrying of arms without alicence; withdrew all proclamations under the Crimes Act of 1887;and resolved not to stop any political meetings. Accordingly theNationalists commenced holding a series of demonstrations all overthe country. A few specimens taken from the speeches made at them willsuffice to show their general tenour. 

 "Let them all be ready, and when England got into trouble with European Powers, they would pounce upon her with the ferocity of a tiger. "--_T. Walsh, District Councillor. _

 "They must stand together as one man, and make it impossible for England to govern Ireland. "--_P. White, M. P. _

 "If there had been 100, 000 Fenians in Ireland at the time of the Boer War there might now have been a Republic in Ireland, and British supremacy would have been tumbled in the dust. "--_J. Daly, formerly Mayor of Limerick. _

And Mr. Bryce, when leaving Ireland at the end of the year, statedthat he had not found any harm in any of the speeches delivered at themeetings. 

At this time the agitation began to assume a new form. One of the mostimportant of Irish industries is the cattle trade with England, the annual value of which exceeds £14, 000, 000. In several parts ofIreland, notably in Meath and the central counties, the soil andclimate are specially suited for cattle raising, and the landis generally held in large grazing farms. It was decided by theNationalists in the autumn of 1906 that this industry must bedestroyed. Bodies of men assembled night after night to break down thefences and gates of the farms and drive the cattle many miles away, in order that the farmers might be ruined and forced to leave thecountry; and then the derelict farms would be divided amongst the"landless men. " L. Ginnell, M. P. , explained the programme fully in aspeech he made in October 1906:--

 "The ranches must be broken up, not only in Westmeath but throughout all Ireland . . . He advised them to stamp out the ranch demon themselves, and not leave an alien Parliament to do the duty . . . He advised them to leave the ranches unfenced, unused and unusable . . . So that no man or demon would dare to stand another hour between the people and the land that should be theirs. "

The agitation, commencing in Meath, was gradually extended, countyby county, over a large part of Ireland where the Nationalists aresupreme. Other measures were resorted to, in order to carry out theirobject. Arson, the burning of hayricks, firing into dwelling-houses, spiking meadows, the mutilation of horses and cows, the destructionof turf, the damaging of machinery, and various other forms of lawlessviolence began to increase and multiply. At the Spring Assizes in1907, the Chief Justice, when addressing the Grand Jury at Ennis, incommenting on the increasing need for placing law-abiding people underspecial police protection, said:--

 "In a shire in England, if it was found necessary, either by special protection or protection by patrol, to protect from risk of outrage thirty persons, what would be thought?"

And Mr. Justice Kenny at Leitrim, after commenting upon the increasednumber of specially reported cases, as shown by the officialstatistics, and alluding to several cases of gross intimidation, said:--

 "In these latter cases I regret to say no one has been made amenable; and when there is such a state of things, it justifies the observation made by the learned judge who presided at last Connaught Winter Assizes, that when the chain of terrorism was complete, no witness would give evidence and no jury would convict. "

Thereupon Mr. Birrell, who at the beginning of the year had succeededMr. Bryce as Chief Secretary, having no doubt studied these andsimilar reports, said in a speech at Halifax in the following month:--

 "You may take my word for this, that Ireland is at this moment in a more peaceful condition than for the last six hundred years. "

Soon afterwards, Mr. Justice Ross, who, as Judge of the Land Judge'sCourt, Chancery Division, was in charge of many estates in Ireland, said:

 "He had known from other Receivers about this widespread and audacious conspiracy at present rampant in the West of Ireland . . . This was actually a conspiracy which on ordinary moral grounds amounted to highway robbery, to seize on these grass lands, to drive away the stock of the people who had been in the habit of taking it; and then, when the owner had been starved out, the Estates Commissioners were expected to buy up the property and to distribute it amongst the very people who had been urging on the business, and who had been engaged in these outrages. "

When an Ulster member drew attention to this in the House of Commons, Mr. Birrell replied:--

 "There is no evidence before the Government that a widespread conspiracy is rampant in the West of Ireland. "

And in reply to another question he said that:--

 "The reports he received from the police and other persons revealed the condition of Ireland generally as to peace and order as being very satisfactory. "

During the month of October 1907, twenty-nine claims for compensationfrom the rates in respect of malicious injuries had been proved andgranted in twelve counties, the amount levied from the ratepayersbeing about £900. The malicious injuries comprised destruction of andfiring into dwelling houses, mutilation of horses and cattle, burningcattle to death, spiking meadows and damaging mowing machines, damagesto fences and walls, burning heather and pasturage, damage to gates inconnection with cattle driving, and injury to cattle by driving. Andin November an attempt was made to assassinate Mr. White Blake and hismother when driving home from church in the County Galway. A few daysafter this occurred Mr. Redmond said at a meeting in North Wales:--

 "Whilst there is no crime or outrage there is widespread unrest and impatience, and there are, over a certain section of the country, taking place technical breaches of the strict letter of the law in the shape of what is called cattle driving. Now let me say first of all that in no instance has any single beast been injured in the smallest degree in any of these cattle-drives; in no instance has any malicious injury been done to property, life or limb, or beast. "

All this time the Government adhered to their determination not to putthe Crimes Act in force, but merely to place accused persons on trialbefore juries at the Assizes. The results were as follows: At theSummer Assizes in 1907, 167 persons were returned for trial; of these, 57 were actually tried, of whom three were convicted, 31 acquitted, and in 23 cases the juries disagreed. The trials of the remaining 110were postponed. At the Michaelmas sittings, 94 persons were put ontrial, of whom 5 were convicted and 2 acquitted; in 72 cases thejuries disagreed, and in the remaining 15 the Crown abandonedproceedings. At the Winter Assizes 86 persons were tried for unlawfulassembly, riot and conspiracy in connection with cattle-driving. Nonewere convicted; 11 were acquitted; in 12 cases the prisoners weredischarged on legal points; and in 63 the juries disagreed. 

I fully admit that there is much to be said for the juries who refusedto convict. When a Government is doing its utmost to suppress anarchyand to enforce law and order, it is no doubt the duty of every loyalsubject to render assistance even at the risk of his own lifeand property. But when a Government is conniving at anarchy, anddeliberately refusing to put in force the Act which would put a stopto it, I say it is too much to expect of any man that he should facethe prospect of being ruined and probably murdered, and his familyreduced to beggary, in order to enable the Government to keep up thefarce of pretending that they are trying to do their duty. 

During the first half of 1908, there were 418 reported cases ofcattle-driving; and arson, outrages with firearms, meadow-spiking, and similar offences increased in proportion. The judges urged in vainthat the law should be put in force. But the policy of the Governmentremained unchanged; the _Daily News_ (the Government organ) whencattle-driving was at its height said that thanks to the excellentgovernment of Mr. Birrell cattle-driving now had practically becomeextinct even in those few parts of the country in which it hadexisted; and in July Mr. Birrell, addressing a political meeting atPort Sunlight, said that:--

 "They were led to believe that the state of Ireland was of an appalling character, that crime predominated, and that lawlessness almost universally prevailed. All he could say was that a more cheerful land was nowhere to be found. "

In 1909 matters became somewhat quieter, chiefly because Mr. Birrellpromised to introduce a Land Bill by which the cattle-drivers hoped toget all they wanted. Hence their leaders advised them to "give Birrella chance, " but Mr. Redmond warned the Government that if they did notcarry out their pledge, they would speedily find Ireland ungovernable. In February 1909, Lord Crewe, speaking for the Government in the Houseof Lords, made the remarkable statement:--

 "As regards intimidation, I have always shared the view that well-organized intimidation cannot be checked by law. I know no method of checking it. "

If this is not an admission that the Government had failed in theirduty, it is hard to say what is. The result of their line of actionwill be seen by the following table, which has been taken from variousreturns which the Ulster members, by repeated questions in Parliamentat last succeeded in forcing Mr. Birrell to make public:--

Agrarian outrages 1906 234 " " 1907 372 " " 1908 576Cattle-drives 1905 Nil " " 1907-8 513 " " 1908-9 622 " " 1908 219Cattle maiming, mutilating, etc. 1907 142Persons boycotted 1907 196 " " 1908 270 " " 1909 335Cost of extra police 1908 £47, 000

1911. 

Agrarian outrages 581Malicious injuries to property, Intimidating by threatening letters, etc. 285Firing into dwelling houses 58Rioting, robbery of arms, etc. 31Killing and maiming cattle 83

It may be asked, why did not the Ulster members call the attention ofParliament to this state of things? The answer is, they did so againand again; Mr. Birrell gave stereotyped replies, much after this form, with hardly a variation:--

 I have seen in the newspapers a report that a few shots were fired into a farmhouse in Galway. No one appears to have been seriously injured. The police are making enquiries. No arrests have been made. 

(He might as well have added that he knew perfectly well that noarrests ever would be made. ) Then he would go to a political meetingand say that the peaceful condition of Ireland was shown by the smallnumber of criminal cases returned for trial at the Assizes; and wouldbitterly denounce the "Carrion Crows" (as he designated the Ulstermembers) for trying to blacken the reputation of their country. 

One instance may be given more in detail, as typical of the conditionto which Ireland had been brought. Lord Ashtown (a Unionist Peerresiding in County Galway) began issuing month by month a series ofpamphlets entitled "Grievances from Ireland. " They contained littlebesides extracts from Nationalist papers giving reports of themeetings of the United Irish League, the outrages that took place, andthe comments of Nationalist papers on them. His object was to letthe people in England see from the accounts given by the Nationaliststhemselves, what was going on in Ireland. This, however, was veryobjectionable to them; and one of their members asked Mr. Birrell inthe House of Commons whether the pamphlets could not be suppressed. Mr. Birrell made the curious reply that he would be very glad if LordAshtown were stopped, but that he did not see how to do it. What heexpected would be the results of that remark, I do not know; but noone living in Ireland was much surprised when a few weeks afterwardsa bomb outrage occurred at the residence of Lord Ashtown in the CountyWaterford. It was a clumsy failure. A jar containing gunpowder wasplaced against the wall of the house where he was staying and set onfire. The explosion wrecked part of the building, but Lord Ashtownescaped unhurt. He gave notice of his intention to apply at the nextassizes for compensation for malicious injury. The usual custom insuch cases is for a copy of the police report showing the injurycomplained of, to be sent to the person seeking compensation; but onthis occasion the police refused to show Lord Ashtown their report, stating that they had received orders from the Government not to doso. But shortly before the case came on, a report, not made by thepolice authority in charge of the district, but by another brought inspecially for the purpose, appeared in the Nationalist papers. Thisreport contained the remarkable suggestion that Lord Ashtown had doneit himself! When under cross-examination at the trial, the Inspectorof the Royal Irish Constabulary who made the report was obliged toconfess that he did not believe that he had, but had only inserted thesuggestion in obedience to instruction received from the Government. Lord Ashtown proved his case and was awarded compensation. But thematter did not end there. He had employed a surveyor, Mr. Scully, todraw plans and take photographs showing the amount of the damage. Mr. Scully was surveyor to the Waterford Corporation. It was proposed atthe next meeting of the Corporation that he should be dismissed fromhis office for having given evidence for Lord Ashtown. The motionwas carried unanimously, eight councillors being present; and at thefollowing meeting it was ratified by eight votes to two. A questionwas asked about the matter in the House of Commons; and Mr. Birrell, with the figures before him, replied that Mr. Scully had never beendismissed. 

Two other instances of this period must be briefly referred to. Ithas already been shown how the Irish Parliament endowed Maynooth as aCollege for Roman Catholic students both lay and theological; and howTrinity College, Dublin, opened its doors to all students, withoutdistinction of creed. But the Roman Catholic Church turned Maynoothinto a seminary for theological students only; and the bishops forbadeyoung laymen to go to Trinity. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel attempted tosupply the want by founding the Queen's University, with Colleges atBelfast, Cork and Galway, where mixed education should be given insecular subjects, and separate instruction in those appertaining toreligion; but that again was denounced as a "satanic scheme for theruin of faith in the rising generation"; and the crusade againstthe university was so successful that in 1879 it was destroyed andanother--the Royal University--put in its place. This in its turn wasabolished in 1909; the College at Belfast was raised to the statusof a University, and a new University ominously called the "NationalUniversity" was founded into which the existing Colleges at Cork andGalway were absorbed, with a new and richly endowed College in Dublinat the head. It may seem strange that the Radical Government who arepledged to destroy all religious education in England should found andendow a Denominational University in Ireland. But the matter could bearranged by a little judicious management and prevarication; it wasrepresented in Parliament that the new University was to be strictlyunsectarian; during the debate, Sir P. Magnus, the member for theLondon University, said that he had no reason to believe that therewas any intention on the part of the Chief Secretary to set updenominational Universities in Ireland; he accepted his word that theywere to be entirely undenominational. Then, when the Act was passed, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin was appointed Chancellor ofthe National University, with a number of Jesuits as Professors, andCardinal Logue stated as follows:--

 "No matter what obstacles the Nonconformists may have inserted in the Constitution of the University to keep it from being Catholic, we will make it Catholic in spite of them. "

Personally, I do not object to denominational Universities. I regretthat young men who are going to live in the same country should not beable to study law and medicine together; but if that is their feelingand the feeling of their parents, I admit that having separateUniversities may be the best solution of the difficulty. But if so, let it be openly avowed that the University is denominational; to"make it Catholic" and at the same time to say that it is no injusticeto Protestants that County Scholarships paid for by the ratepayersshould be tenable there and nowhere else, seems to me absurd. 

The other incident to which reference must be made was the greatConvention held in Dublin in 1909. The Nationalists, believing thata Home Rule Bill would soon be introduced, devised the scheme ofassembling a monster Convention, which would be evidence to the worldof how admirably fitted the Irish people were to govern their owncountry. It was attended by 2, 000 delegates from all parts of thecountry, who were to form a happy family, as of course no disturbingUnionist element would be present to mar the harmony and the clericalelement would be strong. Mr. Redmond, who presided, said in hisopening address:--

 "Ireland's capacity for self-government will be judged at home and abroad by the conduct of this Assembly. Ireland's good name is at stake, and therefore every man who takes part in this Assembly should weigh his words and recognise his responsibility. "

The meeting ended in a free fight. 

At the end of 1909 Mr. Asquith did a very clever thing. A generalelection was pending, and he wished to avoid the mistake whichGladstone had made in 1885. He therefore, at a great meeting atthe Albert Hall unfolded an elaborate programme of the long list ofmeasures which the Government would introduce and carry, and in thecourse of his remarks said that Home Rule was the only solution ofthe Irish problem, and that in the new House of Commons the hands ofa Liberal Government and of a Liberal majority would in this matter beentirely free. He and his followers carefully abstained from referringto the subject in their election addresses; and Mr. Asquith was thusfree, if he should obtain a majority independent of the Irish vote, to say that he had never promised to make Home Rule part of hisprogramme; but if he found he could not retain office without thatvote, he might buy it by promising to introduce the Bill and refer tohis words at the Albert Hall as justification for doing so. The latterhappened; hence the "Coalition Ministry. " The Irish party consented toplease the Radicals by voting for the Budget, and the Nonconformistsby voting for Welsh Disestablishment, on condition that they shouldin return vote for Home Rule. As Mr. Hobhouse (a Cabinet Minister)expressed it in 1911:--

 "Next year we must pay our debt to the Nationalist Members, who were good enough to vote for a Budget which they detested and knew would be an injury to their country. "

But the people of England still had to be hood-winked. It was hardlylikely that they would consent to their representatives voting forthe separation of Ireland from Great Britain; so the Nationalists andtheir Radical allies went about England declaring that they hadno wish for such a thing; that all they desired was a subordinateParliament leaving the Imperial Parliament supreme. Thus Mr. Redmondsuggested at one meeting that Ireland should be conceded the rightof managing her own purely local affairs for herself in a subordinateParliament, subject to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; andat another meeting said:

 "We are not asking for a Repeal of the Union. We are not asking for the restoration of a co-ordinate Parliament such as Ireland had before the Union. We are only asking that there should be given to Ireland a subordinate Parliament. We therefore admit the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. That means that after this subordinate Parliament is created in Ireland, if the Parliament is foolish enough, rash enough, as it never will be, but if it were foolish enough and criminal enough to use the powers given to it for injustice or oppression of any class or creed, the Imperial Parliament would have the power to stretch forth the arm of its authority and to say 'you shall not do that. '"

Of course it may be argued that they had changed their minds; thatin former times they worked for separation, but now realised thata subordinate Parliament was all that Ireland required. Butunfortunately for this theory, they have themselves repudiated it;when Mr. Redmond was accused of speaking with two voices, one inAmerica and one in Great Britain, he passionately replied:--

 "I indignantly deny that accusation. I have never in my life said one word on a platform in America one whit stronger than I had said in my place on the floor of the House of Commons. I have never in America or anywhere else, advocated the separation of Ireland from Great Britain. "

How far this is true, the quotations from his speeches which havealready been given, will have shown. But the Government have kept upthe farce; Mr. Winston Churchill said during the debate on the Bill of1912:--

 "The Home Rule movement has never been a separatist movement. In the whole course of its career it has been a moderating, modifying movement, designed to secure the recognition of Irish claims within the circuit of the British Empire. "

But not even the immediate prospect of Home Rule can be said to havemade those parts of Ireland where the League is supreme a happy placeof residence to any but advanced Nationalists. The following report ofa case in the Magistrate's Court at Ennis in November 1912 will speakfor the condition of the County Clare:--

 Patrick Arkins was charged with knocking down walls on the farm of Mrs. Fitzpatrick in order to compel her to give up the farm. Inspector Davis gave evidence that from January 1910 to that date there were 104 serious outrages in his district. In 42 firearms were used, 27 were malicious injuries, 32 were threatening notices, 1 case of bomb explosion outside a house, 1 robbery of arms, and 1 attempted robbery. A sum of £268 had been awarded as compensation for malicious injury and there were claims for £75 pending for malicious injuries committed during the week ended 11th inst. There were two persons under constant police protection, and 16 receiving protection by patrol. Head Constable Mulligan said that Mrs. Fitzpatrick was under police protection. Since February 11th, 1912, there had been 12 outrages in the district, Mrs. Fitzpatrick was under almost constant police protection. Acting Sergeant Beegan deposed that there had been 12 outrages on the Fitzpatrick family during the last four years; these included driving cattle off the lands, threatening notices, firing shots at the house, knocking down walls, spiking meadows; the new roof of a hay barn was perforated with bullets, and at Kiltonaghty Chapel there were notices threatening death to anyone who would work for Mrs. Fitzpatrick. Timothy Fitzpatrick gave similar evidence as to the outrages, and said that his father had taken the farm twenty-one years ago, and had paid the son of the former tenant £40 for his goodwill. 

(I may add that Arkins was committed for trial, convicted at theAssizes and sentenced to seven years penal servitude; and was releasedby Mr. Birrell a few weeks afterwards. )

In another Clare case, in February of the present year, the residentMagistrate said as follows:--

 "It is a mistake to say that these outrages are arising out of disputes between landlord and tenant; nine out of ten arise out of petty disputes about land. What is the use of having new land laws? A case occurred not long ago in this county of a man who had bought some land twenty years ago, and paid down hard cash to the outgoing tenant. The man died, and left a widow and children on the land for fourteen years. But in 1908 a man who had some ulterior object got the man who had sold the farm to send in a claim under the Evicted Tenant's Act, which was rejected. That was what the advisers of the man wanted--they only wanted a pretext for moonlighting and other disgraceful outrages, and the woman was kept in a hell for four years. A man was caught at last and convicted, and one would think that this was a subject for rejoicing for all right-minded men in the county. But what was the result? A perfect tornado of letters was printed, and resolutions and speeches appeared in the public press, condemning this conviction of a moonlighter in Clare as an outrage against justice. "

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Killaloe, in a sermon preached inDecember 1912, referring to County Clare said:--

 "That county had had an evil record in the matter of crime, and they were so accustomed to outrages of almost weekly occurrence around them that it was not easy to shock them. There was an inoffensive family sitting round the fireside with a couple of neighbours. They had given no offence, they had wronged no man, they had crossed no man's path. But that inhuman beast went to the door and lifted the latch, and there, at a few yards distance, fired into that innocent group of men, women and children, as if they were a flock of crows, killing the mother outright and almost blowing the forehead off a young girl. There was no denying the fact that that brutal murder was the natural outcome of the disgraceful system of intimidation and outrage that had been rampant for a long time in certain districts of that unhappy county and of the immunity from punishment enjoyed by the wicked and cowardly moonlighter. In addition to their other acts of savagery, they had shot out the eyes of two men within the last couple of years. A decent, honest man was shot on the road to Ennis. The people passed the wounded man by and refused to take him into their car through fear. Not one of these well-known miscreants was brought to justice. The murderers of poor Garvey, the cow-houghers, the hay-burners, were said to be known. In any other country, for instance in the United States, such ruffianism would be hunted down or lynched; but there, in the places he referred to, they had a curtain of security drawn round them by the cowardice or perverted moral sense on the part of the community amongst whom they lived. . . . It was only last Thursday night, before the county had recovered from the shock of Mrs. O'Mara's murder, that right over the mountain an unfortunate postman was shot on the public road between Crusheen and Baliluran for no other reason apparently than that another fellow wanted his job of one and six-pence a day! It has come to this, that if you differ with one of them for a shilling, or refuse to give him his way in everything the first thing that comes into his head is to moonlight you. . . . They have not elevation or social instinct to settle their petty disputes by process of law provided for the purpose by a civilized society, nor have they Christianity enough to bear a little wrong or disappointment for Christ's sake. No, nor the manliness even to meet an opponent face to face and see it out with him like a man; but with the cunning of a mean and vicious dog, he steals behind him in the dark and shoots him in the back, or murders the helpless woman of his family, or shoots out the eyes of the poor man's horse, or cuts the throat of his bullock and spikes his beast upon a gate. "

Nor has the present year brought much improvement. In May 1913, Mr. R. Maunsell was fired at and wounded close to the town of Ennis. Hiscrime was that he managed a farm for a Mr. Bannatyne, whose family hadbeen in possession of it for about sixty years, but who had recentlybeen denounced by the United Irish League and ordered to surrender it. As he has refused to do so, he is now compelled to live under policeprotection. 

The abolition of landlordism and the acquisition of firearms canhardly be said to have brought peace and tranquillity to the County ofClare. 

And as to Galway, we may gather the state of affairs from the reportof a case tried at the Winter Assizes of 1912. Three men were chargedwith having done grievous bodily harm to a man named Conolly. Conollyswore that he knew a man named Broderick who had become unpopular buthe (Conolly) kept to him and this brought displeasure on him from theaccused and others. On the night of the 11th September he went to bed;he was subsequently awakened and found 44 grains of shot in his leftknee and four in his right. He then lay flat on the floor. Other shotswere fired through the window but did not strike him. The judge saidthe district was a disgrace to Ireland. Day after day, night afternight, heaps of outrages were committed there, and not one offenderwas made amenable to justice. The jury disagreed, and the accused wereagain put on their trial. The judge in charging the jury on the secondtrial said that then, and for some time, the district was swarmingwith police, and though outrages were frequent, it was impossible forthem to bring anyone to justice. No one was sure he might not be firedat during the night; and people were afraid to give evidence. The juryagain disagreed. 

During the autumn of 1912 an effort was made to hold a series ofmeetings throughout the south and west of Ireland to protest againstHome Rule. The conduct of the Nationalists with regard to themsupplies a striking commentary on Mr. Redmond's statement at Banburynot long before, that all through his political life he had preachedconciliation towards those who differed from him on the questionof Home Rule. The meetings were in some cases stopped by force; atLimerick the windows of the Protestant Church and of some housesoccupied by Protestants were smashed; at Tralee the principal speakerwas a large farmer named Crosbie; all his hay and sheds were burneddown, and he was awarded £600 compensation by the County Court Judge. 

But an incident had occurred in the north which, though in a sensecomparatively slight, has, in consequence of the circumstancesconnected with it, done more to inflame the men of Ulster than personsnot living in Ireland can realise. In June of last year a party ofSunday School children from a suburb of Belfast went for a picnic toCastledawson (co. Derry) under the charge of a Presbyterian ministerand a few teachers and ladies. On their way back to the railwaystation, they were met and assailed by a procession of men belongingto the Order of Hibernians armed with pikes who attacked the childrenwith the pikes and with stones, seized a Union Jack which a smallboy was carrying, and knocked down and kicked some of the girls andteachers. Worse might have happened had not some Protestant young men, seeing what was going on, come to the rescue. The minister was struckwith stones whilst he was endeavouring to get some of the childrento a place of safety. No Nationalist has ever expressed the slightestregret at the occurrence. Several of the aggressors were tried at theWinter Assizes and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Beforethe end of the term they were released by order of the Government. Mr. Birrell, in justifying his action, said that the judge had remarkedthat there was no evidence before him of actual injury. This, likemany of his statements, was literally true; but he omitted to mentionthat he had prevented the evidence from being given; the injured womenand children were quite ready to give their testimony, but were notcalled by the counsel for the crown. 

It is unnecessary to say that this foretaste of Home Rule governmenthas made the Presbyterians of Ulster more determined than ever toresist it to the bitter end. 

I shall next proceed to consider the Bill which the Government haveintroduced as a panacea for the woes of Ireland. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

CRITICISM OF THE BILL NOW BEFORE THE COUNTRY. 

That the maintenance of the Union is possible, and that completeseparation is possible, are two indisputable facts. But the questionis, was Wolfe Tone right when he said that these were the only twopossibilities; or is there a third one, and if so, what?

Residents in the Dominions will naturally be inclined to reply "Yes;place Ireland in the position of a colony possessing responsiblegovernment, such as New Zealand. " It is a taking idea; but a littlereflection will show the falseness of the analogy. The relationsbetween the Mother Country and the self-governing colonies (nowoften called "Dominions") have grown up of themselves; and, likemost political conditions which have so come about, are theoreticallyillogical but practically convenient. The practical convenience arisespartly from the friendly spirit which animates both parties, but stillmore from the nature of the case. The distance which separates theMother Country from the Dominions causes the anomalies to be scarcelyperceptible. In theory the Sovereign, acting on the advice ofBritish Ministers, can disallow any colonial statute, and the BritishParliament is supreme--it can pass laws that will bind the colonies, even laws imposing taxes. But we all know that if the Home Governmentwere persistently to veto laws passed by the large majority of thepeople in New Zealand, or the British Parliament were to attempt tolegislate for the colonies, relations would at once become strained, and separation would be inevitable. The only important matters onwhich the Home Government attempts to bind the colonies are thoserelating to foreign countries (which are necessarily of an Imperialnature) and those as to which the colonies themselves wish to havean Act passed, such as the Act establishing Australian Federation. Inother words, the "supremacy of Parliament, " which is a stern realityin England, has very little meaning as regards New Zealand. Even ifthe people of New Zealand were to manage the affairs of their countryin a manner contrary to English ideas--for instance if they were toestablish State lotteries and public gambling tables--England would bebut slightly affected, and certainly would never think of taking stepsto prevent them. And those matters in which the Home Government isobliged to act are just those in which New Zealand has no desireto interfere; for instance, New Zealand would never want to appointconsuls of her own (which was the immediate cause of the separationbetween Norway and Sweden); in the very few cases in which New Zealanddesires to make use of political or commercial agents abroad, she iscontent to employ the British representatives, for whom she isnot called upon to pay. If New Zealand attempted to take part in aEuropean war in which England was not concerned--the idea is almosttoo absurd to suggest--the only thing that England could do would beto break off the connection and repudiate New Zealand altogether. And if New Zealand desired to separate from the Mother Country, manypeople would think it a most grievous mistake, but England certainlywould not seek to prevent her doing so by force; and though Englandwould in some ways be the worse for it, the government of Englandand of the rest of the Empire would go on much the same as before. Incertain points, it is true, thoughtful men have generally come to theconclusion that the present state of affairs cannot go on unchanged;the time is coming when the great Dominions must provide for their owndefence by sea as well as by land; and whether this is to be done byseparate navies working together or by joint contributions to acommon navy, it will probably result in the formation of some ImperialCouncil in which all parts will have a voice. That however, is amatter for future discussion and arrangement. 

But when we turn to Ireland, everything is different. The two islandsare separated by less than fifty miles. Ireland has for more than acentury been adequately represented in the Imperial Parliament; thejourney from Galway to London is shorter than that from Aucklandor Dunedin to Wellington. So long as Europe remains as it is, GreatBritain and Ireland must have a common system of defence--which meansone army, one navy, and one plan of fortifications. Again, Irishmen, traders and others, will constantly have to make use of governmentagents in other countries. Now unless Great Britain is to arrange andpay for the whole of this, we are met at once by the insoluble problemof Irish representation in the British Parliament. If Ireland is notrepresented there, we are faced with the old difficulty of taxationwithout representation; if Ireland is represented there for allpurposes, Ireland can interfere in the local affairs of England, butEngland cannot in those of Ireland; if we have what has been calledthe "in-and-out" scheme as proposed by Gladstone in 1893--that is, forthe Irish members to vote on all questions of an Imperial nature, but to retire when matters affecting England only are underdiscussion--then, even if the line could be drawn (which is doubtful)we might have the absurdity of an English ministry which possessedthe confidence of the majority of Englishmen and whose management ofEngland met their approval, being turned out of office by the Irishvote, and England being governed according to a policy which themajority of Englishmen detested. Of course it may be said that thereought to be a number of small Parliaments in the British Isles, likethose in the Provinces of Canada or the States of Australia, with onegreat Parliament supreme over them--in other words, Federation. That might be a good thing, although it would in its turn start manydifficulties which it is unnecessary now to discuss, for it is notHome Rule nor does Home Rule lead to it. Federal systems arise by theunion of separate States, each State giving up a part of its powerto a joint body which can levy taxes and can overrule the localauthorities. In fact, when Federation comes about, the States cease tobe nations. 

(I must here remark in passing that constant confusion has been causedby the various senses in which the word "nation" is used. Thus it isoften quite correctly employed in a sentimental sense--we speak ofScottish National character, or of the National Bible Society ofScotland, though Scotland has no separate Parliament or flag and wouldon a map of Europe be painted the same colour as the rest of GreatBritain. Quite distinct from that is the political sense, in which theIrish Nationalists use the word when speaking of being "A Nation onceagain, " or of "The National Independence of Ireland. ")

It might be possible for the United Kingdom to be broken up into aFederation (though it is strange that there is no precedent in historyfor such a course); but that would not be "satisfying the NationalAspirations of Ireland. " In fact, as Mr. Childers, one of the ablestof English advocates of Home Rule, has stated: "The term Federal, asapplied to Irish Home Rule at the present time, is meaningless. "

But when we come to examine the existing Bill, which will become lawin 1914 unless something unforeseen occurs, we find that it is neitherthe Colonial plan nor Federation but an elaborate system which reallyseems as if it had been devised with the object of satisfying nobodyand producing friction at every point. England (by which of course Imean Great Britain; I merely use the shorter term for convenience)is not only to pay the total cost of the army, navy and diplomaticservices, including the defences of Ireland, but is also to grant anannual subsidy to Ireland commencing with £500, 000 but subsequentlyreduced to £200, 000. Whether the English taxpayer will relish thiswhen he comes to realise it, may be doubted. Certainly no precedentcan be cited for a Federal system under which all the commonexpenditure is borne by one of the parties. And further, the presentGovernment state freely that they hope to carry out their policy byintroducing a Bill for Home Rule for Scotland and possibly also forWales. Will the Scotch and Welsh consent to contribute towards thegovernment of Ireland; or will they demand that they shall be treatedlike Ireland, and leave the people of England to pay all Imperialservices and to subsidize Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Then again, Ireland is to send forty-two representatives to what is stillsarcastically to be called the "Parliament of the United Kingdom, " butwill no doubt popularly be known as the English Parliament. Theyare to vote about the taxation of people in Great Britain, and tointerfere in local affairs of that country, whilst the people ofGreat Britain are not to tax Ireland or interfere in any way with itsaffairs. This is indeed representation without taxation. Of course itis inevitable that the Irish members will continue to do what they aredoing at present--that is, offer their votes to whatever party willpromise further concessions to Irish Nationalism; and they willprobably find no more difficulty in getting an English party toconsent to such an immoral bargain than they do now. 

The provisions as to legislation for Ireland are still moreextraordinary. The Irish Parliament is to have complete power oflegislating as to Irish affairs, with the exception of certain mattersenumerated in the Act; thus it may repeal any Acts of the ImperialParliament passed before 1914. On the other hand, the EnglishParliament (in which Ireland will have only forty-two representatives)will also be able to pass laws binding Ireland (and in this way tore-enact the laws which the Irish Parliament has just repealed), andthese new laws the Irish Parliament may not repeal or overrule. Nowthis power of the English Parliament will either be a reality or afarce; if it is a reality, the Irish Nationalists will be no moreinclined to submit to laws made by "an alien Parliament" in which theyhave only forty-two representatives than they are at present to submitto those made by one in which they have 103; if it is a farce, the"supremacy of the Imperial Parliament" is a misleading expression. The Lord Lieutenant is to act as to some matters on the advice of theIrish Ministry, as to others on the advice of the English. Anyone whohas studied the history of constitutional government in the coloniesin the early days, when the governor was still supposed to act asto certain affairs independently of ministerial advice, will see theconfusion to which this must lead. Suppose the Lord Lieutenant actson the advice of the English ministers in a way of which theIrish Parliament do not approve, and the Irish Ministry resign inconsequence, what can result but a deadlock?

But most extraordinary of all are the provisions as to finance. TheGovernment appointed a Committee of Experts to consider this question. The committee made their report; but the Government rejected theiradvice and substituted another plan which is so elaborate that it isonly possible to touch on some of its more important features here. I have already said that the English Parliament will have no powerto tax Ireland. That statement, however, must be taken subject to tworeservations. The Bill provides that if ever the happy day arriveswhen for three consecutive years the revenue of Ireland has exceededthe cost of government, the English Parliament (with the addition oftwenty-three extra members summoned from Ireland for the purpose)may make new provisions securing from Ireland a contribution towardsImperial expenditure. As this is the only reference to the subjectin the Bill, the general opinion was that until those improbablecircumstances should occur, the English Parliament would have no powerto tax Ireland; but when the debates were drawing to a close, theGovernment astonished the House by stating that according to theirconstruction of the Bill, should any new emergency arise at any timeafter the Bill becomes law (for instance, a great naval emergencyrequiring an addition to the Income Tax) it would be not merely theright but also the duty of the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequerto see that the charge should be borne by the whole United Kingdom--inother words, the Parliament in which Ireland possesses only forty-tworepresentatives may and ought to tax Ireland for Imperial purposes. The friction which will arise should any attempt of the sort be made, especially as the power is not stated in the Bill, is evident. Inplain words, it will be impossible to levy the tax. 

But apart from these rights, which one may safely say will never beexercised, the financial arrangements will from their very complexitybe a constant source of trouble. All taxes levied in Ireland are to bepaid into the English Exchequer (or as it is called in the Bill "TheExchequer of the United Kingdom"). Some of the objects for whichthese taxes have been levied are to be managed by the IrishGovernment--these are called "Irish services"; others are to bemanaged by the English Government--these are called "Reservedservices. " The English Exchequer will then hand over to the IrishExchequer:--

 (a) A sum representing the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of "Irish Services" at the time of the passing of the Act;

 (b) The sum of £500, 000 a year, reducible to £200, 000, above referred to; and

 (c) A sum equal to the proceeds of any new taxes levied by the Irish Parliament. 

Then the balance which the English Exchequer will retain, afterhanding over these three sums, will go to the "Reserved Services. " Butas, in consequence of the establishment of the Old Age Pensionsand some other similar liabilities, the aggregate cost of governingIreland at this moment exceeds the revenue derived from Ireland byabout £1, 500, 000, the English taxpayer will have to make up this sum, as well as to give to Ireland an annual present of £500, 000; andeven if the Irish Government succeeds in managing its affairs moreeconomically than the Government at present does, that will give norelief to the British taxpayer, for it will be observed that the firstof the three sums which the Exchequer of the United Kingdom is to handover is not a sum representing the cost of the "Irish Services" at anyfuture date but the cost at the time of the passing of the Act. 

It is possible of course that the Irish revenue derived from existingtaxes may increase, and so the burden on the English taxpayer maybe lightened; but as it is more probable that it will decrease, andconsequently the burden become heavier, the English taxpayer cannotderive much consolation from that. 

It will be seen from the foregoing remarks that a number of extremelyintricate and difficult financial questions must arise; for instance, what sum really represents the net cost of "Irish Services" at thetime of the passing of the Act; what sum equals the net proceeds ofnew taxes imposed by the Irish Parliament; and at what moment it canbe said that the revenue of Ireland has for three consecutive yearsexceeded the cost of government. All such matters are to be decidedby a Board of Five, of whom one is to be nominated by the King(presumably on the advice of the English Ministers), two by theEnglish Government, and two by the Irish. From the decisions of thisBoard on matters of fact there is to be no appeal. It is needlessto point out that every detail in which the three English membersoverrule the two Irish will be fought out again in the EnglishParliament by the forty Irish members. This again will show how vainis the hope that future English Parliaments will be relieved fromendless discussions as to Irish affairs. Professor Dicey has wellnamed the able work in which he has analysed the Bill and shown itsimpossibilities "A Fool's Paradise. "

The provisions concerning those matters as to which the IrishParliament is to have no power to legislate are as strange as theother clauses of the Bill. For six years the Constabulary are to be a"reserved service"; but as they will be under the orders of the IrishGovernment, the object of this is hard to see--unless indeed it is tocreate an impression that the Ulstermen if they refuse to obey themare rebelling not against the Irish but the Imperial Government. ThePost Office Savings Banks are "reserved" for a longer period; as tothe postal services to places beyond Ireland, the Irish Parliamentwill have no power to legislate; but the Post Office, so far as itrelates to Ireland alone, will be handed over at once to the IrishParliament--although even in the case of Federal Unions such asAustralia the Post Office is usually considered to be eminently amatter for the Federal authority. And the question whether an IrishAct is unconstitutional and therefore void will be decided by thePrivy Council, which will be regarded as an essentially English body;hence if it attempts to veto an Irish Act, its action will be at oncedenounced as a revival of Poyning's Act and the Declaratory Act ofGeorge I. 

The Bill excludes the relations with Foreign States from the powers ofthe Irish Parliament, but says nothing to prevent the Irish Governmentfrom appointing a political agent to the Vatican. That is probably oneof the first things that it will do; and as the Lord Lieutenant couldnever form a Government which would consent to any other course, hewill be obliged to consent. This agent, not being responsible to theBritish Foreign Office, may cause constant friction between Englandand Italy. 

But quite apart from the unworkable provisions of the Bill, everythingconnected with its introduction and passing through Parliament hastended to increase the hatred which the Opposition feel towards it, and the determination of the Ulstermen to resist it if necessary evenby force. Those who lived in Australia whilst Federation was underdiscussion will recollect how carefully the scheme was brought beforethe people, discussed in various Colonial Parliaments, considered overagain line by line by the delegates in an Inter-Colonial Conference, examined afresh in the Colonial Office in London and in the ImperialParliament and finally laid before each colony for its acceptance. Yethere is a matter which vitally affects the government not of Irelandonly but of the whole United Kingdom, and thus indirectly of theEmpire at large; it was (as I have shown) not fairly brought beforethe people at a general election; it has been introduced by whatis admittedly merely a coalition Government as a matter of bargainbetween the various sections, at a time when the British Constitutionis in a state of dislocation, as the power of the House of Lords hasbeen destroyed and the new Upper Chamber not yet set up; and it hasbeen passed without adequate discussion. This I say deliberately; itis no use to point out how many hours have been spent in Committee, for the way in which the discussion has been conducted has deprivedit of any real value. The custom has been for the Government to statebeforehand the time at which each batch of clauses is to be passed, and what amendments may be discussed (the rest being passed over insilence); when the discussion is supposed to begin, their supportersostentatiously walk out, and the Opposition argue to empty benches;then when the moment for closing the discussion arrives, the Ministerin charge gets up and says that the Government cannot accept any ofthe amendments proposed; the bell rings, the Government supporterstroop back, and pass all the clauses unamended. As an instance of thiscontemptible way of conducting the debate, it is sufficient to pointto the fact already mentioned, that so vital a matter as the powerof the English Parliament to tax Ireland was not even hinted at untilnearly the end of the debates. 

And now the Bill is to become law without any further appeal to thepeople. 

Are English Unionists to be blamed if they declare that an Act sopassed will possess no moral obligation, and that they are determined, should the terrible necessity arise, to aid the Ulstermen in resistingit to the uttermost?

CHAPTER XV. 

THE DANGER TO THE EMPIRE OF ANY FORM OF HOME RULE. THE QUESTIONSANSWERED. 

In the last chapter I explained how hopelessly unworkable is theparticular scheme of Home Rule which is contained in the presentBill. I now proceed to show why Home Rule in any form must lead todisaster--primarily to Ireland, ultimately to the Empire. 

Politicians who, like ostriches, possess the happy faculty of shuttingtheir eyes to unpleasant facts, may say that there is only one nationin Ireland; but everyone who knows the country is quite aware thatthere are two, which may be held together as part of the UnitedKingdom, but which can no more be forced into one nation thanBelgium and Holland could be forced to combine as the Kingdom of theNetherlands. And whatever cross-currents there may be, the great lineof cleavage is religion. Of course I am aware of the violent effortsthat have been made ever since the commencement of the Nationalistagitation to prove that this is not so. Thus Parnell, addressing anEnglish audience, explained that religion had nothing to do with themovement, and as evidence stated that he was the leader of it thoughnot merely a Protestant but a member of the Protestant Synod and aparochial nominator for his own parish. Of course everyone in Irelandknew perfectly well that he was only a Protestant in the sense thatGaribaldi was a Roman Catholic--he had been baptised as such ininfancy; and that he was not a member of the synod or a parochialnominator, and never had been one; but the statement was good enoughto deceive his Nonconformist hearers. That Protestant Home Rulersexist is not denied. But the numbers are so small that it is evidentthat they are the rare exceptions that prove the rule. The veryanxiety with which, when a Protestant Home Ruler can be discoveredhe is put forward, and the fact of his being a Protestant Home Rulerreferred to again and again, shows what a rare bird he is. To mentionone instance amongst many; a Protestant Home Ruler has recentlybeen speaking on platforms in England explaining that he came in arepresentative capacity in order to testify to the people of Englandthat the Irish Protestants were now in favour of Home Rule. He didnot mention the fact that in the district where he resided therewere about 1, 000 Protestants and he was the only Home Ruler amongstthem--in fact, nearly all the rest had signed a Petition against theBill. And when we come to examine who these Protestant Home Rulersare, about whom so much has been said, we find first that there is inthis as in every other movement, a very small number of faddists, wholike to go against their own party; secondly a few who though theystill call themselves Protestants have to all intents and purposesabandoned their religion, and therefore cannot fairly be reckoned;thirdly, a few who hold appointments from which they would bedismissed if they did not conform; fourthly, some who say openly thatHome Rule is coming and that whatever their private opinions may be itis the wisest policy to worship the rising sun (bearing in mind thatMr. Dillon has promised that when the Nationalists attain their endthey will remember who were their friends and who their enemies, anddeal out rewards and punishments accordingly); and fifthly, those whohave accepted what future historians will describe as bribes. For thepresent Government have showered down Peerages, Knighthoods ofvarious orders, Lieutenancies of Counties, Deputy-Lieutenancies andCommissions of the Peace--not to speak of salaried offices bothin Ireland and elsewhere--on Protestants who would consent to turnNationalists, in a manner which makes it absurd to talk any more aboutbribery at the time of the Union. And yet with all this the ProtestantHome Rulers are such an extremely small body that they may bedisregarded. And indeed it is hard to see how an earnest, consistentand logically-minded Protestant can be a Nationalist; for loyalty tothe King is a part of his creed; and, in the words of a Nationalistorgan, the _Midland Tribune_, "If a man be a Nationalist he must _ipsofacto_ be a Disloyalist, for Irish Nationalism and loyalty to thethrone of England could not be synonymous. "

On the other hand, a large proportion of the educated Roman Catholics, the men who have a real stake in the country, are Unionists. Someof them, however earnest they may be in their religion, dread thedomination of a political priesthood; others dread still more theunion of the Church with anarchism. As has already been shown, they refuse to join the United Irish League; some in the north haveactually subscribed the Ulster Covenant; many others have signedpetitions against Home Rule throughout the country; and a still largernumber have stated that they would gladly do so if they did not fearthe consequences. It is probably therefore correct to say thatthe number of Unionists in Ireland decidedly exceeds the number ofProtestants; in other words, less than three-fourths of the populationare Nationalists, and more than one-fourth (perhaps about one-third)are Unionists. And more than that; if we are to test the reality ofa movement, we must look not merely at numbers but at other matters. Violent language may be used; but the fact remains as I havepreviously stated that even if the Nationalists are taken as beingonly two-thirds of the population, their annual subscriptions to thecause do not amount to anything like a penny per head and that theagitation could not last for six months if it were not kept aliveby contributions from America and the Colonies. But though theNationalist movement has not brought about a Union between the Orangeand the Green, it has caused two other Unions to be formed which willhave an important influence on the future history of the country. Inthe first place it has revived, or cemented, the Union which, as wehave seen, existed at former periods of Irish history, but which hasexisted in no other country in the world--the Union between theBlack and the Red. That a Union between two forces so essentiallyantagonistic as Ultramontanism and Jacobinism will be permanent, onecan hardly suppose; whether the clericals, if they succeed in crushingthe heretics, will afterwards be able to turn and crush the anarchistswith whom they have been in alliance, and then reign supreme; orwhether, as happened in France at the end of the eighteenth centuryand in Portugal recently, the anarchists who have grown up withinthe bosom of the Church will prove to be a more deadly foe to theclericals than the heretics ever were--it is impossible to say; butneither prospect seems very cheerful. 

In the second place, the Nationalist movement has drawn all theProtestant bodies together as nothing else could. Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists have all joined hands in the defence oftheir common liberties. The Nationalists have left no stone unturnedin their efforts to prove that the northern Protestants are disloyal. They have succeeded in finding one speech that was made by an excitedorator (not a leader) forty-four years ago, to the effect that theDisestablishment of the Church might result in the Queen's Crown beingkicked into the Boyne. As this is the only instance they can rake up, it has been quoted in the House of Commons and elsewhere againand again; and Mr. Birrell (whose knowledge of Ireland seems to beentirely derived from Nationalist speeches) has recently elaboratedit by saying that when the Church was going to be disestablished"they used to declare" that the Queen's Crown would be kicked into theBoyne, and yet their threats came to nothing and therefore theresult of Home Rule will be the same. The fact was that the Churchestablishment was the last relic of Protestant Ascendancy; and asI have already shown, that meant Anglican ascendancy in whichPresbyterianism did not participate; hence, when the agitation forDisestablishment arose, though some few Presbyterians greatly dislikedit, their opposition as a whole was lukewarm. But when in 1886 HomeRule became a question of practical politics, they rose up against itas one man; in 1893, when the second Home Rule Bill was introduced andactually passed the House of Commons, they commenced organising theirVolunteer army to resist it, if necessary, by force of arms; andthey are just as keen to-day as they were twenty years ago. They arecertainly not disloyal; the republican spirit which permeatedtheir ancestors in the eighteenth century has long since died outcompletely. Sir Walter Scott said that if he had lived at the time ofthe Union between Scotland and England, he would have fought againstit; but, living a century later and seeing the benefit that it hadbeen to his country, his feelings were all on the other side. That iswhat the Presbyterians of Ulster say to-day. They point to the way inwhich Ulster has, under the Union, been able to develop itself; withno richer soil, no better climate, and no greater natural advantagesthan other parts of Ireland, the energy, ability, and true patriotismof the people have enabled them to establish and encourage commerceand manufactures which have brought wealth and prosperity to Ulsterwhilst the other Provinces have been stationary or retrograde. Therecannot be a better instance of the different spirit which animates thetwo communities than the history of the linen industry. Michael Davittbitterly described it as "Not an Irish, but an Orange industry. " Andfrom his point of view, he was quite right; for it is practicallyconfined to Ulster. In that Province it has during the nineteenthcentury developed so steadily that the annual export now exceeds£15, 000, 000 in value and more than 70, 000 hands are employed in themills. Not long ago, a Royal Commission was appointed to enquirewhether it was not possible to grow flax in the south and west, andif so why it was not done. The Commission made careful enquiries, andreported that in both Munster and Connaught efforts had been made toestablish the industry (notably by the late Lord Bandon, one of themuch-abused landlord class, who had let land for the purpose at anominal charge, obtained seed and brought experts from the northto instruct the people); that it had been proved that both soil andclimate were quite as well adapted for it as in Ulster; but that aftera few years the buyers refused any longer to purchase the flax as itwas so carelessly and badly prepared that it was valueless; and sothe industry had died out. In both south and west the people expressedtheir readiness to revive it if a large grant were made to them by theGovernment, but not otherwise. 

Then again we may take the growth of the cities. It seems hard now torealise that one reason why the people of Dublin opposed the Union wasbecause they feared lest, when their city ceased to be the capital, Cork might grow into a great industrial centre and surpass it. Corkhas remained stationary ever since; Belfast, then an insignificantcountry town, has become a city of 400, 000 inhabitants, and thecustoms from it alone are more than double those from all the rest ofIreland put together. And what is true of Belfast is true also on asmaller scale of all the other towns north of the Boyne. 

This remarkable contrast between the progress of the north-east andthe stagnation of the rest of the country is no new thing. It has beenobserved ever since the Union. So long ago as 1832 the Report of theCommission on the linen manufacture of Ireland contained the followingwords:--

 "Political and religious animosities and dissensions, and increasing agitation first for one object and then for another have so destroyed confidence and shaken the bonds of society--undermined men's principles and estranged neighbour from neighbour, friend from friend, and class from class--that, in lieu of observing any common effort to ameliorate the condition of the people, we find every proposition for this object, emanate from which party it may, received with distrust by the other; maligned, perverted and destroyed, to gratify the political purposes of a faction. . . . The comparative prosperity enjoyed by that portion of Ireland where tranquillity ordinarily prevails, such as the Counties Down, Antrim, and Derry, testify the capabilities of Ireland to work out her own regeneration, when freed of the disturbing causes which have so long impeded her progress in civilization and improvement. We find there a population hardy, healthy and employed; capital fast flowing into the district; new sources of employment daily developing themselves; a people well disposed alike to the government and institutions of their country; and not distrustful and jealous of their superiors. Contrast the social condition of these people with such pictures as we have presented to us from other districts. "

This energetic, self-reliant and prosperous community now see beforetheir eyes what the practical working of government by the League is. They see it generally in the condition of the country, and especiallyin the Dublin Convention of 1909, the narrow-minded administration ofthe Local Government Act wherever the power of the League prevails, and the insecurity for life and property in the west; they know alsothat a Home Rule Government must mean increased taxation (as theNationalists themselves confess) which will probably--in fact, one mayalmost say must certainly, as no other source is available--be thrownon the Ulster manufactures; is it not therefore a matter of life anddeath to them to resist it to the uttermost?

But as I have said, the great line of cleavage is religion. Here Iknow that I shall be accused of "Orange bigotry. " But I am not afraidof the charge; first because I do not happen to be an Orangeman; andsecondly because I regard bigotry as the outcome of ignorance andprejudice, and consider therefore that a calm examination of theevidence is the very antithesis of bigotry. In order to make thisexamination I desire in the first place to avoid the mistake thatGrattan made in judging the probabilities of the future from theopinions of personal friends whom I like and respect, but who, as Iknow (and regret to think), possess no influence whatever. I considerthat there are other data--such as works of authority, the actionof the public bodies, statements by men in prominent positions, and articles in leading journals--from which it is safer to forman estimate. The Ulstermen are content that the country should begoverned, as far as religion is concerned, on modern principles--thatis to say, in much the same way that England, Australia and NewZealand are governed to-day. The Nationalists, whatever they maysay in England or the Colonies, have never in Ireland from thecommencement of the movement attempted to deny that their object isto see Ireland governed on principles which are totally differentand which the Ulstermen detest. As long ago as 1886, the _Freeman'sJournal_, the leading Nationalist organ, said:--

 "We contend that the good government of Ireland by England is impossible . . . The one people has not only accepted but retained with inviolable constancy the Christian faith; the other has not only rejected it, but has been for three centuries the leader of the great apostasy, and is at this day the principal obstacle to the conversion of the world. "

And as recently as December 1912, Professor Nolan of Maynooth, addressing the Roman Catholic students at the Belfast University, said:--

 "Humanly speaking, we are on the eve of Home Rule. We shall have a free hand in the future. Let us use it well. This is a Catholic country, and if we do not govern it on Catholic lines, according to Catholic ideals, and to safe-guard Catholic interests, it will be all the worse for the country and all the worse for us. We have now a momentous opportunity of changing the whole course of Irish history. "

Then another of their papers, the _Rosary_, has said: "We haveplayed the game of tolerance until the game is played out"; and hasprophesied that under Home Rule the Church will become an irresistibleengine before whom all opposition must go down. And whatever theeducated laity may desire, no one who knows Ireland can doubt thatit is the clerical faction that will be all-powerful. The leadingecclesiastics are trained at the Gregorian University at Rome; andone of the Professors at that institution, in a work published in 1901with the special approval of Pope Leo XIII, enunciated the doctrinethat it is the duty of a Christian State to put to death hereticswho have been condemned by the Ecclesiastical Court. Of course no onesupposes that such a thing will ever take place in Ireland; but whatthe Ulstermen object to is putting themselves under the rule ofmen who have been trained in such principles and believe them to beapproved by an infallible authority. 

In 1904 some foreign merchants at Barcelona wished to build a churchfor themselves. Republican feeling is so strong in the municipalitythat permission was obtained without difficulty. But the bishopat once protested and appealed to the King. The King wrote back asympathetic letter expressing his deep regret that he was unable toprevent this fresh attack on the Catholic faith. 

We are constantly being told that the tolerance and liberality shownby the majority in Quebec is sufficient of itself to prove how foolishare the apprehensions felt by the minority in Ireland. Well, I willquote from a journal which cannot be accused of Protestant bias, the _Irish Independent_, one of the leading organs of theNationalist-clerical party in Ireland:--

 "(From our own Correspondent. )

 "Montreal, Thursday. 

 "In connection with the celebration of the anniversary of Wolfe's victory and death, which takes place in September, prominent members of the Anglican Church have inaugurated a movement for the erection of a Wolfe Memorial Chapel on the Plains of Abraham. The organisers of the movement hope ultimately to secure the transfer of the General's remains to the chapel for interment on the scene of his victory. 

 "The population being largely French-Canadian Catholics, the Catholic Church organ of Quebec strongly protests against the erection of an Anglican chapel in the heart of a Catholic district. "

Now if this conduct on the part of the Roman Catholic authorities isquite right at Barcelona and Quebec, why is it "Orange bigotry"to suggest that the same people may act in the same way at Cork orGalway?

Again, in 1910, a remarkable volume was published, written by Mrs. Hugh Fraser, the sister of the novelist, Marion Crawford, entitled "ADiplomat's Wife in Many Lands. " The authoress was a very able woman, who had travelled much and mixed in cultured society wherever she hadbeen; her book was highly reviewed by various English Magazines. Shetells the story of a child of Jewish parents living at Rome in thedays of Pope Pius IX, who was secretly baptized in infancy by a nurse, and at the age of seven was forcibly taken from his parents and placedin a Convent School. She explains that not only was this quite right, but that such a course is inevitable in every country in which theChurch has power; and that the feelings of the heretic mother whosechild is taken from her are a fair subject of ridicule on the part ofgood Catholics. Can Irish Protestants be accused of bigotry when theycontend that these writers mean what they say? English Nonconformistsargue that they ought to wait until the time comes and then eitherfight or leave the country; but the Irish Protestants reply that itis more sensible to take steps beforehand to ward off the danger. Andwhether they are right or wrong, the fact remains that those are theirideas, and that is their determination; and this is the situationwhich must be faced if Home Rule is forced upon the people of Ulster. 

By a striking coincidence, two meetings have recently been held on thesame day--the 16th of May 1913--which form an apt illustration ofthe position adopted by the two parties. The first was a greatdemonstration of Unionists at Belfast, organised in order to make afurther protest against the Bill and to perfect the organisation foropposing it by force, if the necessity arises; the second was a largemeeting of the United Irish League at Mullingar. The Chairman, Mr. Ginnell, M. P. (who has gained prominence and popularity by his skillin arranging cattle-drives), said that the chief cause of the pressurelast session was to get the Home Rule Bill through its first stage. Itwas still called a Home Rule Bill, though differing widely fromwhat most of them always understood by Home Rule. Deeply though heregretted the Bill's defects and limitations, still he thought almostany Parliament in Ireland was worth accepting--first, because it wasin some sense a recognition of the right to govern themselves; andsecondly, because even a crippled Parliament would give them freshleverage for complete freedom. No one could be silly enough to supposethat an intelligent Ireland, having any sort of a Parliament of itsown, would be prevented by any promise given now by place-hunters, from using that Parliament for true national purposes. 

That no army which the Ulstermen can form will be able to standagainst British troops supported by cavalry and artillery is evident;but it seems almost past belief that England should be ready toplunge the country into civil war; or that British troops should marchout--with bands playing "Bloody England, we hate you still, " or someother inspiring Nationalist air--to shoot down Ulstermen who will cometo meet them waving the Union Jack and shouting "God save the King. "And if they do--what then? Lord Wolseley, when Commander-in-Chief inIreland in 1893, pointed out the probable effect on the British Armyin a letter to the Duke of Cambridge:--

 "If ever our troops are brought into collision with the loyalists of Ulster, and blood is shed, it will shake the whole foundations upon which our army rests to such an extent that I feel that our Army will never be the same again. Many officers will resign to join Ulster, and there will be such a host of retired officers in the Ulster ranks that men who would stand by the Government no matter what it did, will be worse than half-hearted in all they do. No army could stand such a strain upon it. "

And then England, having crushed her natural allies in Ulster, willhand over the Government of Ireland to a party whose avowed objectis to break up the Empire and form a separate Republic. Dangers anddifficulties arose even when the independent legislature of Irelandwas in the hands of men who were loyal and patriotic in the noblestsense of the term, and when there were in every district a certainnumber of educated gentlemen of position who (as we have seen) werealways ready to risk their lives and fortunes for the defence of therealm; what will happen when the loyal minority have been shot down, driven out of the country, or forced into bitter hostility to theGovernment who have betrayed and deserted them? As Lecky wrote yearsago:--

 "It is scarcely possible to over-estimate the danger that would arise if the vast moral legislative, and even administrative powers which every separate legislature must necessarily possess, were exercised in any near and vital part of the British Empire, by men who were disloyal to its interests. To place the government of a country by a voluntary and deliberate act in the hands of dishonest and disloyal men, is perhaps the greatest crime that a public man can commit: a crime which, in proportion to the strength and soundness of national morality, must consign those who are guilty of it to undying infamy. "

If English people are so blind that they cannot perceive this, foreigners, whose vision is clearer, have warned them. Bismarck saidthat England, by granting Home Rule to Ireland, would dig its owngrave; and Admiral Mahan has recently written:--

 "It is impossible for a military man or a statesman to look at the map and not perceive that the ambition of the Irish separatists, if realised, would be even more threatening to the national life of Great Britain than the secession of the South was to the American Union. 

 "The legislative supremacy of the British Parliament against the assertion of which the American Colonists revolted and which to-day would be found intolerable in Canada and Australia cannot be yielded in the case of an island, where independent action might very well be attended with fatal consequences to its partner. The instrument for such action, in the shape of an independent Parliament, could not be safely trusted even to avowed friends. "

So then, having reviewed the evidence as calmly and dispassionately asI can, I answer the two questions which I propounded at the outset ofthe enquiry--That the real objects of the Nationalists are thetotal separation of Ireland from England and the establishment of anIndependent Republic; and that the men of Ulster in resisting themto the uttermost are not merely justified on the ground ofself-preservation, but are in reality fighting for the cause of theEmpire. 

NOTE. 

The following Report of the Annual Pilgrimage in memory of Wolfe Tone, which took place on the 22nd of June last, and the article in the_Leinster Leader_ (a prominent Nationalist journal) will show howclosely the Nationalists of to-day follow in the footsteps of WolfeTone. 

THE MEMORY OF WOLFE TONE. 

ANNUAL PILGRIMAGE TO BODENSTOWN. 

(_From our Reporter_. )

On Sunday last the annual pilgrimage to the grave of Theobald WolfeTone took place to Bodenstown churchyard. This year the numbers whoattended exceeded those of last year, about a thousand coming fromDublin and another contingent from Tullamore, Clare, and Athlone. Theprocession formed outside Sallins station was a most imposing one, being made up of St. James' Brass Band and the Lorcan O'Toole Pipers'Band and the Athlone Pipers' Band, the National Boy Scouts, theDaughters of Erin, and members of the Wolfe Tone Memorial Clubs. 

At the graveside demonstration, Mr. Thos. J. Clarke presided and saidit was a gratifying thing that numbers of their fellow-countrymen wereto-day swinging back to the old fighting line and taking pride in theold Fenian principles. He introduced Mr. P. H. Pearse, B. A. 

Mr. Pearse then came forward and delivered an eloquent and impressiveoration, first speaking in Irish. Speaking in English, he said theyhad come to the holiest place in Ireland, holier to them than thatsacred spot where Patrick sleeps in Down. Patrick brought them life, but Wolfe Tone died for them. Though many had testified in deathto the truth of Ireland's claim to Nationhood, Wolfe Tone was thegreatest of all that had made that testimony; he was the greatest ofIreland's dead. They stood in the holiest place in Ireland, for whatspot of the Nation's soil could be holier than the spot in which thegreatest of her dead lay buried. He found it difficult to speak inthat place, and he knew they all partook of his emotion. There wereno strangers there for they were all in a sense own brothers to Tone(hear, hear). They shared his faith, his hope still unrealised andhis great love. They had come there that day not merely to salute thisnoble dust and to pay their homage to the noble spirit of Tone, butto renew their adhesion to the faith of Tone and to express theirfull acceptance of the gospel of which Tone had given such a cleardefinition. That gospel had been taught before him by English-speakingmen, uttered half-articulately by Shan O'Neill, expressed in somepassionate metaphor by Geoffrey Keating, and hinted at by Swift insome bitter jibe, but it was stated definitely and emphatically byWolfe Tone and it did not need to be ever again stated anew for anynew generation. Tone was great in mind, but he was still greater inspirit. He had the clear vision of the prophet; he saw things as theywere and saw things as they would be. They owed more to this dead manthan they should be ever able to repay him by making pilgrimages tohis grave or building the stateliest monuments in the streets ofhis city. They owed it to him that there was such a thing as IrishNationalism; to his memory and the memory of '98 they owed it thatthere was any manhood left in Ireland (hear, hear). The soul ofWolfe Tone was like a burning flame, a flame so pure, so ardent, sogenerous, that to come into communion with it was as a new optimismand regeneration. Let them try in some way to get into contact withthe spirit of Tone and possess themselves of its ardour. If they coulddo that it would be a good thing for them and their country, becausethey would carry away with them a new life from that place of deathand there would be a new resurrection of patriotic grace in theirsouls (hear, hear). Let them think of Tone; think of his boyhoodand young manhood in Dublin and in Kildare; think of his adventurousspirit and plans, think of his glorious failure at the bar, and hishealthy contempt for what he called a foolish wig and gown, think howthe call of Ireland came to him; think how he obeyed that call; thinkhow he put virility into the Catholic movement; think how this heretictoiled to make freemen of Catholic helots (applause). Think how hegrew to love the real and historic Irish nation, and then there cameto him that clear conception that there must be in Ireland not threenations but one; that Protestant and Dissenter must close in amitywith Catholic, and Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter must unite toachieve freedom for all (applause). Let them consider the sacrificesTone had made; he had to leave so much. Never was there a man who wasso richly endowed as he was, he had so much love in his warm heart. He(speaker) would rather have known Tone than any other man of whom heever read or heard. He never read of any one man who had more in himof the heroic stuff than Tone had; how gaily and gallantly he had setabout the doing of a mighty thing. He (speaker) had always loved thevery name of Thomas Russell because Tone so loved him. To be Tone'sfriend! What a privilege! for Tone had for his friends an immenselove, an immense charity. He had such love for his wife and children!But such was the destiny of the heroes of their nation; they hadto stifle in their hearts all that love and that sweet music and tofollow only the faint voice that called them to the battlefield or tothe harder death at the foot of the gibbet. Tone heard that voice andobeyed it and from his grave to-day he was calling on them and theywere there to answer his voice; and they pledged themselves tocarry out his programme to abolish the connection with England, the never-failing source of political evils and to establishthe independence of their country, to abolish the memory of pastdissensions, and to replace for the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, the common name of Irishman (applause). In that programme was to be found the whole philosophy of IrishNationality; that programme included the philosophy of the GaelicLeague and of later prophets, and it was to that programme theypledged their adhesion; they pledged it now at the graveside of Tone;they pledged themselves to follow in the steps of Tone, never to restby day or night until this be accomplished, until Ireland be free(applause); fighting on, not in despondency, but in great joy as Tonefought; prizing it above all privileges, and hoping for the victory intheir own day. And if it should be granted to them in this generationto complete the work that Tone's generation left unaccomplished! Butif that was not their destiny, they should fight on still, hopingstill, self-sacrificing still, knowing as they must know that causeslike this did not lose for ever, and that men like Tone did not die invain (applause). 

The address having concluded, wreaths were placed on the grave by theNational Boy Scouts and the Inghanite Na h-Eireann. 

During the afternoon an aeridheacht was held in an adjoining field atwhich music, songs and recitations were contributed, and a thoroughlyenjoyable Irish-Ireland evening was spent. 

AT THE GRAVE OF WOLFE TONE. 

The lifework of Theobald Wolfe Tone, for the subversion of EnglishGovernment in Ireland, and the supreme sacrifice he made in the mightyeffort to erect in its stead an independent Ireland free from allforeign denomination and control, was fittingly commemorated on Sundaylast, when the annual pilgrimage took place to Bodenstown Churchyard, where all that is mortal of the great patriot lie buried. Thepilgrimage this year was worthy of the cause and the man, and affordedsome object lessons in what might be accomplished by a cultivation ofthose principles of discipline and devotion to duty, in the pursuitof a glorious ideal, which Tone taught and adhered to throughout hisadventurous and brilliant career. The well-ordered procession, the ready obedience to the commands of the marshals, the intenseearnestness of the multitude, and the display made by the youths--thenational boy scouts--their military bearing, and the bands and bannerswhich interspersed the procession as it marched from Sallins toBodenstown was a spectacle which pleased the eye and stirred theemotions. Everything in connection with the pilgrimage was carried outwith a close attention to detail, and military-like precision whichmust have been very acceptable to the great patriot in whose honourit was organised, were he but permitted to gaze from the great Unknownupon this practical demonstration of the perpetuation of the spiritwhich animated him and his time, in the struggle against Englishmisrule, and the love and veneration in which he is still held, afterthe lapse of the century and more that has passed since he made thefinal sacrifice of his life in the cause of freedom. Tone done todeath did not die in vain. The truth of this was evident in thecharacter of the pilgrimage on Sunday last, when all that is best andpurest in patriotism in the land assembled at his graveside, to renewfealty to the aims and ideals for which he suffered and died, and tohear the gospel of Irish nationality preached and expounded as he knewand inculcated it in his day. A fusion of forces, and the cultivationof a spirit and bond of brotherhood and friendship amongst Irishmenin the common cause, were his methods to attain the great ideal ofa separate and distinct nationality, for then, as to-day, the chiefobstacle to freedom and nationhood was not so much English dominationin itself, as want of cohesion, faction, and the disruption causedby alien traditions and teachings. This was the prevailing spirit ofSunday's commemoration, and as the great mass of people filed past inorderly array and knelt, prayed, and laid wreaths on the lonely grave, the solemnity and impressiveness of the occasion was intensified. In the suppressed murmurs, and silent gaze on the tomb of the mightydead, one could recognise the eagerness and the hope for another Toneto arise to complete the work which he promoted, and vindicate thepurity of the motives which moved men like the leaders of '98 to doand dare for all, and to "substitute the common name of Irishmanfor Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter. " The promoters, too, werefortunate in their choice of orator for the occasion. Mr. P. H. Pearsedid full justice to the occasion, and in language, beautiful andimpressive, pictured the man and his movements and the lessons to bedrawn by us to-day from the lifework of leaders in thought and actionlike Tone. Close and consistent adhesion to principles of patriotismand a readiness of self-sacrifice in the pursuit of those principles, were his distinguishing characteristics all through life, and if we inour time would emulate the example of Tone and his times, we must alsobe ready when the call came to meet any demand made upon us for thepromotion of our national welfare. The orator of the day rightly, inour opinion, described that hallowed spot in Bodenstown as one of theholiest places in Ireland to-day, from the nationalist standpoint, holding as it does the ashes of the man who, without friends, money orinfluence to help him, and by sheer force of character, intensity ofpurpose and earnestness, prevailed upon the greatest emperor-generalthe world has ever seen Napoleon Bonaparte, to make a descent onIreland, in order to aid our starved, tortured, and persecuted peopleto shake off the shackles that kept them in slavery, and elevateIreland once more to the dignity of full, free, and untrammellednationhood. We are all familiar with the events following this greateffort of Tone's, and the dark chapters that closed a glorious career. All that is mortal of Tone is in the keeping of Kildare, and it isa trust that we feel sure is not alone felt to be a high honour, but which cannot fail to keep the cultivation of a high standard ofnationality before the people in whose midst repose the remains of oneof Ireland's greatest sons. Ireland, from the centre to the sea, was represented in Sunday's great gathering to commemorate theachievements of Wolfe Tone, and the occasion was honoured first bythe large and representative character of the throng, secondly by thedecorum observed all through the day's proceedings, and thirdly, bythe regularity and precision which attended the entire arrangements. There was just one other feature which must have been very gratifyingto those identified with the organisation of the pilgrimage, namely: the large proportion of ladies and young people, coming longdistances, who made up the gathering. And they were by no means theleast enthusiastic of the throng. This enthusiasm amongst our youngpeople is one of the most encouraging and promising signs of thetimes, serving as it does to demonstrate the undying spirit of Irishnationality, and the perpetuation of those principles to which Tonedevoted his time, talents, and eventually made the supreme sacrificeof his life in having inculcated amongst his people. It is a gloriouslegacy, and one that has ever been cherished with veneration for themen who left it. He died a martyr to the cause he espoused, but hismemory and the cause live. The living blaze he and his co-workers, inthe cause of Irish freedom, kindled has never been completely stampedout, and it still smoulders, and has occasionally burst into flameonly to be temporarily extinguished in the blood and tears of ourbravest and best who never forgot the teachings of Tone. And now, whenthe sky is bright once more, and every circumstance portends the dawnof a new era, full of hope and promise for the ultimate realisationof those ideals for which thousands of our race have sacrificed theirlives, the spark of nationality which, even since Tone's death, hasrepeatedly leaped into flame, still glows fitfully to remind us thatcome what may it remains undying and unquenchable, a beacon to lightus on the path to freedom should disappointment and dashed hopes againdarken the outlook. 

INDEX

 Abjuration, oath of, 51. Absentees, 65, 138, 139. Acton, Lord, 37. Adrian, Pope, 13. Agrarian outrages, 152, 196-202, 210-215. Agriculture, Department of, 161, 163. Alexander, Pope, 14. Alfred the Great, 9. American War of Independence, 63, 72, 73, 83. Anglican Church in Ireland, 27, 28, 60, 143, 144, 236. Anne, Queen, 63. Arkins, P. , 210, 211. Arklow, battle of, 109. Armagh, Bishop of, 7. Ashbourne Act, 159. Ashtown, Lord, 203, 204. Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H. , 129, 207. Athenry founded by Normans, 17. 

 Balfour, Rt. Hon. Arthur J. , 156, 160, 164. Balfour, Rt. Hon. Gerald, 168. Baltimore, Lord, 38. Bandon, Lord, 238. Bannatyne, Mr. , 214. Barcelona, Church at, 243, 244. Belfast, growth of, 239; meeting at, 245; persons employed by Corporation of, 174, 175; University, 176, 193, 205. Berkeley, Bishop, 120. Biggar, J. G. , 145. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine, Chief Secretary, 160, 167, 173, 174, 197, 198, 200-205, 211, 216, 236. Bismarck, Prince, 248. Blake, W. , 198. "Board of Erin, " 184. Boers, Nationalist sympathy with, 170. Borromeo, San Carlo, 54. Bossuet, 54. Bounties granted by Irish Parliament, 80. Boy Scouts, 193. Boycotting, 86, 148, 149, 153. Boyne, battle of the, 48. Brady, J. , 145, 146. Brian Boroo, 8, 9, 19. Bright, John, 154, 159. Brook, 57. Browne estate, 168. Bruce, Edward, invasion by, 19, 26, 91. Bruce, King Robert, 17, 19, 26. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James, Chief Secretary, 194, 195, 197. Bulls, Papal, 13-15. Burke, Mr. , Under Secretary, murder of, 146, 153. Busby, Mr. , 157. Butt, Isaac, advocates Home Rule, 145. 

 Carey, James, 145. Carlow, rebellion in, 109. "Carrion Crows, " 202. Castlebar, capture of by the French, 112. Castledawson outrage, 216, 217. Castlereagh, Lord, 126, 128. Catholic University Medical School, 176. Cattle driving, 167, 195-202. Cavan, raid by septs of, 7. Cavendish, murder of Lord F. , 146, 153. Celts, 5-14, 20, 23, 24, 31. Charlemont, Lord, 93. Charles I, 40-42. Charles II, 44. Chicago Convention, 155. Childers, Erskine, 222. Church, Celtic. See Celts of Ireland. See Anglican Church. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston, 209. Clan-na-gael, 147, 185. Clare, state of, in 1912, 210-214. Clare, Lord, 81, 84, 85, 111. Clerkenwell explosion, 143. Clontarf, battle of, 9. "Coalition Ministry, " 208. "Coigne and livery, " 11. College of Surgeons, Dublin, 176. Condon, O'Meagher, 96, 184, 185. Confiscations, 30, 42, 43, 57, 150. Congested Districts Board, 164-168. Connaught, Celtic raids into, 7; lands in, given to rebels, 42; rebellion in, 112. Conolly, Mr. , 215. Convention in Dublin in 1909, 206, 207, 240. Cooke, Mr. , Under Secretary, 111. Co-operative Credit Banks, 162, 163. Co-operative Farming Societies, 161-163. Cork, Medical School at, 176; persons employed by County Council of, 175. Corn Laws, repeal of the, 136. Cornwallis, Lord, 123, 129. County Councils, 168-178, 191, 193. Covenant, Ulster. See Ulster Covenant. Cowper Commission, 149. Crewe, Lord, 201. Crimes Act of 1887, 157, 158, 194. Crimes Prevention Act, 153, 157. Croke, Archbishop, 144, 156. Cromwell and Cromwellians, 38, 42, 44, 57, 66, 67, 106. Crosbie, Mr. , 216. Curley, D. , 145, 146. 

 _Daily News_, 200. Daly, J. , 195. Danes, 8, 9, 13. Davies, Sir, J. , 5. Davitt, Michael, 145, 167, 238. Declaratory Act of George I, 74, 229. Defenders, 87. Department of Agriculture, 161, 163. Derry, siege of, 47. Desmond rebellion, 34. Devlin, J. , 96, 146, 182. Devoy, J. , 94, 146. Dicey, Professor A. V. , 228. Dillon, John, 97, 156, 184, 234. Dillon estate, 165. Disestablishment of the Irish Church, 143, 144, 236. Dispensary doctors, appointment of, 176, 177. District Councils, 161, 168, 178. Down, Celtic raid into, 7. Dublin, founded by Danes, 8, 9; Bishopric of, 8, 9; Henry II at, 16; Simnel crowned at, 22; rebellion in neighbourhood of, 104, 109; Convention at, in 1909, 206, 207, 240. Dudley, Lord, 166. "Dynamite Party, " 147. 

 Edward III, 20. Edward VI, 29, 31. Eighty Club, 162. Elizabeth, Queen, 4, 27, 28, 33, 48, 91. Emancipation, Roman Catholic, 134. Emigration, 139, 140. Emmett, R. , 95, 132, 182. Endowment of R. C. Church proposed, 134. Ersefied Normans, 18, 20. Esmonde, Dr. , 105. Exchequers, amalgamation of, 135. 

 "Fair rents, " 150. Famine. See Potato famine. Fenianism, 142, 144, 145, 147. Feudal system, 14, 26. Firbolgs, 5. FitzGerald rebellion, 25, 27, 31. FitzGibbon, J. , 167, 171. Fitzpatrick, case of Mrs. , 210, 211. Fiudir, 11. Flax. See Linen. "Flight of the Earls, " 36. Ford, Patrick, 146, 152, 154, 155. Forster, Rt. Hon. W. E. , Chief Secretary, 148. Foster, Speaker, 126. France, persecution in, 30, 37, 38, 45-48; war with, 72, 73; religious thought in, 76; revolution in, 87, 101, 236; invasions by, 91, 92, 111, 112. Franklin, Benjamin, 73. Fraser, Mrs. Hugh, 244. _Freeman's Journal_, 170, 241. _Frontier Sentinel_, 2. 

 Gaelic League, 186-193. Galway, founded by Normans, 17; Medical School at, 176; persons employed by County Council of, 175; state of, in 1912, 215. Games, English, forbidden, 193. Gaughran, Bishop, 4. Gavelkind, 11, 12. General Council of County Councils, 172, 173, 186. George III, 68. Germany, persecution in, 37, 38; Nationalist hopes of aid from, 93, 98, 99. Ginnell, L. , 196, 245. Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E. , 6, 95, 143, 148, 150, 152-155, 179. Grand juries, 178. Grattan, 74-77, 93, 100, 120, 126. "Grievances from Ireland, " 203. Gwynn, Stephen, 174. 

 Habeus Corpus, suppression of, 69. Henry II, 14, 15, 20, 36. Henry VII, 22. Henry VIII, 24, 26, 28, 29. Hibernians, Ancient Order of, 184, 216. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. C. E. , 208. Hobson, B. , 98. Holland, intended invasion from, 101, 102. Home Rule, 145, 155. Home Rule Bill, of 1886, 154; of 1893, 179, 221; of 1912, 208, 218-231, 245. Huguenots, 30, 45, 47, 55. Hyde, Dr. Douglas, 97. 

 Incumbered Estates Act, 138, 150. Independence of Ireland real object of Nationalists, 173, 181, 182, 185, 186, 241, 242, 246-248. And see Republic. Ingram, Dr. Dunbar on the Union, 118-129. Insurance Act, 1911, 185. "Invincibles, " the, 147. Irish Agricultural Organization Society, 161, 162. Irish brigade in France, 92. _Irish Freedom_, 94. _Irish Independent_, 243. Irish language, 186-193. _Irish Review_, 188. Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, 145, 147. "Irish services, " 227. 

 Jacobinism, 87, 89, 101, 236. James I, 38, 40. James II, 43, 44, 47, 49-51. Jews, persecution of the, 58. 

 Kabyles, 55. Kenny, Mr. Justice, 197. Kettle, A. J. , 183. Kettle, T. M. , 97. Kickham, 95. Kildare, church burnt at, 7; rebellion in, 105. Kilkenny, founded by Normans, 17; statutes of, 20; rebellion in, 109. Killala, French landing at, 111. Killaloe, R. C. Bishop of, 212-214. Kiltimagh case, 177. King, title of, taken by Henry VIII, 27. Kings, Celtic, of Ireland, 10. King's County, plantation of, 29, 30; persons employed by County Council of, 175. 

 Labourer's Cottages Act, 160, 161. Lalor, J. F. , 141, 142, 153, 172. Land Acts from 1870 to 1887, 140, 150-152, 159. Land Court, 150, 197. Land League, 147, 148, 152, 181, 182. Land Purchase Acts, 158, 159. Land tenure, tribal, 6; primogeniture, 11, 12; gavelkind, 11, 12; in the 18th century, 65, 66. Laws of England, attempted introduction of, 18; made binding in Ireland, 22. Lecky, Dr. W. E. H. , 41, 44, 110, 117, 130, 247. _Leinster Leader_, 95, 249. Leitrim, raid by septs of, 7. Leo XIII, Pope, 242. Light Railways Act, 160. Limerick, founded by Danes, 8; Scotch invasion of, 19; church windows broken at, 216. Linen industry, 62, 63, 238, 239. Local Government Act, 1898, 168-178, 180, 240. Loise, persecution in the, 28. Louis XIV, 43, 45-48, 53. Louis XVI, 101, 102. 

 MacAlpine, Kennett, 9. McBride, Major, 98, 99. MacDonnell, Lord, 166. McKenna, Thomas, 79, 126. McNicholas, Rev. J. T. , 85. MacSeamus, T. , 188. Magdeburg, sacking of, 42. Magistrates, appointment of, 179, 180. Magnus, Sir P. , 205. Mahan, Admiral, 248. "Manchester Martyrs, " 96-98, 144, 145, 192. Maori customary claims, 39. Marriage, law of R. C. Church as to, 85. Maryborough, 30. Maryland, 38. Mayo County Council, 170. Maunsell, R. , 214. Maynooth, foundation of, 88, 204. Metropolitan Police Act, 157. "Middlemen, " 65. _Midland Tribune_, 234. Mitchell, J. , 95, 97, 142. "Molly Maguires, " 184. Morley, Rt. Hon. John, Chief Secretary, 165, 179. Mountcashel, Lord, 53. Munster, raid by men of, 7. Murphy, Father Michael, 109. Mutiny Act, 74. 

 Nantes, revocation of Edict of, 30, 38, 45-48. Napoleon, 91. "Nation, " meaning of word, 222. National University, 191, 192, 205, 206. Nationalists, real objects of, 3, 93-99, 248. And see Independence; Republic. Netherlands, persecution in the, 4, 33, 34. New Zealand, 39, 157, 218-220, 241. Nolan, Professor, 242. "No Rent" proclamation, 153, 156. Normans, character of, 17; adoption of Celtic customs by, 18; rebellions by, 23-25, 33, 34, 36. 

 Oakboys, 69. O'Brien, Smith, 96, 140. O'Brien, William, 95. O'Connell, Daniel, misstatements by, as to the Union, 116; leads agitation for emancipation, 134; and for repeal, 140. O'Connor, T. P. , 146. O'Donnell, Bishop, 165. O'Hara, Rev. D. , 165. O'Mahony, Mr. , 41. O'Mara, Mrs. , 213. O'Neill, Shan, 33, 34, 39. Orange Society, foundation of, 90, 91. Outrages, Agrarian. See Agrarian outrages. 

 Pale, the English, 20-22, 24, 25, 31. Parliament, Irish, 21-24, 35, 63-65, 69-71; becomes independent, 74, 77-79; disqualification of votes for, abolished, 84; religious test for, not abolished, 84, 87; proposed reform of, 87, 88; criticized, 130, 131. See also Regency question. Parnell, C. S. , 95, 96, 145, 156, 232. Parnell Commission, 147. Paul III, Pope, 26. Peel, Sir Robert, 122, 205. "Peep of Day Boys, " 87, 90. Penal Laws, the, 49-58, 63, 70, 72, 79, 82, 83. Persecution, 4, 23, 32, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45-48, 52-54, 242. Philip and Mary, 29, 39. Philip II of Spain, 28, 32, 33, 91. Philipstown, 30. "Physical Force Party, " the, 147. Pitt, William, commercial treaty proposed by, 78; views of, on the Union, 122. Pius V, Pope, 37. "Plan of Campaign, " the, 155. "Plantations, " 30, 31, 33, 38. Plowden, F. , 126. Plunket, Lord, 132. Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Sir Horace, 161. Portugal, persecution in, 37, 48, 53. Potato famine, 136, 137, 139. Poyning's Act, 22, 74, 229. Pretender, the, 50, 51. Primogeniture, 11, 12. Prosperous, attack on the, 105. "Protestant ascendancy, " 59, 101. Protestant Home Rulers, 233, 234. Puritans, 40, 42. 

 Queen's County, plantation of, 29, 30. Queen's University, 205. Quakers, emigration aided by, 139. 

 Raffeisen system, 162. Rebellion of 1641, 40-42. Rebellions of 1715 and 1745, 52. Rebellion of 1798, rise of, in Ulster, 86, 102; becomes religious, 103, 105; in Leinster, 104, 105; in Wexford, 105-108, 110; in Kilkenny, Carlow and Wicklow, 109; in Connaught, 112; amnesty after, 109; effects of, 114. Rebellion of 1805, 132. Redmond, John, 95, 146, 162, 169, 171, 174, 175, 199, 201, 207-209, 215. Redmond, William, 107, 108. Reformation, 26-28. Regency question, 80-82. Registration of Titles Act, 1891, 160. Rent, agitation against, 148, 153, 154. Repeal Association, statement by, as to Rebellion, 108. "Reserved Services, " 227. Republic, rebels of 1798 sought to establish, 93; object of Nationalists, 94-99, 147, 248. And see Independence. Richard II, 20. Richey, Professor, 12, 13, 21, 24. _Rosary, The_, 242. Rosen, Conrade de, 47. Ross, Mr. Justice, 168, 197. Rossa, O'Donovan, 146. Royal University, 205. Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. , 163. 

 Saffron dress, 19, 192. St. Vincent, Cape, 102. Savoy, persecution in, 37, 45, 48, 54. Salisbury, Lord, 154. Scholarships, 191, 192. Scotland, Norman kingdom of, 17; invasion of Ireland from, 19, 33; Union of, with England, 63, 119, 120. Scott, Sir Walter, 237. Scullabogue barn, massacre at, 110. Scully, Mr. , 204. Settlement, Act of, 43-45. Separation. See Independence; Republic. Sevigné, Madame de, 46, 47. Simnel, Lambert, 22, 82. Sinn Fein, 185, 186. Slave trade, 58. Smith, Adam, 120. Societies, secret, 68, 69, 181. Spain, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37, 40, 48, 53, 55, 72, 76, 101. Spenser, Edmund, 35. "Steelboys, " 69. Sullivan, A. M. , 136, 137, 140. Swayne, Captain, 105. Sweetman, J. , 186. 

 Tithes, 68, 69, 134, 135. Tone, Wolfe, 89, 91-97, 101, 102, 111, 112, 121, 182, 193, 218, 249-258. Trade, restrictions on Irish, 63, 64; abolition of, 74, Tribal tenure of land, 6. Trinity College, Dublin, 70, 176. Tyrconnell, flight of Earl of, 36. Tyrone, raid by men of, 7. Tyrone, flight of Earl of, 36. Tyrrell, Father, 5. 

 Ulster Covenant, 1, 235. Ulster, Scotch invasion of, 19, 33; plantation of, 39; rebellion of 1641 in, 41; volunteer movement in, 72, 102, 237; rebellion of 1798 in, 86, 102. Union, suggested in time of Queen Anne, 63; necessity of, seen by Pitt, 78; became probable in 1797, 100; rebellion made inevitable, 115; mis-statements as to, 116; feelings of people as to, 117, 118; previous efforts towards, 119; really caused by Parliament becoming independent, 120-123; proposed, 123; discussed, 124; approved by R. C. Church, 125; carried, 126; charges of bribery concerning, 127-129; cannot now be reversed, 130; prosperity of Ireland after, 133. United Irish League, 163, 166, 167, 171, 180-183, 203, 235, 245. United Irish Society, 87, 88, 91. Universities. See Trinity College, Dublin; Queen's University; Royal University; Belfast University; National University. University College, Cork, 205; Galway, 205. 

 Victoria, Queen, 39. Vinegar Hill, massacre at, 105-107. Volunteer movement, 72, 102, 237. 

 Waitangi, Treaty of, 39. Waldenses, persecution of, 43, 53. Walsh, T. , 195. Waterford, founded by Danes, 8; Henry II lands at, 16. Waterford Corporation and Mr. Scully, 204. Westmeath, persons employed by County Council of, 175. Wexford, raid by men of, 7; landing of Spaniards at, 34; rebellion in, 105-107, 110; monuments of rebels in, 108. White, P. , 195. Whiteboys, 69. William III, 47. Wolfe, memorial to General, 243, 244. Wolseley, letter from Lord, 246. Wright, Mr. Justice, 182. Wyndham Act, 159. 

_Sherratt and Hughes, Printers, London and Manchester. _