UC-NRLF $B 757 bflM ( I \'\>'<^ % < ), A \'>''( .•• ; REESE LIBRARY OF THK UNIVERSITY .OF CALIFORNIA. Received ^^-^^^"^''^''-^'2-^ ;i8^^ >^A I *£. ^^,.. , -*•..•:••: ,/;%.-.• ^--ITNr- f *.J^' l^''^' THE GOVEilENT OF IREUi Past, Present, and Prospective. In Four Parts, Author of ^''Memorials of Lord F. Cavendish,'''' '■'■ Gamhetta : a Monograph,'''' Sfc. WITH SHORT INTRODUCTIONS TO THE VARIOUS PARTS BY ALFRED ILLINGWORTH, Esq., M.P. for West Bradford; THOMAS WAYMAN, Esq., M.P. for Elland; JOHN BARRAN, Esq., M.P. for Otley; and Right Hon. G. J. SHAW-LEFEYRE, M.P. for Central Bradford. AND AN APPENDIX ON THE -PRESENT LAND WAR IN IRELAND," BY r. ELLIS, late Vicar of Wilsden. V^^ Of THE '^ UNIVERSITY §^\f^^^^VY\OQ One Shilling. In Cloth, Two Shillings and Sixpence. #i?aJ»f0r5>: Thomas Brear & Co., Limited. gonbott : SiMPKiN, Marshall & Co. ^/^f-^ In publishing my Lectures, I yield to the the pressure of friends who, having listened to the arguments and facts advanced, have wished to obtain them in a permanent form for purposes of reference. I can only hope that they may afford some help to those who desire to advance the national cause of Ireland in the English constituencies. I am much indebted to the authors whose works are named in the list of authorities recorded by me, and to gentlemen who have freely placed at my disposal books and Parliamentary documents, which have aided me in my work. I am glad also to acknowledge the kindness and courtesy of The Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P.); Mr. William O'Brien, M.P, ; Mr. T. Harrington, M.P.; and other National Leaders; for their readiness to facilitate my enquiries in Ireland. Neither must I omit to note the generous willingness of Ministers of Religion, and other gentlemen in Ulster, to speed me in my study of the questions at issue. Above all, I am under obligation to the promoters of the Bradford Free Library and Mechanics' Institute, for without these Institutions I could not have obtained all the books I have read in the preparation of these Lectures. s. Lloyd. I, SUMMERSEAT PlACE, Bradford. List of Authorities. ^ Arnold's (Matthew) Essays. Blackie's — What does History teach ? (^ Blackwood's Magazine. u Burke's Published Works. IT Butt's — Land Tenure. Buxton — Mr. Gladstone's Irish Bills. K Campbell's — Lives of the Chancellors. Clancy Q. J.) — A Year of Unionist Coercion. Commission Reports. D'Alton's — History of County Dublin. Deane's History of Ireland. Dicey's — England's case against Home Rule. Dufferin's Ireland and Irish Emigration and Tenure of Land, Duffy's Gavan — Bird's-eye View of Irish History. Duffy's — Four years of Irish History. i^Froude's English in Ireland. i^Froude's History of England. •-Godkin's Land War. ^ Green's History of the English People. Handbook to Home Rule. •- Hansard's Debates. Healy's — A Word for Ireland. Healy's — The Irish Problem and how to solve it. Healy's — Why is there a Land Question ? •^ Hume's History of England. Kinnear's— Tracts on Ireland. Lawless — rlreland : Story of the Nations. KLecky's England in the Eighteenth Century. ^ Lecky's Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland. Leland's History of Ireland. McCarthy's (J. H.) Outline of Irish History. McGeoghegan — History of Ireland. McNeill's — The Irish Parliament ; English Interference with Irish Industries. Mitchell (John)— History of Ireland. Mullhall's— Fifty years of Progress. National League Pamphlets. Newspaper Reports. O'Connor's— The Parnell Movement. O'Rourke's — History of Irish Famine. Prendergast's Cromwellian Settlement. Parliamentary Reports. Past and Present Policy in Ireland. Robbin's Practical Politics. Sadler's Ireland's Evils and their Remedies. Scruton's Lecture. Shaw-Lefevre's — Peel and O'Connell. Shaw-Lefevre's — Incidents of Coercion. Smith's (Goldwin), Lectures— Irish History and Irish Character. Speeches of .bright, Butt, -^obden, Fawcett, K^ladstone, Grattan, Flood. Spenser's View of the State of Ireland. Sullivan's — New Ireland.' Swift's Works. Transactions of Relief Committee of Friends. Watson's Review of Irish History. Wylie's — Which Sovereign : Queen Victoria or the Pope ? Young's Tour in Ireland. All possible light and guidance are needed in the great Irish controversy which is now absorbing public attention. The opinions and views of those who have hearts to feel, and have studied the problems to be solved, and have also taken the trouble to visit Ireland to mix among her people, and to get at their feelings and experiences, are at this moment of special value. In the book the author has now presented to the public, the fads and refledions of an earnest and sincere friend to human progress are given in warm and vigourous language. I wish for this effort a wide circulation, and trust it will insure in the minds of all inquirers a true and just decision. Alfred Illingworth Daisy Bank, 22nd November, 1887. IRELAND BEFORE THE ACT OF UNION, AND UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF AN IRISH PARLIAMENT. For many years the government of Ireland has been regarded as England's greatest difficulty. The Colonies and Dependencies have been either pacified or subdued, but Ireland has continued to be restless, dissatisfied, and to a great extent rebellious. And yet many of the greatest statesmen of the age have spent their powers in trying to establish peace and order in Ireland, and to reconcile her to the legislative union with Great Britain. On the rock of Irish affairs many popular English Governments have been wrecked ; and many progressive measures urgently needed by the English and Scottish peoples have been prevented by it from passing into law. During late years honest attempts have been made to pacify the Irish people, and to rule Ireland in harmony with the enlightened methods and spirit of nineteenth century civilization. Some of these attempts have been deliber- ately frustrated, and others have been weakened in their passage through Parliament by partisans and men who have held briefs in the interest of the privileged classes in Ireland and England ; while some measures have signally failed to accomplish the purpose for which they were conceived. That there has been much unacquaintance with the condition and needs of Ireland by those who have been legislating for her, must be clear even to the cursory reader of her history, and that there has been some fatal principle operating in all the legislation will be patent as we proceed with our study of the question. Yet for more than fifty years various concessions have marked the policy of England towards Ireland, and when these concessions, often spoken of as favours, have failed to satisfy the demands of the people of Ireland, and when discontent has taken the form of disloyalty to the English Government, and to the laws formulated at Westminster, then coercion has been tried and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the establishment of martial law have smothered, but have not extinguished the flames of disaffection. Changes of Policy. The alternations of policy between conciliation and coercion have done much to produce the present abject and destitute condition of Ireland, and to bring about the diminution of her resources, the lessening of her popula- tion, the stagnation of her trade, and the terrible veiled war raging in her midst. Coercion, if resolutely persisted in, would have settled the question of Irish submission to English government, by the expatriation or else extermin- ation of the people of Ireland. But it would have been a brutal and inhuman settlement. It would have been simply the adoption of the old-world methods of govern- ment, and the assertion that Christianity had not exalted the spirit and methods and intelligence of modern nations to any higher level than that reached by the Israelites in their dealings with the people of Canaan. Conciliation* if it had been sincerely and earnestly continued, would, I am convinced, have appealed to the nobler side of the Irish people, and the generous, responsive nature of the Celt wonld have burst into a white heat of glowing gratitude and sparkling patriotism. But men are asking — ** Have we not during the last twenty years been attempting to treat the Irish people as equals and brothers, and have they not been sullen and discontented, repaying earnest sympathy with ingratitude, and manifesting dissatisfaction with all the generous attempts that have been made ? " I reply that we have not treated them as equals, even while trying to remedy many of their grievances. We have not, as Englishmen, given them the same ungrudging trust and affection that we have extended to our neighbours in Scotland and Wales. We have treated them as aliens, or as people who knew not their own needs, and who could not be trusted with the remedies they demanded, lest with the use of the remedy there should come a national strength that would be injurious to ourselves. Further, a just restitution ought not to be regarded as a concession, and we ought not to expect effusive gratitude from a people to whom we are rendering a tardy and incomplete justice. A complete reparation for centuries of wrong-doing will alone entitle us to the confidence and respect of the Irish race; and while we are withholding from them some of their rights, we cannot expect them to abound either with gratitude to the English for the small benefits bestowed, or with respect for the character of the national legislature that has so long overshadowed and darkened the life of the rish nation. To understand whether we are withholding 8 anything to which the Irish are entitled, it is necessary for us to review their history, for in this way alone can we obtain a just view of their present national character and condition. Why rake up past wrongs ? It has been asked ** what has a list of ancient wrongs to do with the modern aspects of the question ?" This — that the present is the outcome of the past, and that therefore, in the settlement of the present, the influence of the past cannot be ignored. Politicians cannot be allowed to cut oif and cast into oblivion a large portion of history, in order that they may have an easy mind and a free hand in dealing with this question. The long chain of events cannot be separated just where men choose to separate it. All the yesterdays of the world are gathered into the to-day, and for a sound conclusion on Irish affairs it is necessary that we shall have a clear knowledge of the fountain-head of social discontent and national unrest, The selfish policy of English Governments ; the misrule and robbery of English lords and aristocrats, and the spoliations of English monarchs must not be concealed, while a nation is denounced and crushed by those who are inheriting the fruits of crime, and theft, and inhumanity. Mr. John Bright has asked why the ancient history of Ireland should be referred to. It is so long since, if not so far away, that it may be untrue — why rake up these wrongs ? Let us not say a word of disrespect of one who has done so much for the people of Ireland and England, and if he does not agree with the policy of the Liberal, let us express sorrow and regret, not resentment and malice. But his great past services do not entitle him to lecture the Liberal Party as though they were schoolboys or dolts, and in referring to the past I find that I am following the sage example of Mr. Bright, for in nearly all his great public addresses, a reference to past misdeeds, and a warning against the lineal successors of ancient oppressors form a prominent part. But we may place by the side of Mr. Bright' s protest, the opinion of men who declare that the present hostility of Irishmen to the English Government can only be properly understood by noting their past disabilities and miseries. Take Mr. Chaplin as a representative of high Toryism. In a speech delivered in the House of Commons, he states : — **The truth is that the English Parliament and the English people are mainly responsible for those conditions of the country, which have driven the people to the land, and the land alone, for their support. It was not always so ; there were other industries in Ireland in former days, which flourished and flourished to a considerable extent, until they first aroused, and were afterwards suppressed by the selfish fears and commercial jealousy of England — England who was alarmed at a rivalry and competition that she dreaded at the hands and from the resources of the Irish people." * * "I am convinced that it is in the history of those cruel laws that lies the secret of that fatal competition for the land in which — and it may well be a just retribution upon us — the source of all the troubles and all the difficulties that you have to deal with, will be found."* Mr. Chaplin is referring to ancient history, and he declares that in his opinion, the troubles of Ireland spring from the unsatisfactory condition of the Irish land system, and that this system has been necessitated " mainly" by the " English Parliament and the English people." * Hansard, 261 Third Series, 831, 832. 851. Quoted by Professor Swft McNeill — "English Interference with Irish Industries:" Sir Chas. Russell, Attorney-General in Mr. Gladstone's Government may be regarded as qualified to speak in the name of Liberalism on this point, and as he is himself an Irishman his words should have the greater weight. He says, ''To understand the Irish land question of to-day it is necessary to look back. I have no desire to recklessly rake up bye-gones. I wish to heaven the Irish people could forget the past. To them it is in the main a melan- choly retrospect. But England ought not to forget the past, until at least a great act of reparation has been done. Even among men of some education in England remarkable ignorance of the evil wrought in past times by England towards Ireland prevails. There is indeed a vague general expression that in very remote times England when engaged in the endeavour to conquer Ireland was guilty of cruelties, as most conquering nations are, but that those things have done but very little harm ; that their effects have ceased to tell, and that the only purpose served by keeping alive their memory is to irritate the temper of the Irish people and prompt them to look back rather than to look forward. Emphatically I say this is not so. The effects have not ceased. It is not too much to say that Ireland and Irishmen of to-day are such as English Government has made them."f The late Mr. Henry Fawcett, Postmaster General, was a true friend of the English workman and was in the advanced band of the Radicals who have led the vanguard of the people's progress, and he may be looked upon as an exponent of Radicalism on this question. In a speech at Shoreditch in 1881 he said " If people felt impatient with the Irish, they should remember that the Irish were to a great extent what the English had made them. If there + Hansard 261, Third Series 853. Quoted by Swift McNeill. were some Irishmen now displaying bitter hostility to England, it should be remembered that for a long time Ireland had been treated as if she had been a hostile or foreign country. A mass of vexatious restrictions were imposed on her industry, and it was thought that if any branch of Irish trade interfered with English profits, that branch of Irish trade was immediately to be discouraged." Mr. GoLDWiN Smith may be taken as the representa- tive of those Dissentient Liberals with whom Mr. Bright is numbered, and who have taken upon themselves the name of Unionists, and in his published writings he says of Irish history: "It is the history of a half-subdued dependency. Its annals are the weary annals of aggres- sion on the one side, and of rebellion on the other ; of aggression sometimes more, sometimes less cruel and systematic; of rebellion sometimes more, sometimes less violent and extensive, but of aggression and of rebellion without end. Few are the points, few are the characters of moral interest in such a story * * yet a knowledge of these events is of the highest practical importance to those who may be called upon to deal as rulers or land- lords with the Irish people." And again, Mr. G. Smith says : *• Statesmen are bound to be well acquainted with the historical sources of the evil with which they have to deal, especially when those evils are of such a nature as at the first aspect to imply the depravity of a nation " Lord DuFFERiN — an Irishman — a Peer, and one of the ablest rulers and administrators in the nation says : ** Unless the past is first dealt with, it will be impossible to come to a just settlement with regard to the future." So much then for the objection that ancient history has no place in the consideration of the Irish questions. 12 The Struggle Perpetual. That there has been in England the great un- acquaintance with Irish history to which reference has been made must be admitted on all sides, and this has been the main reason why people have asked the questions — ** Why is Ireland not satisfied and con- tented when so much time is spent in considering her grievances? why are agrarian crimes and moon- light raids not extinct ? and why is there in that country a .deep - rooted opposition to the present system of government ? " It is the old struggle repeating itself. The Welsh legend says that the buried dragons that represented England and Wales were asleep, but that whenever they woke they renewed their struggle and continued it until weariness and weakness made them sleep again. So it has been in Ireland. An awakening national life has made the people claim their freedom, and a recognition of their right and ability to govern themselves. This they have struggled for with English Governments until coercion has stifled their cries, buried their hopes, and robbed them of their power to combine in the light of day, but as soon as the iron grip has been taken from their throat, and weariness has been thrown off, they have renewed the conflict. That they have ever been dissatisfied is clear, and that they have regarded the legislative union with Great Britain as a sham of true union, and as the cause of their bitterest miseries is proven by the utterances of their patriots. This has been recognised by English politicians. In 1849, Mr. Bright acknowledged it by saying " We have had a union with Ulster, but there has been no union with the whole people of Ireland." 13 Colonisation of Ireland. Ireland is supposed to have been colonised from the east — the cradle of the race — but much of her early history can only be derived from legends and traditions, many of which have but little authority to support them. Fourteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ the few aboriginal inhabitants, after a severe conflict are said to have been overcome by Celts from Gaul or Spain, under the leadership of a chief called Miletus. If tradition may in this case be relied upon, this chieftain was a man of mature judgment, for instead of trying ^ policy of exter- mination, he attempted to secure a fusion of the ancient race with his own followers that he might thereby build up a united and strong nationality. The Ancient System of Government. The Clan system that flourished so long in Scotland was established throughout the country, and between the heads of the Septs or Clans, and the various members of them, the utmost loyalty and confidence existed. The land was not regarded as the property of any individual, but was held as a solemn posses- sion by the tribe, in the interests of each member of it. All, even the sick and frail, had an equal right to the soil, and even the portion set apart for the cattle of the chief, was only held for life by him, and was transferred at death, not to his children but to the new leader appointed to that position by the tribe. This was recog- nised until the reign of James L, when it was declared obsolete by the arbitrary act of the King and his advisers who regarded it as only a " scrambling possession." Then private property in Irish land received the recog- nition of English law, but Mr. Goldwin Smith has asked " has property in land according to the English system, presented itself to the Irish peasant, in the form of security or independence ? '^' "^ Has it not rather presented itself to him in the form of insecurity, degreda- tion and despair." Primogeniture was unknown among the Clans, and the law or custom — called gavelkind— provided for the equal distribution of a man's property among his sons. The chieftianship was not hereditary, for the law of Tanistry provided for the selection of the ablest relative of the chief, and his appointment during the life of the chief to the reversion of the office at death. The oldest surviving member of a family was often appointed, but when he betrayed some weakness of constitution or of character, the symbol of power was entrusted to abler or worthier hands. The Judge who adjudicated in any disputes was called a Brehon, and the laws that prevailed in Ireland were called the Brehon Laws. Mr. Deane says: *' The only property that was exclusively appropriated was the cattle. Every man was rich and powerful according to the number of his beasts." And again, he says: **The idea of paying rent was foreign to this race of freeholders. Their chief may indeed have required excessive help from them, may even have used the measure of unjust and forcible expul- sion on occasion, but there was no thought of eviction for rent. To serve their chief was to them a matter of natural, personal devotion ; he, in turn, would defend them. * Spend me, and defend me,' was their maxim. Even their very life would they spend with satisfaction and pride for one whom they loved, often beyond their own flesh and blood." 15 The Ancient Land System. It is important that we should understand the original land system of Ireland, even though it may not be possible after the changes and developments of life to revert to the original methods and ideas. But a knowledge of the subject will enable us the better to understand the struggles that have ensued since the English monarch and his courtiers swept away the ancient laws and usages. It is all the more necessary that we shall have correct ideas on this question, inasmuch as agriculture is almost the only industry in Ireland, and the land question is still one of the great unsettled problems of the day. Mr. Gladstone once said that the old and standing evil of Ireland was "land hunger," which he declared " must not be described as if it were merely an infirmity of the people for it, and really means land scarcity." But the land scarcity is in itself the result of the spoliation and confiscation of English Governments and English rulers. The land hunger of the people is caused by their necessities, and by the limitations intro- duced by privileged rulers acting in the interests of their class, and compelling the people to turn to the land for subsistence ; but what can be said for the land greediness of rich men, whose wealth enables them to throw round the land fetters which prevent the free and full cultivation of the soil, and make it the choice preserve, not of human beings, but of game. This is caused by selfishness and inhumanity, and a regard for personal pleasures above the interests of the poor and struggling tillers of the soil. Mr. Bright once said : " that in discussing the Irish question one fact must always be kept in mind, that is, that apart from the land of Ireland, there are few if any means of subsistence for the population, and consequently there has i6 always been for its possession an exceptional and unnatural demand."* And yet this land has been in many cases kept out of cultivation, and where it has been cultivated by the tenant, and improved, the owner of the land has seized and appropriated to himself the improvements, leaving the tenant doubly burdened in consequence of his industry. Mr. Bright, in the above quotation, uses the word " un- natural." It is unnatural for people as a whole to demand land where there are other industries, but it is natural for men and women to desire to live, and when their very life depends upon their obtaining soil to cultivate, it cannot be unnatural for them to ask that it shall be so cheapened as to enable the workers on it to obtain a livelihood ; and it cannot be unnatural for those whose fathers have been despoiled of the soil, to ask the children of the despoilers to restore it to the children of the despoiled, under such conditions that the benefits may be secured to the nation at large. What the Irish have been deprived of. The Irish nation has been despoiled of Free Govern- ment^ the Possession of the Land, and of Equal Religious Rights. The last-named was restored to them by the Act of Catholic Emancipation and the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, but the fact remains that for centuries the conscience of the people was coerced and stultified, and they were treated as criminals because they refused to allow their religious convictions to be shaped by State decrees. But Free Government and the Land have been and still are withheld from them, and although endeavours have been made in late years to lessen the iniquity of the land system, yet the infamous evictions which still blacken and curse Irish life, and the enforcement of rigid land ' * Hansard. Quot«d by Swift McNeill. ~ penalties by the selfish hand of a landlordism that in many cases has sold its soul to the usurers of Palestine and England for wealth that has been frittered, show the tyrannous character of the modern system. The whole history of Ireland proves, that a union secured by bribery and fraud, and a landlordism established by force of arms and still bolstered up by soldiers and mounted police, with all the armed might of England at their back, have taken the place of tribal rights and a government in harmony with national desires. Ireland Christianized. In the fifth century Ireland was missioned in the interests of Christianity by a Celt from Gaul or else Wales, a man whose name was Patricius, or as he is more fre- quently called Patrick. In a short time the whole Island is said to have been won for the Christian faith by the influence of this wonderful and holy man. Prayer and devoted service were the weapons he used, and the rough chieftains caught the contagion of his simple earnestness and were baptised as Christians. Armed with the same weapons, his converts went forth to mission the Continent of Europe, and to-day memorials of their toil and success remain in many lands. History declares that Ireland then became the foster-nurse of science, civilization, and religion, and that at the Irish schools students from Britain and Gaul {i.e., France) were regularly taught. The island then won for itself the name of insula sanctorum, and it was spoken of by potentates and scholars as the "sacred isle" and as the "island of saints." Preachers from Ireland found their way to the Court of Charle- magne, to the Camp of Alfred the Great, and to the rude villages of the Teutons ; and in Scandinavia, i8, they contended with the priests of Odin for the souls of the wild warriors who fought and died under the banners of the raven. Rosaries, chalices, crosiers, Celtic crowns and harps, and illustrated Scriptures bear witness to the advanced culture of the people. Mr. GoLDWiN Smith shows that the Celtic nature has always been regarded as a devotional one.* Reverence for religious authority is deeply ingrained in the Celtic nations. The warm and glowing imagination readily soared upwards towards fellowship with the ideal spiritual life of the Deity. The Irish were therefore likely to be easily influenced by the fervid preaching of Patrick, and their enthusiasm blossomed into flowers of holy and heroic deeds. GuizoT, in his history of France, says, '* Of all the countries of the West, Ireland was for a long time that in which alone learning was supported and thrown amid the general overthrow of Europe." MoNTALEMBERT declared that " Of all the nations the Anglo-Saxons derived most profit from the Irish Schools — Alfred the Great having received his education at an Irish University." Whether the latter statement is true or not may be questioned, but it is certain that Alfred had a profound admiration for Irish scholarship, and that when he establised his University at Oxford he appointed one of the most famous Irish scholars — Johannes Scotus Erigena — to preside over it. He also sanctioned the dedication to himself of the treatise against Transubstan- tiation, which was written by this renowned man. When Europe was sunk in barbarism, and the darkness of a loathsome and cruel idolatrous system brooded over the nations, the Irish went with their lamps to dispel the * See "Irish History and Irish Character." 19 gloom and to give to the nations higher and holier con- ceptions of God and Truth and Righteousness. It was from an Irish School that Virgilius went, before the time of Copernicus, to teach the "true system of the heavens" and to make the heads of Christendom rise in startled appre- hension at his bold speculations ; and Irish scholarship has its mementoes in lands far distant, where the bones of heroic missionaries have been laid in the soil by the hands of the men who received as a sacred trust the truths taught by the departed saints. Invasions of Ireland. Then came the fierce Saxon pirates and the Danes shouting with fervour their war songs, and in their mad lust of conquest slaying priests and people. Monastries, schools, and churches were burnt, many of the priests and monks dying at the altar or in the cell. The Normans followed in the track of their fierce progenitors, and the soil of Ireland was deluged time after time with blood. Yet she maintained her independence, and great chiefs rose one after the other to throw off" the yoke of foreign invasion. The Danes with all their fierce courage were only able to obtain small tracts of land and towns on the coasts, while the rest of the country continued under Brehon Laws and Irish chieftainship. But Ireland, in the struggle, lost her prosperity and her distinctive character for learning, piety, and culture, and an age of eff'eminate superstition intervened for a time. But even this supersti- tion, which identified the miraculous with so many of the acts of departed saints, was not the degrading, sensual ignorance that associated itself with religion in many other professedly Christian lands. The Irish Church still main- tained its freedom, and to a great extent its simple fervour. 20 The English Invasion. Previous to the English invasion, Ireland was divided into five provinces, each of which had its separate ruler, while one of them was called the Ard-righ or Chief Ring. Frequent disputes occurred between these rulers, all of them being more or less ambitious to attain the highest honour, just as in the Saxon Heptarchy in England. The rivalship of the chiefs led to numerous conflicts. The disputes of the Irish princes first gave occasion to the English warriors to visit Ireland. The King of Leinster — Dermot McMurrough — abducted the wife of O'Rouarch, one of the chiefs in Eastern Connaught, and the injured husband sought redress from the King of Connaught — Roderick — who was also Ard-righ. Roderick compelled Dermot to restore the woman to her legitimate partner, and deposed him from the position in which he had so fully disgraced himself. Dermot fled to the court of Henry II., King of England, and asked for aid in his proposed attempt to regain his throne, undertaking to do homage to the King if his dominions were restored. Henry had long desired to conquer Ireland, as had all his Norman ancestors. Efforts had been previously made but they had been unsuccessful, and Ireland was still possessed and governed by the Irish. Henry had prepared fourteen years before for any opportunity that might present itself, which would enable him to invade Ireland. Believing in the power and authority of the Church of Rome, he had sought and obtained from Pope Hadrian II. a papal *' bull," or document authorising him to take possession of the Island. The Pope at that time was supposed to have the right of lordship over all islands, and he exercised this right in the document by which he transferred the governorship of the island from the five 2t princes, and their chieftains to Henry II. But who wa^ Pope Hadrian II. ? An Englishman, who had climbed to the highest position in the Romish Church, and who doubtless had a special love for his native land, and a special hatred of the Irish Church, which had refused to bow its neck to the yoke of Rome. This Pope had originally been called Nicholas Breakspeare, and he is the only Englishmen who has ever attained to the dignity of a Pope, although others, notably Cardinal Wolsey, have been only a little way removed from it. At the time when King Henry II. obtained the Pope's consent to invade Ireland, there was existing a trade in slaves, that was fostered by the Danes who lived in the towns on the coast. This slave trade had been carried on for years, and had been partially suppressed by William the Conqueror and Bishop Wulfstan. But in the subsequent reign it had revived, and Henry wrote to the Pope pointing out this fact and stating that his intention was not only to suppress this trade, but also *' to enlarge the bounds of the Church, to restrain the progress of vices, to correct the manners of the people, to plant virtue among them, and to increase the Christian religion." He promised that as soon as his authority was paramount, he would ** subject the people to laws, extirpate vicious customs, respect the rights of native churches, and enforce the payment of Peter's pence, if the Pope would sanction the undertaking." But for fourteen years Henry had been unable to carry out this project, and now that Dermot came to him, he saw the golden opportunity for which he had been waiting. A band of knights under Robert Fitzstephen, son of the Constable of Cardigan, went to Ireland with Dermot. They were soon followed by Pilchard of Clare — commonly called Strongbow — Earl of Pembroke, and 11 when Dermot died a year after his return, Strongbow, who had married Eva — Dermot's daughter — claimed the throne of Leinster, and as Dublin had already been captured by surprise, he set up his authority there. Following the example of the Norman Conqueror in England, Strongbow divided large portions of the land that belonged to the Celts, among the chiefs and knights who had aided him. As soon as this was done, he returned to England to appease the jealousy of the King and to do homage to him for the newly acquired power and posses- sions. Henry II. now claimed to be acknowledged as Suzerain or lord, not only over Strongbow but over his chiefs and knights, as well as over the Irish who had not yet succumbed to the power of Strongbow. His claim over Strongbow and his knights was a just one according to the feudal laws in vogue in England, but not according to the Brehon laws that the Irish chiefs alone recognised ; and though Strongbow acknowledged the authority of Henry, the Irish leaders, with the King of Connaught at their head, did not acknowledge it. The country was torn by contending forces. Wherever Strongbow's power was dominant, the Suzerainty of Henry was admitted, but out- side the pale, ?>., the English part, the people clung to their ancient princes and their original rights. The King returned with Strongbow to Ireland, and would probably have succeeded in stamping the seal of his power over the whole of the island, had it not been for the turbulent conduct of the Barons, who on the murder of Archbishop Thomas a Becket, engaged in petty conflicts at home. The visit of the king, therefore, served but little purpose, and the king's youngest son, John, by his rude insults in plucking the beards of the Irish chief- tains, alienated many who would otherwise have given 23 their allegiance to the royalty of England. Sir John Davies, who was Attorney -General in the reign of James I., says : — " He (Henry H.) departed out of Ireland without striking a blow, or building one castle, or planting one garrison among the Irish ; neither left he behind him one true subject more than those he found there at his first coming over, which were only the English adventurers." But the king in his visit showed his feudal lords that he intended to demand the services from them to which he was entitled, and they were compelled to promise armed warriors to support him in his wars, and De Lacy had to give to the king " the service of fifty men." The Transactions of the Pope and King. Ireland was brought first under the lordship of the English king by the Pope of Rome, and then her church was brought under the dominion of the Church of Rome by King Henry II. This was fair. Both parties profited by the transaction, and the only sufi"erers were the Irish people, whose consent had never been sought or obtained. Previously, with the exception of the Christianised Danish Churches on the coast, the Irish, like the Welsh, had refused to bow down before the spiritual headship of the Roman Pontiff. Ireland had her own native churches that were independent of the Papal power. The Irish Church was handed over to the Papacy by the arbitrary act of Henry II., and Nemesis has followed in the track of the grave injustice. Archbishop Usher has shown that a religion not very different from the Protestant Faith prevailed in Ireland before the invasion of the English, and that it was the assumption of the Pope to the lordship of the isles that 24 gave Henry a shadowy claim to his suzerainty in Ireland, and that in return he laid the Irish Church at the feet of the Papal power. For centuries the only title by which the English monarch asserted his right to rule Ireland was the " bull " of Pope Hadrian. During the subsequent centuries the authority of the English was extended, or as some doughty Irish chief arose was contracted, and civil war with all its dread ex- cesses raged from year to year. Invaders and invaded were divided among themselves, and neither party seemed of sufficient strength to strike a decisive blow. Mr. Green says — " Had the Irish driven their invaders into the sea, or the English succeeded in the complete conquest of Ireland, the misery of its after history might have been avoided. A struggle such as that of Scotland under Bruce might have produced a spirit of patriotism and national union which would have formed a people out of the mass of warring clans. A conquest such as that of England by the Normans, would have spread at any rate the law, the order, the peace, and civilization of the con- quering country over the length and breadth of the conquered. Unhappy Ireland, while powerless to affect its deliverance, was strong enough to hold its assailants at bay. The country was broken into two halves whose conflict has never ceased."^* Theft of Land. The English conquerors made desperate attempts to secure land for themselves, and instead of endeavouring to build up a united nationality, their policy was to exter- minate the original holders of the soil. Civilization had been spreading for 30 centuries, and had been leavened * " Short History of the Enghsh People.'' 25 and directed by magnates of the Christian church, who were supposed to be acquainted with the spirit and princi- ples of the teaching given on the Judean mount as well as to be animated by them, and yet the English conquerors had not the same high conception of true government as the Miletians who, according to tradition, tried to assimilate the first settlers with themselves, so that they might together form a nation. Sir John Da vies says : — " This then I note as a great defect in the civil policy of the kingdom in that, for the space of 350 years at least after the conquest first attempted, the English laws were not communicated to the Irish, nor the benefit of protection thereof allowed unto them, though they earnestly desired and sought the same. For as long as they were out of the protection of the laws, so as every Englishman might oppress, spoil and kill them without controlment, how was it possible that they should be other than outlaws and enemies of the Crown of England." And again he writes : — *' Whereby it is manifest that such as had the government of Ireland, under the Crown of England, did intend to make a perpetual separation of enmity between the English and the Irish." Professor Blackie, with his usual terse wisdom, says : — ** It cannot be denied that the blessings which conquest brings with it when vigourously managed and wisely used are lightly turned into a bane whenever the power which has the force to conquer has not the wisdom to administer ; of which unblissful lack of administrative capacity and assimilative genius, the conquests of the Turks in Europe, and of the English in Ireland, present a most instructive example." 26 English Policy in Ireland. It is evident that the policy pursued in Ireland from the commencement of the English domination, was one calculated to uproot the people from the soil, and to sweep away all vestiges of their original rights. The barons and governors tried for centuries to do in that land what their sons have attempted to do in North America, and at the Antipodes, viz., to supplant and to exterminate the ancient settlers. Indians, Maories, and Irishmen, have all suffered because there has been in the Anglo- Saxon nature a wild and unsatisfied craving for land and power. Religious antipathy, greed, and ambition, have all had their influence for evil in the land. Henry II. had Ireland handed -over to him for a specific purpose, viz., "to reform the people." But the reforms were miserable farces, and the chief weapons used by the reformers were confiscations and muuders. The plea has been raised that the Irish nobles were turbulent and warlike, and fought with each other. So were the barons of Scotland, whom even Robert Bruce dared not leave to perform his vows in the Holy Land, and so were the English lords, whose feuds and bickerings reddened the land for centuries, and like deadly nightshades, cast their poison on English life during the reigns of the Plantagenets and the Tudors, and did not cease to injure the nation even when the strong hand of the Commons beat the power from their grip on the fields of Naseby and Marston Moor. Irish Petitions and their Rejection. In 1278, the Irish petitioned Edward I. to allow them permission to live under English law, and believing that kings, as well as nobles, were open to bribes, they sent a 2? gift of 8000 marks to purchase the royal favour. But though the king ordered Ufford, the Justiciary, to call Parliament for the purpose, yet the barons by subterfuges and evasions, thwarted the petition of Ireland, while at the same time they approved of the king's retention of the money. In the reign of Edward III., another petition was sent, but the barons who held the lands in Ireland again resisted the claims of the Irish to live under the English laws and constitution. They said, in the words of Sir John Davies, ** it was best policie to hold them as aliens and enemies, and prosecute them with a continual warre — the troth is that those great English lords did to the uttermost of their power crosse, and withstand the enfranchisement of the Irish." It is evident that the struggle to the Irish was one of life and death, and while they were contending for veiy existence, their oppressors were fighting for soil and spoil. It was not to the interest of grasping barons to conciliate the oppressed and make them loyal, but rather to prove them traitors and rebels, so that they might be assailed and robbed of lands, and homes, and life itself. Absenteeism. Even so far back as the reign of King John, the system of absenteeism commenced to curse Ireland, and it has continued to blight Irish life through the ages unto the present time. The lords and knights returned to England to enjoy amid the splendour of the Courts, the plunder they had secured in Ireland. The evils of absenteeism, and the expensive lives of the landowners of Ireland have long pressed heavily on that country, and government by middlemen and deputies has been one of its greatest ^^^Vo-^IBRA^^ ■2% disasters. Mr. Golclwin Smith has pointed out the evils of absenteeism. He says, — *' The greatest evils of absen- teeism are, first, that it withdraws from the Community its upper class, who are the natural channels of civilizing influences to the classes below them ; and secondly, that it cuts off all personal relations between the individual and his tenant, closes up the compassion of the landlord, and exposes the tenant to a pressure as unfeeling and relentless as that of a band of iron. It has also a general though not an invariable tendency to prevent the improve- ment of the land." How this evil developed is revealed in later history, and in the time of Dean Swift to use his own words, *'the old seats of the nobility and gentry are all in ruins, and there are no new ones in their stead.' The landowners were drawn to the frivolities and court gaieties in London, taking care however, to exact through their agents the full value of their tenants improvements, .and by which they — the landowners — were enabled to shine with an added lustre in the metropolis. Those barons and knights who stayed on the estates which they had won naturally began to take an interest in the people around them, and after a time many of them became assimilated with the native race. The rare beauty for which the Irish-women have been renowned won the hearts of their rulers, and many of them married Irish wives, and had Irish nurses for their children. The chil- dren naturally grew up to love Ireland, and to speak the native tongue, and when in their turn they came to rule, they re-established Irish customs, entertained the bards or harpers, and were installed by popular desire as chiefs, the people willingly giving to them similar affection and loyalty to that which had been given to the leaders of old. But the lords and knights at Court did not like the old 29 English, as they termed those who lived on the soil, and as the courtiers were near the King's ear and could whis- per into it, they took care to influence the King against those who were more favourably disposed than they were, to the ancient race. The First Irish Parliaments. In the year 1265, Simon-de-Montfort's Parliament met at Westminster, and there were present, in addition to the English representatives, burgesses and knights repre- senting Irish counties and boroughs. This, however, does not seem to have given satisfaction, for in the year 1295, a distinct Irish Parliament may be seen to exist, and there are Irish Statutes recorded for the year 13 10. But this Parliament represented only the views of Irish settlers and rulers, *' chiefly the latter." Isaac Butt contended in one of his speeches, and supported his contention by the testimony of able authori- ties, that ''From the earliest introduction of the power of the English kings into Ireland, the Irish who submitted to the rule of those kings had a right to the same Parlia- mentary constitution as that which England enjoyed," and he further said, " The Irish Parliament had, like the English Parliament, its hereditary House of Peers. Its House of Commons was elected exactly like the English House of Commons, by the freeholders of the counties, and by cities and towns deriving their right to return members from the charters of the kings. The freehold franchise was the same in both, and the royal charters had exactly the same efl"ect, and were construed and tried by the same rules of law." Mr. Flood declared in debate, that ** Three hundred years before any colony in America had a name, Ireland 3° had a Parliamentary constitution." It was unfortunate, however, that this Parliamentary machinery, was controlled and worked in the interests, not of the whole people, but of the dominant minority composed of landowners and nobles. In 1366, during the reign of Edward III., the Statute of Kilkenny was passed, which forbade the English to form relations with the Irish under penalty of death. To speak the native tongue, to use an Irish name, to adopt, as the Statute puts it, " any guize or fashion " of the Irish was to be punished by loss of land, but to commit the graver crimes of marrying an Irish woman, to entrust children to an Irish nurse, or to give them Irish Sponsors at Baptism was high treason that only bloody could wash out. No men of Irish blood were henceforth to be per- mitted to reside in a walled town, and within the Pale, to prevent the spiritual ascendancy of the natives, no Irish- man was to be received as a novice in any monastry. Military Occupation. Leland in his history says that soldiers were quartered in towns without any limit or payment, and that the properties of the Irish, ** their lives, the chastity of their families were all exposed to barbarians who sought only to glut their brutal passions, and by their horrible excesses they purchased the curse of God and man." This declaration is supported by Hume the historian, who states : — ** The small army which the English main- tained in Ireland they never supplied regularly with pay, and as no money could be levied from the island, which possessed none, they gave the soldiers the privilege of free quarters on the natives. Rapine and insolence in- flamed the hatred which prevailed between the conquerors 31 and the conquered, and want of security among the Irish introduced despair. For the English carried further their ill-judged tyranny. Instead of inviting the Irish to adopt the more civilized customs of their conquerors, they even refused, though earnestly solicited, to communicate to them the privileges of their laws and everywhere marked them out as aliens and as enemies." Sir John Davis says that this method of quartering soldiers bred idleness and misery, " for when the husband- man had laboured all the year, the soldier in one night did consume the fruits of all his labour. Had he reason then to manure the land for the next year ? " The Reformation. At the Reformation, Henry VIII. claimed to be King of Ireland, and not simply Suzerain, and he further de- manded to be acknowledged as Head of the Irish Church. This was a startling demand, and was bitterly resented by the Irish Priests and People. Henry II. had called upon the people to acknowledge the authority of Rome, and now his successor commanded them to throw off that authority, and acknowledge not only his headship over the land, but also over the church. Since the first English invasion to the time of Henry VIII, the authority of the Pale had not extended more than over a radius of 20 miles from Dublin, and the King had not the same means of enforcing his will in Ireland as he had in England. His changes in England were congenial to many of the people who looked to him for protection from the avarice and spiritual despotism of the Church, but in Ireland the Clergy had been the only protectors of the people from the greed and tyranny of the governors, and enquiry and conviction as well as dissatisfaction with the church had 32 not proceeded at the same rate of progress as in England. The people had been harassed in the past because of their Protestantism ; they were now assailed because of their allegiance to the Pope. They could not understand how the arbitrary will and mere pleasure of the king should decide once again their religion ; nor could they realise how the king could arrogate to himself a power which his predecessors had so persistently claimed for the Pope, whose authority had given them the land of Ireland. Mr. Burke once said, **If the people are in error, to inform them is not only fair but charitable ; to drive them, to attempt to eradicate by violence, a wide spreading and established religious opinion, is a strain of the most mani- fest injustice." Yet this was attempted in Ireland, and the result was, that the people not understanding the reason of the change and feeling ever a strong national antipathy to English rule, were now plunged into the hideous depths of a violent religious bigotry. The Church was despoiled of her revenues, her altars were broken down, and a new order of ministers was set up in opposition to the will and desire of the most respected and saintly in the land, as well as of the great bulk of native worshippers. Thus arose and was fostered the religious antagonism that has produced so terrible an entail of misery in more modern years, and that has been perpetuated by constant acts of injustice on the part of the governors and rulers in Ireland. Suppressing Catholicism. An Act of Supremacy was past in the year 1537, ^^^ was soon followed by the wholesale confiscation of Church lands. During the short reign of Edward VI. this policy was continued until Mary came to the throne, and there 33 is one thing very noticeable, and that is, that while in England and the Continent, the enthronement of Catholic- ism meant the burning of heretics, during Mary's reign, no Protestant in Ireland suffered death for his opinions, That has been the characteristic of Irish religion. Ireland has often been a home for refugees fleeing from persecution in England. In the year A.D. 300, the chris- tians in Britain when assailed by the sanguinary persecution of Diocletian found refuge in Ireland. In the 7th Century scholars found an Asylum there when assailed by the rampant barbarism that spread its pall of ignorance and brutality over the European Continent. Martyrdom for conscience and theological thought was certainly alien to the spirit of Irish Catholics. In Henry II.'s time it was said to an Irishman — " What is your church ? You have not even a martyr in your calendar." To this he replied — " You seem as if you could teach us how to make them." But the tolerance of the Catholics during the reign of Mary, was repaid with the most brutal severity when Elizabeth ascended the throne, for if her lords did not use the gibbet and the stake, they freely applied the still more terrible weapons of starvation and wholesale massacre. During Elizabeth's reign, strenuous efforts were made to overpower the Catholic population, and to compel them to accept the Protestant doctrines and practices, and the result was disastrous to the English Government. Mr. Froude says : — ** The English Government had added largely to their difficulties by attempting to force the Reformation upon Ireland while its political and social condition were still unsettled." Again, when speak- ing of the endeavours that were made to extinguish the people by the '* Colonization scheme," he says : — ** It cannot be said that England deserved to keep a country 34 which it mismanaged so disastrously." The Irish were not to be blamed if they looked to the Pope, to Spain, to France, to any friend in earth or heaven to deliver them from a Power which discharged no single duty that rulers owe to their subjects." In another place he says : — " The suppression of the Catholic Services, enforced wherever the English had power, and hanging before the people as a calamity sure to follow as the limits of that power were extended, created a weight of animosity which no other measure could have produced, and alone made the problem of Irish administration hopelessly insoluble." Further on he says : — *' Before the Government attempted to force a religion upon them that had not a single honest advocate in the whole nation, there was no incurable disloyalty. If they, were left with their own lands, their own laws, and their own creed, the chiefs were willing to acknowledge the English Sovereign." But the new gospel was supported by pillage and bloodshed. Chiefs and leaders of the tribes were invited to banquets and then put to death. Essex, the Queen's favourite, showed his subordinates how to proceed by inviting Sir Brian McPheJim O'Neil, .his wife and two hundred followers to a banquet and then massacring them. ** Men were stripped naked and thrown alive into bogs. The blind, feeble and sick, idiots and old persons were killed without mercy. Women were forced into barns, which were then set on fire, and those who tried to escape were either shot or stabbed ; babies were whirled about upon the points of spears, and women were hung upon trees, whilst the babes at their breasts were strangled with their mothers' hair." i 35 I cannot proceed — the horrors are too sickening ; the tales of misery are too harrowing to the human heart to be further written out. And this was done in the sacred name of religion, by men who were animated by the spirit of the fiends of the bottomless abyss. Mr. Froud sums up the matter very pertinently when he says : — ** The English nation was shuddering over the atrocities of the Duke of Alva. The children in the nurseries were being inflamed to patriotic rage and madness by tales of Spanish tyranny. Yet Alva's bloody sword never touched the young, the defenceless, or those whose sex even dogs can recognise and respect." But the sword of religion did touch these persons in Ireland. And not only was force exercised to slay the Irish, but with the most fiendish determination their food supply was destroyed. Year after year the crops were systematically burnt, and English nobles wrote to their friends vaunting their achievements in laying bare the productive soil of Ireland. Edmund Spencer, the author of the " Faerie Queen,' says : — '* The people were brought to such wretchedness as that any stony heart would have rued the same. Out of every corner of the woods and glens they came, creep- ing forth on their hands, for their legs would not bear them ; they looked like anatomies of death, they spoke like ghosts crying out for their graves ; they did eat the dead carrions happy where they should find them, yea, and one another soon after, in so much as the very carcases they spared not to scrape out of their graves ; and if they found a plot of water-cresses or shamrocks, there they flocked as to a feast for the time, yet not able long to con- tinue there withal ; so that in short space there were none almost left, and a most populous and plentiful country 36 suddenly left void of man and beast ; yet sure in all that war there perished not many by the sword, but all by the extremity of famine." Mr. GoLDWiN Smith says, '' The famine, even supposing the people wasted their own country in self-defence, was caused by the cruel war." But there is abundant evidence to prove that the English and their sympathisers were the pillagers. Mr. Deane says, " Wherever the English went, they pillaged and laid waste : corn and the fruits of the earth were consumed by fire ; the implements of husbandry were destroyed also, and if any man were found attempting to till his field, or sow it, he was cut down by the sword." Henry VIII., notwithstanding his severity and disre- pute, was astute in many of the methods which he adopted to conciliate the Irish. In his treatment of O'Neil and O'Brien, he shewed the shrewdness of his mind, and won many of the Irish to the side of English government. He strove to secure the obedience of the people through a wise regard paid to their chiefs, and thereby established a new departure in the government of Ireland. Unfor- tunately, in the succeeding reigns of the Tudors, this policy was abandoned, and the Irish chiefs and their followers were once more treated with disrespect. The great fault, however, witlr Henry's reign was his attempt to force the new faith on the people, and his studious attempt to suppress the Celtic tradition of the people and to make Ireland as England in manners, in law, and in tongue. His regard for the chiefs could not fully atone for his curt contempt for Irish customs. Henry wanted to rule not by military or physical force, but by law, but Mr. Green says that the only conception of law which the king and his ministers had was that of English law. 37 "The customary law which prevailed without the Pale, the native system of clan government, and common tenure of land by the tribe, as well as the poetry and literature which threw their lustre over the Irish tongue, were either unknown to the English statesmen, or despised by them as barbarous." To ignore the traditions and ancient laws of a people is not the way to make them loyal and contented, and we cannot be surprised that Henry's pur- pose failed. Queen Elizabeth's Policy. Elizabeth had all her father's tenacity of purpose without his serpentlike shrewdness. The unwisdom of her methods in promulgating the Reformation made Protestantism appear to the Irish as a badge of servitude and slavery. The great forces, sympathy, tact, and a loving provision for the needs of the people, that win the hearts of men, were wanting, and in their place, severity, compulsion, and unfeeling despotism reigned. Men would not be driven to religion, nor have new views of worship thrust like horseballs down their throats. The fatuity and folly of the Queen may be seen in the fact that when Roman Catholic services were suppressed, and the people could not understand Protestant preaching in the English tongue, nor could ther# be found clergymen in Ireland to speak it, that then, instead of having the Irish language acknowledged as the medium of teaching, the Queen chose the Latin tongue as the instrument of devotion and instruction. This species of wise arrange- ment was enshrined in an Act of Parliament, 2 Eliz., cap. 13. Land Confiscations. During these reigns wholesale confiscations of land were made, and heresy as well as rebellion was made a 38 pretext for taking possession of soil owned by the Irish natives. Even Philip of Spain and Queen Mary, though Catholics, carried out the traditional policy of confiscation. Wide tracts in Leinster, comprising 985,000 acres, were seized. When James I. ascended the throne, O'Neil and Tyrconnell were declared traitors, and their lands were divided among various companies in England and Scot- land, and were colonised by men from these countries. The entire population of six counties was dispossessed, and the old chiefs and clans were compelled to retire to neigh- bouring counties. Mr. Fkoude says : — " The confiscated territory amounted to two millions of acres. Of these, a million and a half, bog, forest, and mountain were restored to the Irish, and the half million of fertile lands were settled with families of Scottish and English Protestants." There was much discontent at this. Colonists who had never turned up a sod of land had bestowed upon them the fruitful portions of it, while the bare, waste, unpro- ductive parts were handed back to the people of Ireland, to be tilled and improved by them, until a further conquest should seize upon the soil freshly cultivated. This was the Ulster experiment, which will be explained when we consider the modern aspects of the land question. Sir Arthur Chichester, smitten by the same rabid longing for land as other governors had been, called the Parliament together though it had not met for 27 years. To carry his scheme, he created 57 Protestant representatives of towns and counties. This Parliament was composed there- fore of 125 Protestants and 10 1 Catholics. Previous to this the Catholics must have had a majority, but this could not be tolerated by the English rulers, and hence Sir Arthur Chichester reformed the House and appropriated a large portion of land. And yet, though he covered Protes- i 39 tantism with the odium attached to injustice and robbery, he wrote that he knew not " how this attachment to the Catholic Faith was so deeply rooted in the hearts of the Irish, unless it was that the very soil was infected, and the very air tainted with Popery, for they obstinately prefer it to all things else, to allegiance of their king, to respect for his ministers, to the care of their own prosperity, and to all their hopes and prospects."* He might have learned that the religion for which a man makes sacrifices becomes endeared to him, and that in proportion to the greatness of the sacrifice is the strength of the affection. And he might have known further that to associate the new faith with iniquitous practices was the best means to make it offensive in the sight of any people. In 1369 a law was passed to compel men to reside in Ireland, the Parliament declaring that the estates of absentees who did not return within a given time should be forfeited to the Crown. But the absentees found means to avoid the penalty. King Richard II. had viewed with clear eye the conditions of the Irish people ; but though he spoke strongly on the question, his fierce barons were too turbulent for his meek spirit to control them, and the abuses remained. After his visit to the country, the King said — ** In our land of Ireland, there are three kinds of people — wild Irish (our enemies), Irish rebels, and obedient English. To us and our Council it appears that the Irish rebels have rebelled in consequence of the injustice and grievances practised towards them, for which they have been afforded no redress, and that, if not wisely treated and given hope of grace, they will most likely ally them- selves with our enemies." And yet, during the reigns of * Godkin. 8q. 40 the wise Tudors and Stuarts, we may see the old policy of injustice still pursued, and men compelled by the laws of a conquering nation to become either slaves or rebels. Rebellion and Revenge. Charles I. sent Strafford over to govern the land and further colonize it, and the Earl ruled with an iron hand until his recall and execution. During this reign, rebellion burst out and swelled into terrible dimensions. After the dethronement of the King it still continued to spread. The barbarities were almost unexampled in a land where barbarous practices had flourished for centuries under the fostering care of a foreign government. The land lay weltering .in the gore of the people. Religious bigotry, so long smouldering and burning in~ fitful fires to the eye, but maintaining perpetual luridity in secret, now burst out, and consumed in the flames of its passion the opposing sects. The triumph of Independency and Presbyterianism, under Pym and Cromwell, in England, seemed to foreshadow to the Catholic Irish a raid upon them. The civil wars had also relaxed the grip of English governors, and now the Irish burst into defiant rebellion. Massacre ran riot. Blood reeked from the deluged soil. Then Cromwell came, and met cruelty by still greater cruelty. Perhaps never since the time of Henry II. had the natives a better prospect of throwing off" the foreign yoke. A weak general or king must have gone down before the rush of revolt. But Cromwell was immovable. The marvellous resources of this determined man seemed irresistible. He believed that to strike terror into the minds of the Irish would be the means of preventing future bloodshed and trouble. Then came, by his orders, ** the raid of Drogheda," and the whole city was given up 4^ to death. For three years a pitiless war was waged. The people sank down groaning and despairing. Six hundred thousand people — men, women, and children — more than one-third of the population, perished. Forty thousand men fled from their country and joined the Spanish Army, while thousands of others were banished and were sold as slaves in the West Indies. This rebellion, commencing in 1641, like others, had been forced by the unwisdom of the English Government. Charles L received payment for privileges, religious and political, that the Irish desired, but his promises were shadowy and unreal. Straff"ord believed in a " thorough " policy, and one of his tenets was the suppression of all religions except that w^hich was established by the English Government. He and Archbishop Laud went hand in hand in tyranny, and died for their crimes at the hands of the exasperated Commons. But the Nonconformists who claimed freedom of conscience for themselves, as well as freedom of worship, were not prepared to grant these sacred rights to Catholics. The Catholics knew not to whom to turn. The King and his Cavaliers were against them. The Puritans and their leaders gave them no hope. The Roman Catholic officers were turned out of the army, and the priests were imprisoned ; the services of their religion were restricted or suppressed at the mere will of English officers and governors. What could they do ? They did what was alone open to them. They rebelled and died. The lessons of barbarity taught by their con- querors were learned by them, and in the flush of their first triumph, they embued their hand in the blood of Protestants. Twelve thousand at least, according to trustworthy authorities were slain — many of them in cold blood. Their deeds cannot be palliated or justified. But 42 the English had taught them, and were not slow to retaliate. The rebellion commenced on October 22nd, 1841. In December of the same year, the English House of Com- mons passed a measure to deliberately destroy the Catholic religion in Ireland. The Irish people became more exasperated as they saw the life or death character of the struggle. They saw it was a war of extermination, and therefore fought and slew with the desperate madness of despair. To them no quarter was shown. The wives and children of those who went over to aid King Charles against the Commons were murdered. In Scotland eighty were drowned in one day for the *' crime of being married to or the offspring of Irish soldiers." The Englishmen said : **nits will be lice," and so the children were slain. One officer, Sir William Cole, who had been engaged in the cruel work of slaying the Irish and of destroying their crops, summed up the deeds of his regiment, in which he gloried, by saying — •*' Starved and famished of the vulgar sort, whose goods were seized on by this regiment, 7,000." Confiscation Repeated. The country ,had peace given to it, but it was the quiescence of despair, and " it left behind a fearful legacy of hate." The Long Parliamsnt confiscated 2,500,000 acres, and offered them as security to adventurers who could advance money to meet the cost of the war. Estates were given to those who contributed as follows : — 1,000 acres in Ulster .. ;^2oo. 1,000 ,, ,, Connaught . . £300. 1,000 ,, „ Munster . . ;£^45o. 1,000 ,, „ Leinster .. /^6oo. A new survey of the kingdom was carried out under the direction of Sir William Petty (founder of the House of Lansdowne), by whom the surface of the kingdom was estimated at 10,500,000 acres. Of this, in the year 1641, 5,000,000 were in the possession of Catholics, 300,000 were the property of Churches and Colleges, 2,000.000 belonged to Protestant Settlers, and 3,000,000 were waste. The 5,000,000 owned by Catholics were confiscated, with the exception of 700,000 given in exchange in Clare and Connaught, and 1,200,000 confirmed to innocent Papists.'* No vestige of the Catholic religion was allowed to exist ; Catholic lawyers and schoolmasters were silenced ; and Mr. Deane says : — "All Ecclesiastics were slain like the priests of Baal." Three bishops and three hundred clergymen were thus slain. It is said that ** the hunting to death of the priests became an exciting species of chase." Mr. Deane further states : — " Into County Clare and part of Connaught the people were driven like cattle, and if in any mountainous recesses or caves a few peasants were detected at mass, they were smoked out and shot. A proclamation was issued that after March ist, 1654, all Irish Catholics — men, women, and children — who should be found in the kingdom might be killed by any person who should meet them, without charge or trial." Fortunately Henry Cromwell (the gifted son of the Protector) and Fleetwood, the General, both endeavoured to mitigate the severities, and for several years a better state of government spread itself over the kingdom. Mr. GoLDWiN Smith says: — **The peace of com- plete submission reigned in Ireland. Law was regularly administered, and the Protestant community at least pre- sented a picture of prosperity. But it is difficult to believe that the lot of the Irish Catholics can have been otherwise than hard under the domination of those fierce and fanatical children of the old covenant, who were dwelling 44- in vineyards which they iiad not planted, and houses which they had not built ; who ranked the religion of the subdued race with idolatry, and who must have constantly read in the expressive faces of the people intense hatred mingled with cowering fear. To make Ireland like York- shire is said to have been the Protector's object, and thus as far as the nature of things permitted, his genius as a ruler achieved. But the nature of things rendered it impossible for him to do more than create a Yorkshire on the surface, while an Ireland still lay alien and vindictive below." I commend Mr. Smith's words to those who are pur- suing the same policy of government as Cromwell, and who are complaining of the rebellious spirit of the Irish people. The "nature of things " exists still, and is one great element that must be considered in the modern settlement of the question. Mr. Deane says : — " The essential Irish demands were for freedom of religion ; freedom of Parliament, including the repeal of Poyning's Laws : for proper seminaries for the education of Roman Catholics ; a general pardon ; that no person should sit in the Irish Parliament unless possessed of Irish property ; that the Irish Parliament should be independent of that of England ; that no person should be governor for more than three years, and that no governor should acquire land while he was in office as governor." These do not seem very hard demands, and yet they were persistently refused by the Monarch and the English Government. Charles II. returned to power, with his train of licensed miscreants, on the deposition of Richard Crom- well, and he commenced his government of Ireland by confiscating many of the acres still remaining in the hands of the Irish, 170,000 acres of which he assigned to his 45 brother James. During this reign a Test Act was passed, by which no person could hold office, either civil or military, without subscribing to a declaration against Transubstan- tiation. As this was a fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, all Catholics were shut out of these offices. The importation of Irish cattle into England was also forbidden by law in this reign, because it robbed the English farmer of high prices. Mr. Prendergast says : — '* Eight millions of acres were disposed of after the Cromwellian settlement by Charles II. Two and a quarter millions were given to Irish of English descent, or Irish declared innocent of rebellion. To English courtiers and soldiers were given four millions and a half. The rest the King reserved.' James 11. repealed Poyning's Acts and the Act of Settlement, and re-installed the Catholics in office, but he clung tenaciously to the land, and confiscated the estates of all absentees of the age of seventeen years and upwards. Still the Catholics were faithful to him in his wars with William of Orange, and on his defeat they were again despoiled by the conqueror. Poyning's Laws. As the Poyning's laws are frequently referred to in Irish history, it may be necessary to explain them. During the reign of Henry VII., the Lord Deputy Poyning en- deavoured to secure a closer connection between the governing bodies of England and Ireland. In order to do this, he drew up laws which were afterwards interpreted to mean that the Irish Parliament was, in all legislative matters, subordinate to the King and his Council, and could not initiate legislation, nor carry it into law unless it had received the sanction of the Privy Council, and had 46 first been considered by it. Swift McNeill says : — " In 1495, by an Act of the Irish Parliament known as Poy- ning's Law, from the Lord Deputy, in whose administration it was passed, amongst other provisions all the laws of England, antecedent to that date are deemed good and effectual in Ireland. This provision, which forms what Mr. Hallam calls an epoch in Irish jurisprudence, fades into insignificance in the light of the measure which gives its peculiar importance to Poyning's Law. It was further enacted that no Parliament should in future be holden in Ireland, till the King's Lieutenant shall certify to the King, under the great seal, the causes and considerations and all such acts as it seems to them ought to be passed thereon, and such be affirmed by the King and his Council, and his license to hold a Parliament be obtained ; and any Parliament holden contrary to this form and provision should be deemed void." In speaking of these Acts, Mr. Deane says : — ** The one act reduced a long-standing grievance and wrong, while the other inflicted a wrong which remained for centuries. The former of these was to the effect that all statutes made in England were established and made of force in Ireland ; but this did not extend beyond the pale. By the latter it was enacted that no Parliament should be held in Ireland, except for causes and for the passing of acts to be certified beforehand, and licensed by the King and his Council. This limited the power of an Irish Parliament to the mere vetoing of English proposals. It could neither propose nor repeal a law, nor even alter such as were offered for its consideration." By this latter Act there was placed on the Irish legis- lature a strong and inflexible curb. This was felt to be intolerable, and was bitterly resented by the Irish. In the 47 reign of Queen Mary the Act was modified so that the assent of the English Privy Council could be given while the Irish Parliament was sitting, and not as claimed by Poyning's Act, before it met. Though repealed by James II., it was re-enacted by his successor. In the reign of George I., by an Act of Parliament, the English Houses of Parliament claimed the power of legislating for Ireland. But Daniel O'Connell has said : — " If that power so claimed had really existed, where was the necessity of passing that statute, and while the Act proclaims the slavery of Ireland, it admits the pre- existence of freedom." It is contended by Irish authorities that the Poyning's Law was never intended *' to take away the right of the Irish Parliament, but merely to prevent the governors of Ireland from giving the royal assent to laws that might be injurious to the King. It never gave to the English Parliament the right to dominate and overshadow the Irish Legislature." Mr. Isaac Butt says, *** From the admitted depend- ence of the Crown of Ireland upon that of England, arose the claim of the English Parliament to legislate for Ireland. Over all the colonies and dependencies of the British Crown, the British Parliament had exercised the right of legislation. Over Ireland they asserted the same right. I need not tell you how fiercely it was contested, and that it was finally abandoned in 1782." Professor Swift McNeill declares that '* The Irish Parliament, while admitting the dependence of the Irish on the English Crown, repelled, without qualification, the theory of the subordination of the Irish to the English legislature." (Quoted by Swift McNeil—" Irish Industries," pa^jj^ — — -«»,..^_^^ :T tTt -r-. .r^ . 48 Mr. Flood pointed out in his great speeches that the Parliament that passed the Poynings Acts, and the Parlia- ments of Queen Elizabeth's time had never regarded the Acts as being intended to deprive the Irish Parliament of its right to initate the legislation urgently needed in the interests of the kingdom — that it was only considered to be a popular law restraining evil governors, but "In no wise restraining the power of either House of Parliament." He showed that Lord Bacon, who wrote the history of Henry VII., and particularly mentioned Poynings would not have let so great a matter as a total inversion of the Constitution pass by the accuracy of his penetrating genius. He (Mr. Flood) said, " It is astonishing that the law of Poynings should have received such a false and vicious interpretation as it now bears. Do we understand its meaning at the distance of almost three hundred years better than the people in whose days it was passed, or they who succeeded for a hundred years after ? By them it was considered as a boon and a favour, but its operation now destroys the Constitution of Ireland, that Constitution which, growing side by side with the Constitution of Britain, it was- formed to protect. But the law was not in fault it was only the vile interpreter who was to blame, an interpreter placed between the king and the people, a monster unknown to the Constitution, whose office was to stifle the voice of the people, and to prevent the king from hearing, to render the people dumb, and the king deaf." Mr. Swift McNeill shows how this law has been used to deprive the people of Ireland of the benefits intended by Poyning to be extended to Ireland. He says, "The most casual glance at the history of the laws of the Irish Constitution, will afl'ord ample evidence of the persistent and reckless manner in which the provisions 49 of Poynings' Law were called in aid to pervert, mutilate, suppress and persecute every measure extending the benefits of the English Constitution to Ireland. The Treaty of Limerick. William III., when he marched his forces against General Sarsfield and the Irish who remained faithful to James II., found that he had to face no mean antagonist, and pressed on every side by great difficulties, in order that he might end the war and return to England in the interests of administration and order, he entered into a treaty at Limerick with General Sarsfield. This treaty provided for an anmesty to all who would take the oath of allegiance to the King ; in addition, all who desired to go to France were to be conveyed thither ; all Catholics were to enjoy the rights of their religion as in the days of Charles II., and the King and Queen pledged themselves to procure further security for the Catholics when the Parliament met. Subsequent history shows that this treaty was ruthlessly and cruelly violated. The Persecuting Code. What has been fitly called *' the persecuting code," was established during the reign of William III. The cruel civil war had thrown Protestants and Catholics into two camps, and now the defeated were visited with pains and penalties. Previously the Catholics had enjoyed some measure, small as it was, of political rights. They held the franchise, could elect members to Parliament, and were themselves eligible for election ; but now the Penal Code altered all this, and placed them in a condition of political slavery. Nothing can palliate or condone the establishment of this impious code, followed so as it was by what Mr. Burke called ** the ferocious legislation of Queen Anne." It was the fruitful cause of much sorrow and mischief, and we are to-day reaping a harvest of shame and difficulty as the result of it. Spies were set to work to find out plots and to dis- cover excuse for the forfeiture of estates. A system of mean and despisable chicanery was established, and a set of men called ''discoverers" were appointed to search out flaws in the titles of land held by Catholics. Leland says that in the MSS. of Bishop Sterne it was found that ** in the small county of Longford alone, twenty-five persons of one Sept were all deprived of their estates, without the least compensation or any means of subsistence assigned to them." Mr. GoLDWiN Smith asserts that the natives were obliged to submit, *' For they had been vanquished in the appeal to force. And if they were tempted to try their right in the courts of law, they found judges who were ministers of iniquity, and juries who gave their verdict in cases where the Crown was a party, with the terrors of the ' Star Chamber hanging over their heads." Leland states: — ''There are not wanting proofs of the most iniquitous practices, of hardened cruelty, of vile perjury, and scandalous subornation employed to despoil the fair and unoff'ending proprietor of his inheritance." A suitor for Court favours once said to the Duke of Ormonde, " I have no friends but God and your Grace." "Poor man," replied Ormonde, "you could not have two friends who have less interest at Court." And certainly it seems as though Justice and Mercy, the characteristics of righteous and Divine government, were cast contemptuously aside during the time when William IIL and his Council legislated for Ireland. 51 Again the land was re-settled. Lord Clare, in one of his speeches, referred to this period, and said : — *• It is a very curious and important speculation to look back to the forfeitures of Ireland incurred in the last century. The superficial contents of the island are calculated at 11,042,682 acres. Let us now examine the state of the forfeitures : — In the reign of James I. the whole of the province of Ulster was confis- cated, viz., 2,836,837 acres. Set out by the Court of Claims at the Restoration 7,800,000 ,, Forfeitures of 1688 .. .. ..1,060,792 ,, So that the whole of your Island has been confiscated with the exception of the estates of five or six families of English blood, and no inconsiderable portion of the island has been confiscated twice or perhaps thrice in the course of a century.;" Crippling of Trade and Commerce. Irish manufactures were also crippled by an enforced protection, and Mr. Froude says : — ** Ireland was regarded as a colony to be administered not for her own benefit, but for the convenience of the mother country." Until the reign of Charles II. England placed no restrictions on Irish commerce or manufactures. Lord North says: — ''Before the Restoration the Irish enjoyed every commercial advantage in common with England." •*In 1495," Hutchinson says, "the English com- mercial system and the Irish, so far as it depended on English Statute Law, was the same, and before this period, so far as it depended on the Common Law, and Magna Charta was the same."* * " Commercial Restraints,'' page 169. Quoted by Swift McNeill. 52 A law was also passed prohibiting not only the importation of cattle to England, but also of butter and cheese. Ireland was also forbidden to receive from the English plantations, Sugar, Tobacco, Cotton, Wool, Indigo, Ginger, and wood for dyeing purposes. The result was that cattle became a drug in the Irish markets, and horses that were sold for 30/- now fetched only i/-., and were sold as dog's meat, and beeves that sold for 30/- now only realised 10/-.* The agriculturalists in great numbers now turned to manufacturing, but again the Government stepped in, and in 1660 and 1697 the Irish woollen goods were stopped from obtaining entrance into England. They were then forbidden to export their goods to foreign markets "here- tofore supplied from England," and all *' export of wool and woollen goods from Ireland was prohibited under the forfeiture of goods and ship and a penalty of ^500 for every offence." They had been permitted to manufacture flax and hemp into goods, but in 1750 they had so developed their trade that their English rivals succeeded in securing from the Government the imposition of heavy taxes on the import of sail cloth made of Irish hemp into England. The fact was that the English competitors were being beaten out of the market, and the Government were com- pelled to furnish the navy with sails made by the Irish. The manufacture of glass was next crippled, and Irish cotton goods were subjected to an import duty of twenty- five per cent., and a statute law of George I. afterwards enacted penalties on the wearing of such manufactures in Great Britain unless they had been made there. * Swift McNeill — "Irish Industries," page 23. S3 Irish beer and malt, hats, gunpowder, coals, bar-iron, iron-ware, &c., were also subjected to restrictions, until at last the fishermen of Folkestone and Alderborough sent petitions complaining that the herrings caught at Water- ford and Wexford were sent to their markets, and therefore by reducing the prices they would otherwise have secured, interfered with their prosperity. But the Parliament decided that it must draw the line somewhere, and to the dismay and disgust of the petitioners it drew it at Irish herrings. Dean Swift wrote: — ''Ireland is the only kingdom I ever heard or read of in ancient or modern story which was denied the liberty of exporting their native com- modities and manufactures wherever they pleased." Everything that was made in Ireland, or was reared on Irish soil, seemed placed under the ban, and perhaps the only reason why the Parliament refused to tax the herrings was the difficulty and expense that would have been involved in proving that they had been reared in Irish waters. Mr. Froude says : — " England governed Ireland for what she deemed her own interest, making her calculation on the gross balance of her trade ledgers, and leaving her moral obligations to accumulate, as if right and wrong had been blotted out of the statute book of the universe." Lord DuFFERiN observes: — "One by one each of our nascent industries was either strangled in its birth or handed over gagged and bound to the jealous custody of the rival interest of England, until at last every fountain of wealth was hermetically sealed, and even the traditions of commercial enterprise have perished through desuetude." Mr. Lecky says : — " No country ever exercised a more complete control over the destinies of another than 54 did England over those of Ireland for three-quarters of a century after the Revolution. * * * The commercial legislation which ruined Irish industry, the confiscation of Irish land which demoralised and impoverished the nation, were all directly due to the English Government and the English Parliament." And Mr. Froude again declares that " if the high persons at the head of the British Empire had deliberately considered by what means they could condemn Ireland to remain the scandal of their rule, they could have chosen no measures better suited to their end than those which they pursued unrelentingly through three-quarters of a century." Richard Cobden, with the rare insight ever displayed by him, said in 1835: — ''There can be no doubt that England has during the last two centuries, by discouraging the commerce of Ireland — thus striking at the very root of civilization — rendered herself responsible for much of the barbarism that at the present day afflicts it. However much the conduct of England towards the sister island in this particular may have been dwelt upon for party purposes, it is so bad as scarcely to admit of exaggeration." Well might John Bright, yet under the influence of Mr. Cobden's spirit and fellowship, say : — " When the Irish peasant asks for food, and freedom, and blessing, his eye follows the setting sun ; the aspirations of his heart reach beyond the wide Atlantic, and in spirit he grasps hands with the great Republic of the West." Dr. Spence Watson writes in the Newcastle Leader-.— We had destroyed her cattle trade, and her trade in dairy pro- duce, but her grazing lands were still free, and her farmers had access to European ports (she was nearer than Great Britain to the west 55 coast of France, Spain, and Portugal and the Mediterranean ports), and found a ready market for their wool, which was accounted the best in Europe. I have read that fleece wool, which could be bought in Ireland at fivepence per pound, brought half-a-crown per pound in France. But in the first year of Charles II. 's reign (known to law as the twelfth), this trade in wool was seriously interfered with. By the 12 Car. II., c. 32, it was decreed that wool should not be exported from Ireland to any country but England, and six Irish ports alone were allowed to export it, and seven English ports to receive it. But even yet in her manufactures there was a ray of hope for the trade of Ireland. Forbidden to sell her raw wool, she began to manufacture it, or, rather, her woollen industries, which had been steadily growing, received a great impetus. From the Low Countries, as well as from England and Scotland, manufac- turers settled in Ireland, and everywhere was there evidence that at last the way to success in peaceful industry had really been attained. As early as 1641 there were not fewer than 30,000 woollen workers and their wives in Ireland. And then England again grew frightened. Her manufacturing supremacy was threatened. Her helot dared to become her rival in one branch of business. In 1696 Ireland was forbidden to trade with the colonies at all, and in 1699 an Act was passed to prohibit the exportation of woollen goods from Ireland to any country whatever, and a noble and thriving industry was deliberately destroyed ; thousands of manufacturers emigrated to the Continent, and so many workers left the Western and Southern districts of Ireland for America that they were almost deserted. Everywhere manufacture was crushed. Land alone remained. Is this not a terrible story ? Does it not throw light upon the unfortunate position which what we now mockingly call our sister country holds in this matter of manufacture ? Trade depends greatly on confidence, and confidence is a plant of slow growth. The great manufacturing nations have become such through their geographical position, through their superior natural resources, and through the gradual development and patient formation of the industrial character in their people. Ireland had the position ; we refused to allow her to take advantage of it. She had the natural resources ; we made them worthless. She began the formation of industrial habits in her people ; we ruthlessly stopped the process. We drove the Irish people on to the land at the very time that we forbade them to hold it legally. We made them serfs, and this day we feel in every phase and point of the Irish question the natural effect of mischievous commercial legislation of two centuries ago. 56 Ireland Depopulated. As a result of this, emigration went on in a continual flood. Mr. Lecky observes : — " One of the most obvious consequences was that, for the space of about a century, Ireland underwent a steady process of depletion, most men of energy, talent, or character, being driven from her shores." The Protestant population as well as the Catholic suffered from these measures. Indeed, as they were renowned for their trading propensities, their suffer- ing was the more severe. The whole country groaned under the twofold penalties of penal laws and commercia restrictions. Mr. Lecky again remarks : — *' If the ambition of an Irishman lay in the paths of manufacture and commerce, he was almost compelled to emigrate, for commercial enterprise had been deliberately crushed." Is there any wonder that the law was looked upon as an instrument of evil and oppression, and that centuries of injustice have made the people hate the law, which, had it protected them they would have loved. "Twenty thousand Puritans left Ulster on the de- struction of the woollen trade."^* ** Until the spell of tyranny was broken in 1782, when Ireland won back her own free Parliament, annual ship- loads of families poured themselves out from Belfast and Londonderry. The resentment they carried with them continued to burn in their new homes ; and in the war of Independence, England had no fiercer enemies than the great-grandsons of the Presbyterians who had held Ulster against Tyrconnell." * Mr. Froude. 57 The woollen manufacturers, when they were sup- pressed, employed 12,000 Protestants in Dublin, and 30,000 in other parts. This was a large percentage of the population, which only numbered a little over two millions. Many of them went to France and the northern parts of Spain, and set up there a rival trade to the English one, and in 1805 it was stated by Mr. Newenham, that for fifty years the average annual emigration to America and the West Indies had been 4000, and that at least 200,000 had emigrated to the British Plantations. Between 1691 and 1745 as many as 450,000 Irishmen died in the service of France alone, and a number not far short of this had passed through the armies of Spain, while it is almost impossible to tell the exact number of those to whom " Ireland gave birth and the Gallic land a grave." The Consequence of Injustice. The Hon. Luke Gardiner, in 1 784, in the Irish House of Commons, declared that as a result of the restrictions, not only had England lost a principal protection of her woollen trade, but "that the large number of Irish in the American army had decided its victories, and that there- fore America had been detached from England chiefly by the force of Irish emigrants driven from their country by iniquitous laws." At the death of William III., less than one-seventh of the owners of the soil were Roman Catholics, though they were the great majority of the nation. Upon these, in addition to the commercial restrictions, there rested the terrible penal laws. Notwithstanding that the vast pre- ponderance of the inhabitants were Roman Catholics, the English Government by statute law placed all the parliamentary and political power in the hands of the few 58 Protestants. The result was, that now more than ever, Protestantism became associated with tyranny, and in the opinion of many of the inhabitants of Ireland, it still bears the stigma. Political power alone kept up the State Church, against the desires and views of the vast majority of the population. Mr. Goldwin Smith says that it "became necessarily the servile instrument" of that power, and taught the lesson to the ages that ''Christianity cannot be propagated through unchristian institutions, and that the State Church of a dominant minority is an insti- tution which, being unjust, must be unchristian." The Penal Laws. The law excluded Catholics from the army and navy, from corporations, the magistracy, the bench and the bar, from grand juries, and vestries. They could not be sheriffs, gamekeepers, or constables. They were forbidden to own any firearms under pain of fine, imprisonment, whip, and pillory. They could not own a horse worth more than five pounds, and any Protestant could compel them to sell any horse they possessed for that sum. There was no education for their children except at Protestant schools. They had no university ; could not teach a school, nor send their children on the continent to be educated. A Catholic could not be the guardian of his own child. Mr. Goldwin Smith remarks : — " It (the law) denied to the persecuted sect the power of educating their children at home, and at the same time, with an almost maniacal cruelty, it prohibited them from seeking educa- tion abroad." *They were not allowed to buy land, or inherit it, or receive it as a gift from Protestants. They could not hold * Mr. Froude—" English in Ireland." Mr. Lecky's History of i8th Century. 59 life annuities or leases for more than thirty-one years. If a Catholic purchased an estate of a Protestant, the first Protestant who informed the authorities of the fact became the owner of the estate, so that there were plenty of people on the look out. The eldest son of a Catholic, if he assumed a profession of Protestantism, became heir-at-law of the whole estate of his father, who was thereby reduced to the position of a life-tenant. A wife who left the Catholic Church and became a Protestant, was immeditely freed from her husband's control, and was assigned a portion of her husband's property that he could never afterwards touch. A Catholic could not be the guardian of a child of any deceased relative or friend, so that all Catholic orphans were brought up as Protestants. All Catholic Priests had to be registered, and it was a crime for an unregistered priest to celebrate a service in any way. " Any priest making a convert to Roman Catholicism was punished. There were rewards for the discovery of un- licensed priests, and no Catholic bishops were allowed in Ireland under a penalty of being hung, drawn, and quartered." A salary of £$o per annum was guaranteed to any priest who would abjure his faith. "Pilgrims to holy places were to be fined or whipped." •' Catholic heirs of a Catholic must share the land equally between them as they became subject to the law of Gavel- kind, and even then they must conform within six months or the lands descended to the next Protestant heir." Mr. GoLDWiN Smith says : — ** In the case of alleged offences against certain of the penal laws, the first prin- ciples of criminal justice were deliberately and ostentatiously set aside by removing the burden of proof from the accuser, and casting it on the accused." This is still being aimed at, as witness the charges of the Times newspaper against 6o the Parnellites, where the burden of proof was ruthlessly laid upon the Irish party, and as seen in the Government support of Mr. Lewis, a landlord, upon whose unsupported evidence, in spite of the advice of the resident magistrate, and the testimonies of the people to his previous good behaviour, Father Fahy was sent to prison. From the Bench, Lord Chancellor Bowes and Chief Justice Robinson laid it down as a declaration of law, viz. : — " That the law did not suppose any such person to exist as a Roman Catholic ; and Dopping, the Protestant Bishop of Meath, preached from the pulpit the infamous doctrine that Protestants are ** not bound to keep faith with Catholics." It is no excuse to say that Catholic teachers taught a similar doctrine in relation to Protestants, for if Protestantism is to prove itself a higher form of faith, it must show its claim to this position, by the superiority of its moral teaching, and the increased elevation of its spirit and life. Edmund Burke denounced the Penal Code for what he called its " vicious perfection." He might well do so, when he read that any marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic was null and void, and could, at any time here- after be annulled, so that though twenty years before, a Catholic woman had been led into wedlock by a Protestant man, he could now forsake her, and make his children illegitimate. Mr. Burke says : — *' It was a complete system full of coherence and consistency, as well fitted for the oppres- sion, imprisonment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man." And these laws were not only directed against two- thirds of the nation that were Catholic, but many of 6i them were also aimed at Nonconformist Protestants. The Protestants were divided into two halves. The Episcopalians enjoyed the protection of the State, and were buttressed by the military and naval power of England, but the Presbyterians were excluded from Parliament, corporations and public offices ; marriages by their minis- ters were dubbed illegal, and the Presbyterians were forced by these laws out of Ireland ; and, Mr. Grattan says, ** what we trampled on in Ireland, stung us in America." In a number of towns Catholics were cast out, and in the town of Bandon, the people were so proud of their exclusive Protestantism, that Dean Swift suggested as an inscription for the town gates : — " Jew, Turk, or Atheist May enter here, but not a Papist." But the people, though willing to accept this, did not appreciate the addition made by the Dean's Catholic servant : — " The man who wrote these lines spoke well, The same are written on the gates of hell." Dean Swift wrote satire after satire in denunciation of this system, of firm government, "and ironically advised a clergyman, whose church was in a tumble-down state, to give it to the Catholics, and when they had repaired it to take it back again. He further issued, with a fluency of satire, what he called a "Modest Proposal,"— viz.: "That the children of the Irish peasantry should be reared for food, and that the plumpest and fattest should be reserved for the tables of the landlords, who, as they had already devoured the substance of the people, had the best right to dispose of the flesh of the children of the people." Dean Swift did much to solidify and direct the national life of Ireland. When King George I. gave the right and 6i profit of coining copper for Ireland to his German mistress, the Dean poured out his wrath and indignation in a flood of molten invective and argument, and he roused the national life until the King had to withdraw his ill-omened gift. The Dean asserted that Ireland *' depended on England in no other sense than that in which England depended on Ireland ; that government without the con- sent of the governed was the very essence of slavery ; and that, by the laws of God, of nature, of nations, and of their own country, they were, and ought to be, as free a people as their brethren in England." Persecution failed to crush religious belief, and the men who suffered cherished their faith the more fully. The Catholic Church took firmer hold of the imagination and life of the people, and this fatal policy of repression, while it crushed the national liberties of the people, made them estimate more highly the spiritual liberty that in their hearts they realised. Grattan's Parliament. During the reign of George ILL, Henry Grattan rose to prominence, and under his leadership the Irish people re-asserted the independence of Parliament, and their own right to initiate and make the laws necessary for the regulation of Irish affairs. In this he was supported by the great Whig leader, the founder of modern Liberalism, Charles James Fox. Mr. Fox, in the English House of Commons upheld the demands of the Irish, and did much to avert a strife between the the two countries. In the year 1775, the Catholics were allowed to take the oath of allegiance, and after three-quarters of a century were recognised as fellow-subjects with the class whose 63 representatives made the laws. This was the first result of the struggles for American Independence. In 1778, the Penal Code was further mitigated, so as to allow Catholic leaseholders to acquire leases for 999 years or five lives. The Act of Queen Anne's reign, which provided that if a child became a Protestant he should obtain his father's property, was repealed. Other measures followed. Then at the instigation of the Irish Parliament, the export of woollen goods was allowed, and a request for liberty to trade with the American and West Indian Colonies was sent to the English Parliament. Free Trade between England and Ireland was next claimed. The influence of the Americans was being felt more and more. Then Mr. Grattan proposed his famous resolutions, viz.: — 1. ''That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland are the only powers competent to enact laws to bind Ireland." 2. "That the Crown of Ireland is and ought to be inseparately annexed to the Crown of England." 3. "That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparately united under one Sovereign, and under common and indissoluble ties of interest, loyalty, and freedom." Where is the Separatist policy here ? Yet those who accept and adopt the policy of Mr. Grattan are called Separatists. On February 15th, 1782, the Protestant Parliament refused to pass these resolutions. Dr. Spence Watson says : — " But these moderate resolutions would have repealed Poynings' famous law, and the Act of 1720, which confirmed that law, and they were rejected. Other attempts to obtain legislative 6+ independence for Ireland were alike unsuccessful, and in February, 1782, the famous Convention of Dungannon was held. And who were the men attending it ? Why, the Protestant leaders of the Ulster Volunteers, and they it was who, after long and earnest debate, resolved that the claim of any body of men other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland to make laws to bind that kingdom was unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance. But they went further than this, those Ulster men, a century ago ; they resolved again ' That we hold the right of private judgment in matters of religion, to be equally sacred in others as in ourselves ; that we rejoice in the relaxation of the penal laws against our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects ; and that we conceive the measure to be fraught with the happiest consequences to the union and prosperity of the inhabitants of Ireland.' This Con- vention it was which settled that Ireland should be independent. Grattan again moved and lost his Declara- tion of Independence, but he had not long to wait, for, at the third time of asking, in April of that very year, he carried the day, and the Parliament of Ireland (such as it was) was free and independent." On the 17th of May, Lord Shelburne in the House of Lords, and Mr. Fox in the Commons, moved two resolu- tions, viz.: — 1. "That it is the opinion of this House that the Act of the 6th George I., entitled an Act for the better securing the dependency of Great Britain, ' ought to be repealed.' " 2. "That it is the opinion of this House that it is indispensable to the interests and happiness of both kingdoms that the connection between them should be established by mutual consent upon a 6s solid and permanent footing, and that an humble address should be presented to His Majesty that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to take such measures as His Majesty in His royal wisdom should think most conducive to that important end." George HI. and his ministers had just lost America to the English Crown by their insane measures of repression and their unwise restrictions and impositions, and yielding to the force of circumstances rather than to the dictates of right, they were now induced to try and save Ireland to the Crown by granting to her Parliamentary freedom. The required acts were soon passed, and while the Iiish Parlia- ment felt that it was again free, the Irish people rejoiced that their national claims were once more recognised. What had been refused to justice was yielded to fear. While England had power and a free hand, she dragged the Irish nation a captive at her chariot wheels. But now England was embroiled in , foreign wars. The navies of the world were marshalled against her. Her wars in America, India, and Spain, where she had to meet not only the native forces of the countries, but also the men whom her unjust laws had driven into exile, compelled her to withdraw her military forces from Ireland, and leave the people there to arrange for their own defence. This was soon done. Volunteers poured in to swell the ranks of defenders until from the 40,000 who were immediately enrolled they swelled to the number of 80,000. These were confined to Protestants, but the Catholics were permitted to send contributions, and nobly did they aid by their money and sympathy in the formation of this Volunteer Army. Four years after, the Convention of the People, aided by the Volunteers at Dungannon, demanded the enfranchise- 66 ment of the Irish Parliament, and as the armies of England were otherwise engaged, or were either wearied or dimin- ished by the long foreign strife, the English Government consented to the establishment of Grattan's Parliament. " What had been denied to justice was granted to fear." Grattan said: — "Ireland's progress was from injuries to arms, and from arms to liberty." Mr. ScRUTON says : — " What England had refused to reason she gave to fear, and the armed volunteers obtained from England what eloquence in Parliament had not been able to do. When first the removal of restrictions on Irish trade was suggested, every town in England went mad, Burke was turned out of his seat at Bristol for even suggesting that there was anything in the Irish demands. It was said at the time that a * foreign invasion could scarcely have created a greater panic' But the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland united in their demands. Grattan, himself an Irish Protestant, said, 'The Irish Protestant could never be free till the Irish Catholic had ceased to be a slave,' and he asked his Protestant brethren the question, * Are we to be a Protestant settlement, or an Irish nation?' England was at that time engaged in a war with France, and, owing to the demand for troops for the French and American wars, she had none to spare for Ireland. The Protestants got leave to volunteer and to arm, and the Protestants of Ulster — 'Loyal Ulster' — were the foremost in arming. These volunteers, as they were called, once armed, rapidly grew in numbers to fifty thousand men, and they used their arms and the weakness of the English Government to demand by armed force what England had refused to eloquence. The Dublin Volunteers paraded the streets of Dublin with two cannons, labelled ' Free Trade, pr This,' and under this pressure in 1779-80 Lord North 67 gave the Irish partial Free Trade. Then the Irish Parlia- ment refused to vote supplies to England. As the member who moved that resolution said: 'England has sown her laws in dragons' teeth ; they have sprung up in armed men.' They had risen now to eighty thousand, and the Lord Lieutenant was obliged to confess that he had no authority in Ireland. In 1781 the English army, under Lord Cornwallis, surrendered to the insurgents in America, at York Town, and the next year delegates from 143 Ulster regiments met in the Church at Dungannon, and unani- mously passed a resolution in favour of legislative independence, complete Free Trade, and complete religious toleration. That was ' Loyal Ulster.' Under this pressure the English Parliament unanimously accepted the legislative independence of Ireland, and the Act of 1783, in which they granted that independence, is a curious one in the light of the present debates. It sets forth that 'the right to be bound only by laws enacted by His Majesty and the Parliament of Ireland shall be, and is hereby declared to be established for ever,and shall at no time hereafter be questioned.' * For ever' was eighteen years."* The Irish Parliament in its constitution was very similar to the British one, and seemed either to have been originally formed on its model, or else to have been inspired by the same mind. The Poyning's Act was modified, but not repealed, in 1782. It was decided that no bills " should be originated, or altered, or suppressed by the Privy Council, but, before any bill passed by both Houses of the Irish Parliament should receive the assent of the Lord Lieutenant, as the King's representative, the consent of the Sovereign, under the great seal of England was necessary." * Public Lecture. Grattan's Parliament was therefore a Parliament held in Dublin, with the right to initiate and formulate legis- lation regulating the internal administration of Ireland, but it did not claim to make the legislation law, until it had received the assent of the Sovereign, and was stamped by the Monarch's desire with the great seal of England and the great seal of Ireland. Defects of the Parliament. The Parliament thus freed was full of defects, yet the Irish people could say of it as Touchstone said of his wife, ** She is a poor one, but mine own." It was solely a Protestant Parliament, and largely consisted of placemen and representatives of pocket boroughs. It needed reform to free it from the defects of its dominant class character, and from the faults which its exclusiveness had engendered since the abolition of the rights of Roman Catholic citizens. It needed reform and purity, which can only be realised when bribery is proclaimed -to be, not only a political crime, but also a penal one. Mr. Grattan said, in the Irish House of Commons, in 1793: — "I will advert to the state of your representation. Of three hundred members above two hundred are returned by individuals ; from forty to fifty are returned by ten persons. Several of your boroughs have no resident electors at all ; some of them have but one, and on the whole two-thirds of the representatives in the House of Commons are returned by less than one hundred persons." Previously, in 1790, Mr. Grattan said ; — '*The number of placemen and pensioners sitting in this house equal nearly one-half of the whole efficient body." Mr. CuRRAN, in the same debate, said: — "I rise in an assembly of three hundred persons, one hundred of whom have places and pensions." , Thomas Sheridan cried : — " Are there not many among us who could not find the way to the place they represent, who never saw a constituent, who were never in the borough, who at times cannot remember the name of it ? " Mr. ScRUTON, quoting the statistics of the times, says: — "In several of the boroughs there was no elector living ; in others there was only one. There was naturally a tremendous amount of bribery and corruption. Eighty- six pocket boroughs had been bought by grants of peer- ages and pensions ; twelve represented pocket boroughs that the Government had owned ; forty-four were place- men who held positions of advantage, and voted for the Government in return ; thirty-two members had promises not yet fulfilled, and had to vote on this occasion to earn their rewards ; and twelve only out of the hundred and eighty-six were put down as not having been registered among the applicants for peerages, places, or pensions, and as supporting the Government on public grounds. There was the regular opposition of eighty-two, of whom thirty were pocket boroughs, that had not yet been bought, but were in the market. Fifty-two represented the popular party, and there were thirty-two waverers. And so on, through a long list of names. Then there was no responsible Ministry. The Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary were responsible, not to the Irish but to the English Parliament, so that if the Irish House condemned them they had only to come back to England and account to their masters — the English Parliament," 70 The English Government, during this time, bribed and influenced the members of the Irish ParHament, in order that reforms might be retarded, doubtless fearing that any large measures of land reform, or of extended representation, would open up the way to an interference with the arrogant privileges of the landlords and aristocrats in England. What Ireland Needed. There were two measures that were urgently needed, and these were pressed to the front. The one was Parlia- mentary Reform, and the other was the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and their recognition as citizens of the State. The Irish Executive was composed of English people and was not favourable to either measure of reform. In 1793, however, Catholics were allowed to vote for Protestant representatives, but were themselves excluded from the position. The Execu- tive feared reform, lest it should lose its hold over the Parliament, and should find its bribes thrown back into its lap by independent and honest members. The Volunteers met in Dublin, in October, 1783, to consider the questions of Reform and Emancipation, and while agreeing to the necessity of the former, differed as to whether representation should be extended to Catholics. Fiord said No! "for it would lead to the Disestablishment of the Protestant Church." Grattan said Yes ! *' for it is just to them." But these Protestant Volunteers opposed Grattan, and the result was, that the Volunteers losing their popular support, dwindled rapidly away. In 1785, Mr. Pitt's administration favoured a further extension of Free Trade, and on February 12th, Grattan presented to 71 the Irish Parliament resolutions in favour of it. But the opposition in England was so strong that Pitt had to yield, and re-cast three of the provisions, which made the bill of little worth to the Irish. In December, 1792, a Catholic Convention was held in Dublin. Representatives came from all parts of the country, and petitioned the Crown for enfranchisement. A number of them were appointed to bear the petition to London, and to present it to the King. He received it graciously, and through his Ministers, promised that the Catholic claims should be recommended in the Royal Address to both Houses of Parliament. But all this rosy prospect was unrealised. And the small measure passed in 1793, came too late to stop the flowing indignation of the people. Mr. Green says, "The hope of conciliation was lost in the fast rising tide of religious and social passion. An Association of United Irishmen begun among the Protestants of Ulster, with a view of obtaining Parliamentary Reform, drifted into a correspondence with France and projects of insurrection. The Catholic peasantry brooding over their misery and their wrongs, were equally stirred by the news from France, and their discontent broke out in the outrages of ' Defenders ' and * Peep-o'-day ' boys who held the country in terror." The teachings of the French Revolution, the leaders of which had not yet violated their principles by the deeds of blood and shame which make humanity shudder as it thinks of them, now began to be learned in Ireland. P>eedom began to inspire the lives of men, in the North and the South, and hope which, previous to 1783, had been crushed under the heavy weight of the nation's misery, now began to show its vigorous and growing life. 72 Excuse for Deaying Remedies. Wolfe Tone, a young Protestant barrister, of brilliant gifts, became the head of the movement for bringing pressure to bear upon a lethargic and selfish Government. His ideal purpose was to form a union of the whole Irish people, without local or religious distinctions. For a time the movement was kept within the limits of the law, but, ultimately it bade defiance to it. The Attorney- General — Fitzgibbon, afterwards called Lord Clare — said in a speech : — " The poor people of Munster live in a more abject state of poverty than human nature can be supposed able to bear ; their miseries are intolerable, but the legislature cannot stand by to see them take the redress in their own hands. Nothing can be done for their benefit while the country remains in a state of anarchy." This has been the excuse for delaying remedial legislation until the present time. Coercion bills and Crime bills have affected to be a remedy for disorder, and have been pushed through the Houses of Parliament with the utmost speed that Governments could command ; but remedial legislation has followed tardily and limpingly, as though afraid to follow too closely on the heels of its fiercer com- petitor. Statesmen who have been furious in their desire to hasten repressive measures, have been cool and slow in their movements when the reform of abuses has been taken in hand, and when the starving and suffering population have piteously cried for the removal of the class privileges which have caused their want and misery. ** Let them be quiet," has been the cry, when Ireland has been in earnest in asserting her grievances. " We can do nothing for the Irish until they are peaceable and still," has been the declaration of Statesmen. But when quietude has reigned — the quiet not of apathy, but of sullen despair — the 73 same parties have cried, *' Ireland is contented and quiet, and must not be agitated by fresh political measures." There is a story told of a Welshman, in the days when men were hung for trivial offences, who was being taken in a cart to be hanged by the neck. As the cart was proceeding, the wife of the condemned man — a woman of weak intellect — pushed through the crowd, and cried " Davie, where shall I plant the potatoes next year ?" " Plant them at Jericho," said the exasperated man. The woman, as she retreated weeping, cried out, " Our Davie's in a bad temper because he's going to be hung." The Governments of our country have been like the weak witted woman, they have complained that the people of Ireland have been in a "bad temper" because bad laws and the tyrannies of landlordism have condemned so many of them to misery and death. But would we have acted any differently if our rights had been persistently crushed, if our claims had been continuously disregarded, and ii our cries had been drowned by the clamour of our oppressors ? The way to have put Davie in a good temper \yould have been to revoke the sentence of death, help him to live a noble life, and let him plant the potatoes with his own hand. And the true way to silence the agitation of Ireland is to give the Irish people juster laws, and larger opportunities of securing national prosperity and national joy. Lord Fitzwilliam's Proposals. Lord Fitzwilliam was next sent out as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He immediately secured the favour of the Irish, for he was known to be a broad-minded and sympa- thetic statesman and a gentle and honest administrator. 74 He evidently believed that concessions to the down- trodden Catholics was to be a part of governmental policy. He was sustained in this belief, not only by the present assurances of Mr. Pitt, but also by the policy to which he had given his sanction in the past. In a letter to the Prime Minister, Lord Fitzwilliam declared that half- measures of reform were of no use, and that *'to make a reservation is to leave a splinter in the wound." He recommended firstly a full measure of Catholic Emancipation, and then one of Parliamentary Reform. He removed certain agents, who were obnoxious to the Irish, from the Castle, and held out to the Catholics hopes of final pacifiation. But before he could face one of the remedial measures foreshadowed by him he was recalled. Not three months elapsed before the Beresford and Jocelyns and other lordly houses secured his removal from the post he so nobly adorned. Pitt's policy had changed. He did not like the independence of the Irish Parliament, and Mr. Lecky does not mince his opinions on the subject when he asserts that Pitt's object was to bring the Irish Parliament into contempt that he might destroy it altogether. Earl Fitzwilliam's letter is a notable one. In urging the Government to let him have a free hand in dealing with Catholic Emancipation, he says: — ** Equality is already granted in the Act of 1793. It remains to be considered whether the symbol of it shall be granted or withheld. The peace, tranquility, and harmony of the country may now be sealed and secured for ever. "^^ * Mr. Grattan's plan is a short and simple one. First, a general repeal of all restrictive and qualify- ing laws ; that done, to alter the oaths, that the people may be made one Christian people, binding themselves by one civil oath in a common cause. You will ask do I 75 mean to carry the principle to the full extent of a general capacity for every office ? I certainly do for all not regal or ecclesiastical. These I reserve, and these only. I would not reserve the highest office in the State — not the Seals nor the Bench." Result of Fitzwilliam's Recall. Fair promises were thus again broken, and the Catholics were thrown into consternation at the recall of Earl Fitzwilliam. The united Irishmen under Wolfe Tone having become impatient of the law's delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns which patient merit of the un- worthy had been obliged to take ; maddened by the hope- less appeals made by them to the Government, and losing all faith in those who had violated the most sacred assur- ances, they, in spite of Grattan, Curran, and Flood, burst into open rebellion. Insurrection. In October, an Insurrection Act was passed. The Habasus Corpus Act was suspended. The Protestant land- owners, and their fanatical friends who had been known as Peep-o-Day Boys, now took the name of Orangemen, and marshalled themselves on the side of the English Government. They raised forces, banded themselves together in secret conclaves, and held the North of Ireland down by terror and bloodshed. English troops poured into the country, and free quarters were given to the soldiery in every proclaimed district. The forces under Sir R. Abercrombie were vile and violent, and by their brutal outrages incited many of the people to rebel. The General said of them that they were *' in a state of licentiousness" which rendered them ** formidable to 76 everyone but the enemy." He resigned his commission in disgust. Lord Cornwallis himself referred to *' the ferocity of our troops who delight in murder," and he said, ** the conversation even at my table, where you will suppose I do all I can to prevent it, always turns on hanging, shooting, murder, &c." Of the free quarters of the soldiery he said, that it "comprehended rape and robbery throughout the whole country." In the struggle, the Protestant forces, ruled by landowners and representa- tives of the wealthy and dominant classes, .brought them- selves into notoriety for their cruelty and cowardice. Lord Cornwallis described them as " contemptible before the enemy when any serious resistance is made to them, but ferocious and cruel in the extreme when any poor wretches, either with or without arms, come within their power." In the struggle, the losses were large. At least seventy thousand persons are said to have perished. Pitt's Opportunity. Then Mr. Pitt seized what he regarded as a golden opportunity, and when martial law reigned, by bribery and corruption he purchased a Legislative Union. But the people of Ireland were not consulted about this Union, and had they been allowed to choose for themselves, they would have indignantly repudiated it. Mr. Bright has stated that the Union was secured " by proceedings disgraceful and corrupt to the last degree." And in this statement he is supported by every clear and careful historian. No one has the audacity to assert that it was a Union of the two peoples. A nation was sold by its servile Parliament, who took with free hand, bribes which enabled the members to roll in luxury, and the enslaved and bartered people were compelled to pay the financial price of their own sale. 77 The Act of Union had to be followed by a bill, empower- ing the Government to raise, by taxation, the money they had spent in strangling the Irish Parliament ; and the King gave his consent for a people to be taxed to pay bribes to the men who had traitorously slain the freedom and independence of their country. Mr. Green says of Mr. Pitt: — ** Disgusted at the bigoted fury of Irish Protestants, he determined to put an end to the farce of Independence, which left Ireland help- less in their hands." Doubtless he intended to make the Union a real one — one of common interest and brother- hood, and of mutual sympathy. He proposed therefore to follow up the Union by the removal of all Catholic disabilities, and to give to Catholics and Dissenters a perfect equality of civil rights. He suggested that, instead of the sacramental test, the British Parliament should secure political fidelity by an oath of allegiance and loyalty to the Constitution. To conciliate the Established Church, he proposed measures for strengthening its means of discipline, and for increasing the stipends of its poorer ministers. Many of his proposals were similar to those suggested by Earl Fitzwilliam ; but there was this great difference, that while the Earl would have given these things to a people whose House of Representatives had been purified, popularised, and freed from unwise inter- ference on the part of the English Governors, the Premier was only willing to give them to a people who were deprived of their separate legislature, and were held powerless by the preponderating votes of representatives, most of whom were ignorant of the requirements of Ireland, or were held in bondage by the chains of personal and class selfishness. But the King and the high Tories of the day would not go as far to conciliate the Irish 78 people as Pitt himself desired to go. George III., with the bigotry and stupidity for which he is so renowned, declared that he would break his coronation oath were he to consent to these proposals. Pitt resigned ; the oppor- tunity passed ; and when he returned again to power, he left the Catholics to their fate, with the result that they remained in civil bonds until a threatened revolution in 1829 forced the Duke of Wellington to grant Catholic emancipation. Professor Blackie says that " The authors of this agitation (in Ireland) were not the demagogues but the aristocracy ; as indeed in all cases of general discontent, social fret, and illegal violence, the parties who are accused of stirring up class against class are not the agitators who appear on the scene, but the mal-administrators who made their appearance necessary. Man is an animal naturally inclined to obey, and to take things quietly ; insurrection is too expensive an aifair to be indulged in by way of recreation, and there is no truth in the philosophy of history more certain than that whenever the multitude of the ruled rebel against their rulers, the original fault — I do not say the whole blame, for as things go from bad to worse, there may be blame and blunders on both sides — but the original fault and germinative cause of discontent and revolt unquestionally lies with the rulers." Mr. Froude, in speaking of the Irish Parliament, calls it *' an absurd caricature " ; and Lord Brabourne, in his article , denouncing Mr. Gladstone in Blackwood's Magazine, says, "Absurd or not, it had the spirit to refuse the Reform Bill, which Flood presented as the mouthpiece of the Convention. But this was done by the initiative and in support of the British Government." 79 English Interference with the Irish Parliament. Yes ! that is the open secret. The British Govern- ment continued to interfere and to stop Reform after Mr. Grattan and Mr. Fox had secured parliamentary freedom in Ireland, and the necessity of the rebellion which afforded Mr. Pitt a pretext for filching from Ireland her Parliament was caused by the corrupt influence of the British Government in preventing Reform. Mr. Goldwin Smith says : — ** The system of Irish Government after the declaration of independence probably became more profligate than ever; the Castle contended with its increased difficulties by an increase of bribery; the country nominally independent, was in fact, a dependency governed by corruption and intrigue." The Times newspaper in January, 1886, referring to this period, says: — **The administrative isolation of the Executive Government, supported on the one hand by Protestant ascendency in intimate and self-protective alliance with Protestant England, and on the other by vast powers of patronage unscrupulously exercised, and fettered by no legislative restrictions, was a security for the maintenance of union with Great Britain, which could not by any conceivable expedients be reproduced." What regretful tones ! Would it be desirable to resort to this condition of bribery and unscrupulous exercise of patron- age } The governing power in the country was a small minority not in sympathy with the great mass of the people (men who belonged to a class and a religion opposed to the majority of the nation) ; and yet so great was the pressure of the nation's requirements that these 8o men would have yielded but for the selfishness and cor- ruption of their nature, stirred up by the bribes of the English governors and officials. The two systems of government clashed. The British Government still desired all legislation to be drawn up in the interests of privilege, of landlordism, and of the aristocracy ; the Irish Reformers wanted the interests of the people to be chiefly considered ; and in the shock of these two systems of government,Ireland lost her Parliament. Mr. Lecky, in his latest volume, has given abundant evidence proving the interference of the English Govern- ment with the Irish Parliament. He shows that the Duke of Portland when he was Lord Lieutenant tried to fix **the precise limits of parliamentary independence, the con- sideration which should be given for the protection expected, and the share it would be proper for them to contribute towards the general support of the Empire." But Mr. Lecky says that his *' secret correspondence shows" that he was really aiming "to regain for England a very large part of the legislative supremacy which had been surrendered." Mr. Parsons, afterwards Earl of Rosse, in 1790, says : — *' The acquisitions of 1782 freed this country from internal power but not from internal malversation. On the contrary, this country has been governed worse since then than ever it was before, and why ? Because of these very acquisitions It has been the object of English Ministers ever since to countervail what we ob- tained at that period, and substitute a surreptitious and clandestine influence for the open power which the English Legislature was then obliged to relinquish." Mr. Lecky shows further that one-eighth of the public revenue of Ireland was divided between the Mem- bers of Parliament, and he declares that " The men who had been most opposed to the Constitution of 1782, were the men who were employed to administer it, and they did so almost avowedly with the purpose of keeping Parliament in complete and habitual subservience to the English Ministers." And again, — **The Irish Government was completely subordinated to the play of party government in England. An Irish administration which commanded the full confidence of the Irish Parliament, might, at any moment, be overthrown by a vote in the English Parliament, on some purely English question. Well might Mr. Gratton say — ** The Ministers sell your Lords and buy your Commons." And Mr. Lecky declares that *' it consisted almost entirely of landlords, lawyers, and placemen." That there was little hope of anything being done by such a body, one may suppose, until the pressure of the English Government, reduced by its Continental broils, allowed the weight of Irish agitation to be duly felt. Chance possibilities of English difficulties with Continental and Oriental powers alone offered to Ireland a possibility of relief. How THE Act of Union was Secured. To secure the Union, a million sterling was spent in bribes ; a million and a half was expended in buying up the interest that aristocrats claimed to have in the represen- tation of boroughs. As much as ;^8ooo was given for a vote, while other members, wiser in their generation, secured pensions for their services at the rate of ;!f2ooo a year. Twenty peerages, ten bishoprics, one chief- justiceship, and twelve judgeships were given to the men who had voted for the Union. People who met to protest 82 were treated as rebels ; the military charging and scattering public meetings and demonstrations. Twenty-seven out of thirty-two counties sent petitions against the Union. In County Down 17,000 petitioned against it, and only 415 for it. In the whole country the petitioners against it numbered 700,000, and the petitioners for it only 3000. The information on this subject, supplied in Mr. Lecky's book — "Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland" — is very instructive. If the Parliament had failed to advance the interests of the country, the blame might be laid at the doors of those who interfered wdth the representatives, and, by bribery, corrupted them. But, in spite of great defects and limitations, of class representation and veniality on the part of the members of Parliament, the freedom of the country grew, and the prosperity of the country ad- vanced. Pitt's Argument for the Union. When Mr. Pitt spoke in favour of the Union, what was his plea ? He admitted the prosperity of Ireland, and then argued that, "As Ireland is so prosperous under her own Parliament, we can calculate that the amount of her prosperity will be trebled under a British Legislature.'' He omitted from his calculation a most important item. He did not note that freedom and self-government are powerful factors in establishing that confidence which is so necessary to advancement. An old writer, centuries ago, was astute enough to observe that "wingless bees make no honey ;" and modern experience has shown that slave labour is not so productive as free labour, and that nations upon whose limbs fetters are placed, do not take the rapid strides which are easily taken by nations that are contented and free. 83 Ireland's Prosperity under her own Parliament. In 1785 the Irish sent into England goods to the value of two millions and a half, and received back goods valued at one million. In 1797, after fifteen years of Home Rule, Ireland sent into England more than ;^3, 000,000 worth of linen and linen yam, and between /'z, 000, 000 and /^3, 000, 000 value of provisions and cattle, besides corn and other articles of produce, while she still imported from England only ;^i, 000,000 worth of English goods, raising on her own soil what the inhabitants needed besides. The Testimonies of the '* Respectable " Classes. Lord Clare — the Tory Fitzgibbon — in 1798 said: — ** There is not a nation on the habitable globe which has advanced in cultivation — in manufactures, with the same rapidity, in the same period — (from 17^2 to 1798), as Ireland." Lord Grenville said in 1797 ''that the Irish had created a commerce with which they were before un- acquainted, and had extended their manufactures, and what they esteemed still more valuable, had obtained a free constitution." Mr. Grey, afterwards Lord Grey, in 1 799, in talking of the increase in industry and wealth in England during the period of Ireland's Parliamentary freedom, said that " there was nothing in the advancement of England to parallel the progress of Ireland." Lord Sheffield also stated that " perhaps the improvement of Ireland is as rapid as any country ever experienced." Mr. Plunkett, in 1799, spoke of Ireland as *" A little island with a population of four or five millions of people, * See Swift McNeill's "Irish Industries." 84 hardy, gallant, and enthusiastic ; possessed of all the means of civilization, agriculture, and commerce well pursued and understood ; a constitution fully recognised and established ; her revenues, her trade, her manufactures thriving beyond her hope, or the example of any other country of her extent, within these few years advancing with a rapidity astonishing even to herself, not complain- ing of deficiency in these respects but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity." The Bankers of Dublin in 1798 passed the following resolutions : — " Resolved — That since the renunciation of the power of Great Britain in 1782 to legislate for Ireland, the commerce and prosperity of this kingdom have eminently increased." ** Resolved — That we attribute these blessings under Providence to the wisdom of the Irish Parlia- ment." *The Guild of Merchants met January 14th, 1799, and resolved as follows : — 1. "That the commerce of Ireland has increased and her manufactures improved beyond example since the independence of the kingdom was restored in 1782." 2. "That we look with abhorrence on any attempt to deprive the people of Ireland of their Parliament and thereby of their constitutional right and immediate power to legislate for themselves." Mr. Jebb, afterwards a Justice of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, in 1798 published a pamphlet in which he says — ** In the course of fifteen years our commerce, * O'Connell's Defence in 1844. I 85 our agriculture, and our manufactures have swelled to an amount that the most sanguine friends of Ireland could not have dared to prognosticate." A Parliamentary document shows that from 1785 to the time of the Union, the increase of luxuries in Ireland greatly exceeded the rate of increase in England, and if the growing wealth of a nation is shown by the increase of its comforts and luxuries, then the figures which follow will tell their own tale : — Increase in consumption of Teas . . England 45 percent.; Ireland 84 per cent. Tobacco ,, 64 ,, ,, 100 Wines . . „ 52 „ „ 74 Sugar . . „ 53 „ „ 57 Coffee . . ,, 75 ,, .,, 600 Daniel O'Connell contended that "no country ever so rapidly improved as Ireland did during that period." Mr. Lecky has made several very forcible statements respecting the work of the Irish Parliament. He says that during the eighteenth century the Irish Parliament was on the whole "a vigilant and intelligent guardian of the material interests of the country " ; and further, that ** during the greater part of the century it indeed had little power except that of protecting the people against the law crushing Irish produce, but what little it could do it appears to have done. Its journals show a minute attention to industrial questions, to the improvement of means of communication, and to the execution of public works." 86 What the Union has Cost England and Ireland. This was the Parliament which was strangled by jobbery, corruption, and the intolerant jealousy and craven fears of the privileged classes of England and Ireland. Its destruc- tion was an iniquity, and the results of it were disastrous to both nations. It left the one nation full of bitterness, and of the dissatisfaction which always springs from a sense of injustice. It left to the other nation a terrible legacy of care and disunion. The union of the Parliaments resulted in the disunion of the peoples of the two counties, and it caused the Imperial Parliament to groan under a weight of difficulties which have destroyed its efficiency. The privi- leged classes gained for a time their purpose. They were able to retain their power,and frustrate and retard measures which were calculated to distribute wealth, and elevate the democ- racy of both countries. The English Masses had no representation, and cannot, with justice, be charged with complicity in the crime. The Union was a blunder in conception, and it was secured by fraud, misrepresentation, and physical force. It alienated Irish sympathies from England. It weakened the power of the Empire. It raised an enemy at the very doors of the British Citadel. It delayed great questions of reform, and it threw Ireland again into destitution, misery and rebellion. What was required, was, not the exasperating policy of Pitt ; not the demolition of the Irish structure of Government ; but the reform and purification of the Irish Parliament. For if, under so antiquated and restricted a Parliamentary representation, the country had thriven, what would it have done if all the posts of the nation had been thrown open to the highest merit, irrespective of creed or class, and if the voice of the masses had been heard in the 87 elections of the day; and what would it have done if the English had allowed Irish genius to work out the great problem of happy and safe self-government, without unwise and jealous interference ? The difficulties of to-day may be traced to the wrongs of the past, and to the stings left in the Irish heart, by the tyranny, cruelty, and crimes of the past, and the fraternity, fellowship, and true union of the nations can never be fully realised, until the wfongs of Ireland are righted, until resentment is lost in a friendship born of confidence, and until the reign of darkness is for- gotten in a brighter reign of freedom, justice, and love. I listened with much satisfadlion to two of the Ledures included in this little work on the government of Ireland. The Author then spoke clearly, ably, and temperately on behalf of a people with whom I sympathise warmly, and nothing but good can come from presenting in a printed form the fads and opinions he then advanced. On no subjed is information, honest and reliable, more needed than on the Irish Question in all its phases, and the Rev. S. Lloyd has made a useful contribution to the discussion of this question in the book now presented to the public. T. Wayman. Saville Close, Halifax, January 315^ 1888. PART II. IRELAND UNDER THE ACT OF UNION. FROM PITT TO GLADSTONE. In 1799 Mr. Pitt declared that the great object of the Union was to tranquilise Ireland and attach it to the larger island. He asserted his desire to make Ireland an integral part of the British Empire, and to bind all the inhabitants of the British Islands together in the bonds of common interest, and of mutual sympathy and friendship. In doing this he ignored the arguments and warning of the Irish leaders, and scouted the fears openly expressed by those who knew best the feelings and opinions of the majority of the Irish people. Henry Grattan's words were full of wisdom and forethought. In one of his great efforts to prevent the Parliamentary amalgamation he said : — *'The reform of Parliament, you say, and Catholic Emancipation are only pretexts ; the object you say is separation, and here you exact unconditional submission, you must " subdue before you reform." Indeed ! Alas you think so ! But you forget you subdue by reforming. It is the best conquest you can obtain over your own people. But let me suppose you succeed in " subduing before you reform," what is your success ? A military 90 government, a perfect despotism, a hapless victory over the principles of a mild government and a mild consti- tution—a Union. But what may be the ultimate conse- quence of such a victory — a Separation." These words may be commended to those who, in the present political struggle, declare their fear of a separation, and if more be needed, Daniel O'Connell's words are emphatic. He said in a speech delivered in 1813 : — ** Your enemies say that I wish for a separation between England and Ireland. The charge is false. It is, to use a modern expression, as false as hell ; and the men who originated it, and the men who inculcate it, know its false- hood. There lives not a man less desirous of separation between the two countries. There lives not a man more deeply convinced that the connection between them, based on one King and two separate Parliaments, would be of the utmost value to the happiness of both countries." If Mr. Pitt's desire was a pure one, he was unfortunate in the means he adopted for securing it, and also in the fact that he abandoned the ameliorative plans which had been foreshadowed and promised before the Par- liament of Ireland consented to extinguish its own separate life. He was also unfortunate in choosing a scheme of government to which the patriots of the day objected, and against which the leaders of the people have protested through all the years since the Act of Union was passed. That Mr. Pitt purposed to pass other measures may be clearly seen, but he was foiled in his attempts by the resistance of his own party, and the refusal of the King. Pitt's Surrender to the King. Sir James Graham said : — •* Mr. Pitt was ready to do the right thing at the right time, but genius gave way 91 madness, and two generations have in vain deplored the loss of an opportunity." The importance he attached to the Union may be seen from the inducements he held out in order to buy off the opposition of members of the Established Church, and of the Presbyterian ministers who had become closely allied with the National Party. To the former he guaranteed increased stability to the ecclesiastical insti- tutions ; and to the latter a large increase of the Regium Donum, which would make them independent of the subscriptions of their churches. His assurance of reforms favourable to the Catholics did not, however, conciliate them as may be seen from the first great speech of Daniel O'Connell, in which he said, amid the applause of an audience composed of many leading lawyers and commer- cial men, that ** The Catholics will show every friend of Ireland that they are incapable of selling their country,'' and that ** he would rather confide in the justice of his brethren, the Protestants of Ireland, who had already liberated him, than lay his country at the feet of foreigners." That Mr. Pitt was wishful to secure the Catholic interest may be seen from his proposal to endow the Catholic Clergy in Ireland, to mitigate the tithe-hardships, and to ensure the emancipation of Catholics from injustice and iniquities. He therefore retired from office, to return, however, after a brief interval, ignoring all his previous promises and protestations, and surrendering the plans he had carefully drawn up. An insane King, and a blind and bigoted party, prevented a Statesman from making the Union of Parliament a real union of the peoples, and the most powerful minister of the day, who could not long have been resisted had he persisted ii; his purposes, 0^^f'''y 92 ingloriously surrendered his convictions and tarnished his statesmanship at the call of the King and his henchmen. The objection of the King, sustained by Lord Lough- borough, and denied by Lord Kenyon and Sir John Scott (afterwards Lord Eldon), was that to grant Catholic Emanci- pation would be a violation of his Coronation oath, and that the throne would therefore properly revert to the Stuart line. On a copy'of his memorandum of 1795, he wrote, referring to Earl Fitzwilliam's proposals, ''And I, feeling the duty I owe to my coronation oath, would not have given my assent to any Bill that had but a shadow of putting Papists and Presbyterians in a state of equality with the Church of England."* Genius versus Madness. When Mr Pitt resigned, the King became ill, and on his recovery sent a message to Mr. Pitt by his physician — " Tell Mr. Pitt I am now quite recovered from my illness ; but what has he not to answer for, who is the cause of my having been taken ill at all ? " Mr. Shaw-Lefevre says: — "Pitt was profoundly affected by this, and determined not to press the question further." The King's tendency to madness therefore became a potent factor in the continued enforcement of unjust and unequal laws upon the Catholic population of the Empire. How many Catholics were driven mad by the injustice is not stated. There is one thing that must surprise all readers of history, and that is, that the people of Ireland did not renew the civil war, and from North to South burst into open conflict. An attempt was made, it is true, but it was * Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, quoted by Right Hon. G. J. Shaw-Lefevre — " Peel and O'Connell," page 13. 93 feeble and abortive. This can only be explained by the fact that the people of Ireland had become dispirited and scattered, and were held by sullen despair in the bonds of inaction. Others looked upon the Parliamentary Union as an experiment, which they believed to be foredoomed to failure. Mr. C. J. Fox was one of these. He protested against the Union with might and main, and declared his belief in its ineflficacy to meet and remedy the miseries of Ireland ; but when it was passed he was willing to allow the experiment to be tried. His opinion that it would fail has been justified by an experience of eighty-seven years. When presenting the Catholic Petition of 1804 to the House of Commons, Mr. Fox said, in concluding a note- worthy speech : — '* The protestant ascendency has been compared to a garrison in Ireland. It is not in our power to add to the strength of this garrison, but I would convert the beseigers themselves into the garrison." It was not until Daniel O'Connell arose and thun- dered in the ears of the people of Ireland the truth, that they must rouse themselves if they would be free, that they threw off their lethargy and stupor, banded themselves in the ranks of the " Catholic Association," and expressed their determination not to rest until they had swept away the laws and political arrangements which crippled and impeded the free life of every Catholic in the realm. O'Connell never seemed to be tired of crying. " Hereditary bondsmen, know you not Who would be free themselves must strike the blow." When he arose, the Irish were, to use the words of Mr. T. P. O'Connor, " literally aliens in their own country." 94 The Purpose of the Act of Union. Mr. Pitt, in introducing the Act of Union, declared that by it " Ireland was to gain protection in the hour of danger, increase of commerce, command of English capital, and the avenue to honours, distinctions, and ap- pointments in the general service of the empire," and that, while Ireland was to be made "more free and happy," there would also be established " mutual harmony and confidence between the two nations."* The legislative Union was accomplished, according to the words of its author, for a specific purpose. It is, therefore, within the limits of discussion to ask whether the purpose has been accomplished, and if not, what has prevented it ? We have already seen that the Union was secured by fraud and force, and in opposition to the desires of the people of Ireland. Grattan said that " the whole unbribed intellect of Ireland was opposed to the Union." Mr. Lecky and the Union. Mr. Lecky says : — " Whatever may be thought of the abstract merits of the arrangement, the Union as it was carried, was a crime of deepest turpitude." ** In the case of Ireland, as in the case of Poland, a national constitution was destroyed by a foreign power, contrary to the wishes of the people. In the one case the deed was a crime of violence, in the other it was a crime of treachery and corruption. In both cases a legacy of enduring bitterness was the result." Is there not in the iniquity which marked its establishment a suflficient reason for the failure of the Union ? Unrighteousness in individ- ual or national life can never be permanent. It is opposed * See " Peel and O'Connell," by G. J. Shaw-Lefevre, page 2. 95 to the genius of the highest Hfe, both human and Divine. It violates the principles which are the basis of the Gospel, and which are interwoven into the very texture of human nature. Enforced unions founded on unrighteousness, and opposed to truth and love, can never be happy. The ex- perience of life is against it. A rape of violence and cruelty can only bring sorrow to the weaker power, and shame to the stronger one. The History of England and of Ireland, during the present century, proves this, for England has had to bear the shame of keeping Ireland subdued by the overthrow of free institutions and the forcible subjection of all that has been noblest in her national life. Irishmen have felt the sting keenly, and have taken their stand on the several distinct maxims very eloquently announced by Daniel O'Connell in his great speech on " the Repeal of the Union."* O'Coni^ell's Arguments. In that speech he contended that Ireland was fit for legislative independence, and was entitled to it. That the Parliament of Ireland was as ancient as that of England, and had not derived its existence from any charter of the British Crown, but had sprung out of the natural rights of freemen. He asserted that its independence long claimed was finally recognised and confirmed by solemn compact between the nations in 1782. He showed that self-government had not been an idle toy, but an efficient weapon in the hands of Ireland, and had contributed to her progress in manufactures and commerce, and that after the Union Ireland's prosperity steadily declined. Then turning to the Constitutional side of the question, he argued by quotations from great authorities, "that a * O'Connell's Speeches. 96 legislature cannot transfer the power of making laws into other hands, for being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others." He claimed '* that a case of specific fraud and coercion was sufficient to invalidate an indenture in a Court of Law." He then went on to prove that the Union had produced the most disastrous results in Ireland. It had robbed the people of their constitutional right to maintain a control over the conduct of the judiciary and the executive. It robbed them also through the tax-gatherer, by imposing an inordinate share of the public burthen on Ireland. It forced them to submit to an imperfect representation in the House of Commons, to inadequate powers in the Corpora- tions that ruled their cities, and to see the public employ- ments paid by their money given to Englishmen and Scotchmen." He proved also, by elaborate statistics, that the failure of trade, of manufactures, and of commerce, was an immediate result of the iniquitous union. What the people of Ireland have thought of the Union may be seen, however, not only in the speeches of their great leaders, but also in the way in which they have regarded the memory of those who bartered their country's liberties and rights. While Grattan and Curran, and others who opposed the Union are lovingly remembered, Castlereagh, Clare, and Pitt are execrated. There is a story told of Castlereagh that he was one day crossing College Green when he was accosted by an Irish peasant, who said — " My Lord, will it plaze ye to give me sixpence." "What will you do with it .?" said his lordship. " Indeed," was the reply, " I'd trate all the frinds ye 'ave in Ireland with it." Nor can we wonder at this, for Lord Cornwallis expressed his satisfaction when Castlereagh was appointed to the office of 97 Chief Secretary for Ireland, by saying " His appointment gives me great satisfaction, as he is so very unlike an Irishman." The Benevolent Acts of a Paternal Government. The Government of Ireland having passed into the hands of the Parliament in London, was immediately characterised by the introduction of coercive measures. During the first session of the United Parliament, five Coercion Acts were placed upon the Statute Book. Only five months elapsed before a coercion measure was passed, with severer clauses than those which had been carried during the rebelHon of 1798. Mr. T. P. O'Connor, in his able work on the Parnell Movement, says: — "Under the Act of 1800, courts-martial had the right to try prisoners ; two-thirds of the officers could pronounce sentence, and the sentence might be the sentence of death. To encourage these tribunals in doing their duty, the officers were instructed, in the words of the Act, ' to take the most vigorous and effective measures ;' and they received still further encou- ragement by being made absolutely irresponsible ; * no act,' decreed the Legislature, ' done by these tribunals shall be questioned in a court of law.' In 18 17 a modified Insurrection Act was passed, which in some respects was worse than the preceding Acts. A body of justices — that is, of landlords — were entitled to form a tribunal if they were presided over by a Serjeant-at-law or a Queen's Council, and this tribunal had the right to pass sentences varying from one year's imprisonment to seven years* transportation ; they were, like the courts-martial, irres- ponsible, for there was no appeal and no cerlioraii. These courts were employed in the trial of persons described as * idle and disorderly,' and the * idle and disorderly ' were included in the following category : — (i) Anyone found out of his or her dwelling-house between two hours after sunset and sunrise, who could not prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he or she was upon his or her * lawful occa- sions' — the mere fact of being out was sufficient authority to a policeman to arrest and detain till trial. (2) Persons taking unlawful oaths, or (3) Having arms, or (4) Found between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. in a public-house or an unlicensed house in which spirituous liquors were sold, and not being inmates or travellers. (5) Persons assembled 'unlawfully and tumultuously.' (6) Persons hawking seditious papers, unless they disclose the persons from whom they received them. It would, of course, be assumed by my readers, especially English readers, that these statutes were severe only in wording or intention and not in practical operation. But there was not one of these Acts which was not carried not only to the full lengths authorized by the words and intentions of the Act but to a large extent farther." The felling of trees brought persons under the juris- diction of a court of landlords, and exposed them to the sentence of seven years' penal servitude. Men were flogged almost to death, and for the most trivial offences whole districts were proclaimed. Attempts to improve the ordinary law were resolutely opposed by the Houses of Commons and Lords, and Daniel O'Connell was thwarted in all his measures for improving the condition of the Irish tenant. 99 *' Between 1825 and 1836 no less than four Acts of Parlia- ment were passed for the purpose of suppressing political organizations which he (O'Connell) had founded, and as the organizations were under the control of O'Connell, it is needless to say that they were legal, constitutional and peaceful in their methods."* The way in which landlords and tenants were treated may be seen from the following table, quoted by Mr. T. P. O'Connor : — For the Landlord. 1800. Habeas Corpus suspended ; Coercion Act. 1801. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Coercion Acts. 1802. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Coercion Acts. 1803. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Acts. 1804. Habeas Corpus suspended. 1805. Habeas Corpus suspended ; one Coercion Act. 1807. February i, Coercion Act. ,, Habeas Corpus suspended ; August 2, Coercion Act. 1808. Habeas Corpus suspended. 1809. Habeas Corpus suspended. 1814. Habeas Corpus suspended ; one Coercion Act. 1815. Habeas Corpus suspended ; Insurrection Act continued. 1816. Habeas Corpus suspended ; first Eviction Act ; Insur- rection Act continued. 1817. Habeas Corpus suspended ; one Coercion Act ; second Eviction Act. 1818. Second Eviction Act. 1820. Third Eviction Act; same year, fourth Eviction Act. 1822. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Coercion Acts. 1823 to 1828, Habeas Corpus suspended, and one Coercion Act in 1823, 1829. Habeas Corpus suspended. 1830. Habeas Corpus suspended.; Importation of Arms Act. 1831. Whiteboy Act ; Stanley's Arms Act ; fifth Eviction Act. 1832. Importation of Arms and Gunpowder Act. " The Parnell Movement," Page 20. 100 1833- Habeas Corpus suspended ; Suppression of Disturbance Act ; Change of Venue Act. 1834. Habeas Corpus suspended ; Suppression of Disturbance Amendment and Continuance Act ; Importation of Arms and Gunpowder Act. 1835. Public Peace Act 1836. Another Arms Act ; sixth Eviction Act, 1838. Another Arms Act. 1839. Unlawful Oaths Act. 1840. Another Arms Act. 1841. Outrages Act ; another Arms Act. 1843. Another Arms Act; Act consolidating all previous Coercion Acts. 1844. Unlawful Oaths Act. For the Tenant. 1829. Mr. Brownlow's Bill dropped in House of Lords. 1820. Mr. Grattan's demand for an Improvement of Waste Lands Bill refused. 1831. Mr. Smith O'Brien's Bill for the relief of the Aged dropped. 1835. Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill dropped. 1836. Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill dropped. Mr. Lynch's Reclamation Bill dropped. 1842. Irish Arterial Drainage Act passed. 1845. Lord Stanley's Bill dropped. ,, Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill dropped.* Deaths of Pitt and Fox. Mr. Pitt died in 1806, and the Grenville Ministry was formed. Once more the Irish hoped against hope for the the attainment of remedial legislation. Mr. Fox, who had done so much for Irish independence twenty-four years previously, was now the leading force of this Ministry, and it was well known that he was desirous of immediately granting an Act for the Emancipation of the Catholic * " The Parnell Movement," page 22. 101 majority in Ireland ; but the King's stubbornness again stood in the way. Fox promised the Irish members that on the first opportunity he would bring their claims forward. Unfortunately however he died in the same year, when the Act for suspending Habeas Corpus was allowed to run out, and when the Grenville Cabinet proposed a Bill for allow- ing Catholics to hold Commissions in the Army and Navy, the loss of Mr. Fox rendered them impotent to overcome the opposition of the King, and they were driven from office. In 1616 an Act was passed to cheapen evictions, and it was said that "notices to quit have since fallen like snow- flakes." The Union has therefore been further prevented from being ratified and accepted by the people of Ireland in consequence of the failure of English Ministers to keep the most solemn promises ; the delay in reforms that seemed imminent under the Irish Parliament and the in- creased opposition that the Irish representatives had to face in their endeavour to secure for all citizens freedom from unjust legislation, and common equality in law and government. Delay of Catholic Emancipation. Nothing can be clearer in Irish History than that the Emancipation of Catholics was wellnigh attained when the Union was brought about. But twenty-nine years of suff'ering, waiting, and struggle passed before the House of Lords and the English Government gave to the people the boon of Catholic Emancipation. Even then it was declared to be grudgingly yielded and not freely bestowed. Yielded too not to the inherent justice of the Catholic demands, bnt to a base and a craven fear of agitation aiid force. 102 In 1807 Mr. Percival had called Lord Howick's (after- wards Earl Grey) Bill, which was intended to open up fuller careers of usefulness and gloryto the sons of Catholic gentle- men — ** one of the most important and dangerous measures that ever was submitted to the judgment of the Legislature.'' During the whole of the Percival administration, which lasted from 1807 to 18 12, the principle of Catholic exclusion was paramount in the Councils of the Cabinet, just as the principle of refusing to allow the Irish to govern their own country is the only bond of cohesion in the alliance of theTories and Dissentient Liberals in 1 888. The King was urged by Lord Eldon and others to refuse this consent to Lord Howick's bill, and though h-e had previously given that consent, he now withdrew it, and called upon the Government to pledge themselves never again to introduce the measure, or propose anything affecting the Catholic question. This they refused to promise, and resigned their offices. When George IV. was proclaimed Regent, the Catholics expected that they would have his sympathy and aid, inasmuch as he had previously declared his disagree- ment with his father's views on the subject of Catholic Emancipation. They had yet to learn however that the Prince Regent professed to favour the Catholics in sheer opposition to the King, and for the purpose of giving him annoyance. There was no love lost between this parent and his son. The Tories were also at the outset fearful lest the Regent should bestow his favour on the Catholics. But they were soon reassured, for Lord Eldon, the noted Tory lawyer, wrote to a friend that the Regent had become strongly Anti-Catholic, he said : — *'My young master is as eager as his father was upon that, and of the same way of thinking." 103 In 1810, Daniel O'Connell at a crowded meeting called by the requisition of Grand Juries in Dublin, made a great speech, and a petition was drawn up declaring that the Union had been put to the test of experience and had failed. It had produced an increase of distress, and was endangering the connection between the two countries. In 1 8 12 Mr. George Canning carried a resolution in the House of Commons, to the effect " That the House would, early in the next Session, take into its most serious consideration the laws affecting the Roman Catholics." But the Parliament was dissolved later in the year, and Mr. Canning found himself unable to carry out his ame- liorative purpose. It was not until 1821 that a bill for emancipation forced its way through the House of Commons, only how- ever to be contemptuously thrown out by the sworn opponents of the Democracy, who are seated in the gilded chamber. Death of Grattan. Previous to this the great Grattan passed away amidst the regrets of the nation. He was a splendid and repre- sentative patriot, who had walked through life with hands unsullied by political crime or baseness, and his demise left the Irish cause destitute of one of its most eloquent and able supporters. Even England acknowledged his patriotism and greatness, and opened her great mausoleum at Westminster for the reception of his remains. There his body still lies side by side with the body of Charles James Fox. English Statesmen honoured his remains, though they had done all they could to break his noble heart, and had trampled beneath their feet the principles and senti- ments that were dearer to him than life itself. They 104 respected his corpse, but let him die with sorrow in his heart, as he saw the cause for which he had suffered and struggled, openly opposed by the English Governments. In the year 1822 a measure for securing Catholic Emancipation was again passed by the Commons and duly refused by the Lords. This was repeated in 1823 and and 1825. For nineteen years the subject was conscien- ciously brought before Parliament, until in 1824 Daniel O'Connell came forward, and " with the reachings and graspings of a vivacious mind," succeeded in forming the Catholic Association. The Aristocracy and Catholic Emancipation. The action of the House of Lords was sustained by all the titled classes in the country, with few exceptions. The King's brother, the Duke of York, placed himself at the head of the opposition, and declared again and again his determination to resist the claims of the Catholics. Amid uproarious cheers, he declared that whether as subject or sovereign he would ever oppose the Catholic demands, " so help him God." Lord Chancellor Eldon wrote : — " Never was anything like the sensation the Duke of York's speech has made, it has had such an operation upon all ranks of men, that it will create insuperable difficulties to passing the intended measure another year." And again, ** It has placed him on a pinnacle of popularity." In another letter he wrote : — " Dined with the Duke of York. Twenty-four rejoicing Protestants round the table ; we drank the '48 and the year '88, and the glorious and immortal memory. LadyWarwicke and Lady Braybroke would not let their husbands go and vote for the Catholics ; so we Protestants drink daily, as pur favourite toast 'the ladies who locked up their hu§- bands.'" In reading this one must be inclined to think that the letter was written immediately after the dinner, and before its bibulous effects had passed away, and yet it is only a specimen of the way in which the Catholic defeat was signalised. In giving his account of the " Pitt " dinner, Lord Eldon says: — "The company were quite uproarious, they were in such high spirits at the Catholic defeat." That was in 1825, and alas for the prescience of these Statesmen, before four years had passed away, in spite of these '* noble" opponents, the genius of O'Connell, and the strength of the Irish people compelled the Government to consent to the emancipation of the Catholics. In 1827 Lord Liverpool was smitten with paralysis, and Mr. Canning was entrusted with the formation of the Cabinet. He had much difficulty in securing an adminis- tration, for Mr. Robert Peel — afterwards Sir Robert — and the Duke of Wellington refused to act with him, because of his sympathy with the Irish claims and his avowed wish to carry Catholic Emancipation. Again death came to delay the settlement of the question, and the removal of George Canning from this life, put off Catholic Emanci- pation for two years longer. The Clare Election. The Waterford, Monaghan, and Westmeath elections began to make the landlords and the aristocracy awake to the importance of the question. Under the influence of O'Connell, the tenantry of Ireland — the 40/- freeholders, who have done so much in England and Ireland to extend freedom to the masses — went to the polls and steadily voted against the nominees of the landlords. The result was that the Beresfords, the Jocelyns, and the Waterfords io6 were defeated, and a crowning triumph was obtained for the popular party, when O'Connell defeated the Govern- ment candidate, and was returned as member for Clare. The Election was a noticeable one, for while an army waited to put down any semblance of disturbance, the people walked resolutely to the voting booths, held on one day 1500 meetings at the same time, and took vows to abstain from whisky until the election was over, so that no pretext could be advanced by the Government that there had been violence, intimidation, or interference with freedom of voting. For six days the elections continued without disturbance. When Lous XVI. of France was informed of the defection of the French guards, he cried, "This is a revolt." " Sire," said the Duke de Liancourt, ** it is a revolution." And so this defeat of the ministerial party by the despised Catholics was also a revolution, though it was carried out by peaceful methods, and it forced convic- tion to the mind of the Government that the people of Ireland were really in earnest.^' Wellington's Choice. The Duke of Wellington choosing betwen emanci- pation and rebellion, urged the reluctant King to consent to the emancipation of the Catholics, and at last the policy of Grattan and O'Connell was affirmed by the action of the British Parliament. But though the Catholics were freed from their irksome chains, and Government offices were opened to them by Statute law, yet so great was the prejudice against them that it was some time before many of them were recognised as having any claim upon the attention of the higher powers in the realm. Measures * Mr. Godkin — " Land War in Ireland." 107 were also adopted and limitations were introduced which showed how grudgingly the boon had been surrendered. The Catholic Association, which, under the guidance and inspiration of O'Connell, had won the victory, was dis- solved by Parliament. O'Connell had his election at Clare declared void by a phrase inserted in the Emanci- pation Act for this very purpose. The 40/- freeholders were speedily deprived of the franchise. Their power was seen to be too great, and so the representatives of the pri- vileged classes, by raising the qualification, and revising the register in twelve counties, reduced the electorate from 100,000 to 12,000. Altogether 356,000 men who had sustained O'Connell in his work, were penalised at the very moment of their triumph, by the raising of the qualification from 40/- to £10. Wellington's Motives. The Duke of Wellington wrote Peel, and said : — " If I could believe that the Irish nobility and gentry would recover their lost influence, the just influence of property, without making these concessions, I would not move."^' The Irish Catholics have therefore little to thank Wellington and the Tories for, because it is evident from the Duke's own words, that he was seeking the interests' not of the tenantry or the masses of the Irish people, but of the landlords — " the Irish nobility and gentry." King George IV. resisted the measure to the utmost, and on one occasion, after promising his signature to the bill, sen^ to say that the measure gave more than he expected, and he should retract his promise. The Duke of Wellington was the only man in the Ministry who could squeeze this recalcitrant monarch into consenting to keep his promise * Shaw-Lefevre — " Peel and O'Connell," p. 92. io8 and sign the bill. This the Duke only accomplished by threatening to resign, and leave the throne to face the horrors of a revolution. Peel, in his place in Parliament, said in justification of his consenting to the bill: — "I have for years attempted to maintain the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from Parliament and the high offices of the State. I do not think it was an unnatural or unreasonable struggle. I resign it in consequence of the conviction that it can be no longer advantageously maintained ; from believing that there are not adequate materials or sufficient instruments for its permanent or effectual continuance. I yield therefore to a moral necessity which I cannot control, unwilling to push resistance to a point which might en- danger the establishments that I wish to defend." Was there a greater confession of impotence to resist the moral force of justice ever made by a responsible statesman than this. The letter of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had done much to decide these statesmen, for he saw that to delay the measure meant rebellion, and wrote of the agitation — " You may put to death thousands ; you may suppress it ; but it will only be to put off the day of com- promise, and in the meantime the country is still more impoverished, and the minds of the people are, if possible, still more alienated." These words are full of meaning at the present time, when Nationalist leaders are crowded into prisons and compelled, by sheer brute force, to wear the felon's garb. Compare the language of Lord Eldon with that of Dr. Arnold. The nobleman says : — " If a Roman Catholic is ever admitted to form part of the Legislature, or to hold 10^ any of the great offices of the State, from that moment the sun of Great Britain is set for ever." Did ever bigotry inspire more senseless frothing than this. The noble-hearted Educationalist, whose work at Rugby will live for ever in the memory of the English people, writes in a far different strain. He says: — "It is the direct duty of every Englishman to support the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, even at the hazard of injuring the Protestant Establishment : because those claims cannot be rejected without great injustice ; and it is a want of faith in God and an unholy zeal to think that He can be served by injustice, or to guard against contingent evil by committing certain sin." Emancipation Secured at last. Daniel O'Connell once said that if emancipation was not given in a proper spirit, it had better not be given at all, and that unless it was done heartily, and cordially it would only give the Irish additional power, and leave them a stimulant for exciting it. That it was not given in a proper spirit is clear. It was a concession to neces- sity, and showed the failure of physical force to withstand the moral power of a righteous cause. Millions of persons — three to one — signed petitions against it. All the old women of the country of ^' both sexes'''' were alarmed at what they considered to be the opening of the flood- gates to the inrush of the Papacy, and they hurried to erect paper barriers, which they hoped would stem the waters. But in spite of all, the bill was carried in the House of Commons by 353 votes to 180, and in the House of Lords by 213 to 109. The Tories loudly protested their antipa- thy to it, and declared that they only voted by the compulsion of Wellington's necessities, and that theyreluc- no tantly shouted "Aye." The bill came too late to awake generous sympathies in the Irish nature. The delay of reform, the terrible procrastination in yielding to just claims left a sense of embitterment against the Govern- ment in the minds of the people of Ireland, and prevented the growth of good feeling and of contentment in their hearts. They attributed the delay not to necessity, but to the opposition of men whose interests were thought to be bound up with the maintenance of the laws that repres- sed the national life and the national freedom. And they were correct in their thinking, for during all the earlier years of the century English Government was con- ducted in the interests solely of the wealthier classes. The representation of the country in Parliament was a miserable burlesque. The elections were carefully arranged farces. Everything in Government was tested by the touchstone of the landlords' interests, and popular measures were persistently thwarted, or toned down so as to be rendered harmless to the holders of property. The reformers had to press their way through the serried ranks of Tory squires and noblemen, and had it not been for the sacrificing toil of Liberal leaders, the serfdom of the English masses, as well as of the Irish Catholics, would have remained a blot on English civilization in the 19th century. The consequence of this Government of Ireland from Westminster by a majority 'of representatives of the " Classes" was a series of constant changes in the Irish ad- ministration. Every Government had its new Lord Lieuten- ant and Chief Secretary for Ireland, so that just as a man was beginning to understand the Irish problem, he was re- moved, and his successor had to learn the question afresh, and was at the mercy of the permanent officials who were all place-men and protesta>nts, and were themselves Ill directed by the members of the bar and the puppets of the drawing-rooms, for these by threatening social ostracism were able to effectually appal the underlings of Dublin Castle, who were inclined to sympathise with Irish Catho- licism or Irish Nationalism. Thomas Drummond's Work. Well might Croke describe all this "as a quicksand Government that swallows in its fluctuations every venture of reform." One name must however be honoured for the work done by him who bore it in the interests of religious and political equality. It is the name of Thomas Drum- mond, who was Under Secretary for Ireland during the time that Lord Morpeth was Chief Secretary, and Lord Mulgrave — afterwards Normanby — was Viceroy. During the years 1835 to 1839, he was the life of Irish Government, and dealt with impartial hand with all classes of the people. His record is one of the finest on the roll of Irish Secretaryships, and in consequence of his zeal in endeavouring to secure an improvement in Irish affairs, he undermined his constitution, and brought about his premature death. It was he, who, in a letter addressed to the Lord Lieutenant in reply to one sent him by some Irish magistrates, gave utterance to the well-known aphorism. '' Property has its duties as well as its rights," and declared further, "To the neglect of these duties in times past is mainly to be ascribed that diseased state of society in which such crimes (agrarian — referred to in the letter of the magistrates sent to the Lord Lieutenant) take their rise, and it is not in the enactment or enforcement of statutes of extraordinary severity, but chiefly in the better and more faithful performance of those duties, and t|ic; I 12 more enlightened and humane exercise of those rights, that a permanent remedy for such disorders is to be sought. Happy would it have been had Ireland been favoured with a larger number of officials of this stamp, but un- fortunately it was as Sidney Smith said, ** Ireland was governed for ten or twelve Orange families, who had been sucking the blood of the country a hundred years," and secretarys like Thomas Drummond could not be tolerated by these men. The Opinion of "Unionists." Mr. Lecky's Statements. The removal of the Irish Parliament from College Green, and the su»bstitution of an executive which was not in accord with the majority of the people, were events of national importance, and the consequence may be traced in the histories of both countries. Ireland had removed from it what Mr. Lecky calls **the safety-valve of the nation," and malcontents were enabled to lay the blame of all the miseries of the people at the doors of English mis- government. It took away the healthiest expression of public opinion by which the grievances of the nation could be set forth, and it left the Irish representation a continuous minority in a Parliament which understood but little of the needs of Ireland, and which did not seem anxious to listen to the cries of the poorest sections of the Irish people. After seventy years of trial, Mr Lecky says, '* the Imperial Parliament allays no discontent, and it attracts no affection." The removal of the Irish Parlia- ment was a decided disadvantage to the national life, and was unjustifiable as a matter of political expediency. The testimonvof those who are main advocates of Legislative 1^3 Union is opposed to their cause, and may be quoted against their case. Mr. Lecky says* : — " In truth, the harmonious co- operation of Ireland with England depends much less upon the framework of the institutions of the former country, than upon the dispositions of its people, and upon the classes who guide its political life. With a warm and loyal attachment to the connection pervading the nation, the largest amount of self-government might be safely conceded, and the most defective political arrangement might prove innocuous. This is the true cement of nations, and no change, however plausible in theory, can be really advantageous which contributes to diminish it, Theorists may argue that it would bl better for Ireland to become, in every respect, a province of England ; they may contend that a union of legislatures, accompanied by a fusion of characters, and identification of hopes, interests and desires, would strengthen the empire, but as a matter of fact, this is not what was effected in 1800. The mea- sure of Pitt centralized, but it did not unite, or rather, by uniting the legislatures it divided the nations." Mr. Lecky also shows the opinion expressed by many of the ablest and most loyal men in Ireland, by quoting a state- ment of Lord Claremont's to the effect that the Act of Union ** would, more than any other measure contribute to the separation of the two countries, the perpetual con- nection of which is one of the warmest wishes of my heart." Mr. Lecky also says : — *' In a country where the sentiment of nationality was as intense as in any part of Europe, it destroyed the national Legislature contrary to * " Leaders of Public Opinion," pp. 192-195. Quoted in '•Hand-Rook to Home Rule." 114 the manifest wish of the people, and by means so corrupt, treacherous, and shameful that they are never likely to be forgotten. In a country where, owing to the religious difference, it was peculiarly necessary that a vigorous lay public opinion should be fostered to dilute or restrain the sectarian spirit, it suppressed the centre and organ of political life, directed the energies of the community into channels of sectarianism, drove its humours inwards, and thus began a perversion of public opinion which has almost destroyed the elements of political progress." Mr. Lecky's arguments are more logical and consis- tent than his actions, and it can scarcely be conceived that the man who uttered these words with the force of a strong conviction, coujd ever be found in the ranks of a party pledged to maintain the system thus denounced. That it is unwise to ignore the claims of nationality has been proved again and again. It was this which inspired the struggles of Kossuth in Hungary, and Kosciusko in Poland, and it is the suppression of this by English Govern- ments and armies, which has lain at the root of Irish disaffection and discontent. One of the worst results of the Union has been the identification of government with injustice, the weakening of law, and the consequent employment of force, to supply what in more harmonious conditions would have been freely given by the people. Mr. Lecky shows that in the miserable government of Ireland. by English statesmen and a privileged legislature, we may see the cause of the diminution of legal force. He says, speaking of the 1 8th century and its Penal laws : — "The relation of classes was permanently vitiated ; for almost all the proprietary of the country belonged to one religion, while, the great majority of their tenants were of another. The Catholics excluded from almost 115 every possibility of eminence, deprived of their natural leaders, and consigned by the Legislature to utter ignorance, soon sank into the condition of broken and dispirited helots. A total absence of industrial virtues, a cower- ing and abject deference to authority, a recklessness about the future, a love of secret illegal combinations became general among them. Above all, they began to regard law as merely the expression of force, and its moral weight was utterly destroyed. For the greater part of a century, the main object of the Legislature was to extirpate a religion by the encouragement of the worst, and the punishment of some of the best qualities of our nature. Its rewards were reserved for the informer, for the hypo- crite, for the undutiful son, or for the faithless wife. Its penalties were directed against religious constancy and the honest discharge of ecclesiastical duty." " It would indeed be scarcely possible to conceive a more infamous system of legal tyranny than that which, in the middle of the 1 8th century, crushed every class, and almost every interest in Ireland." Mr. Goldwin Smith's Views. And if this be true of the i8th century, still more is it true of the present one when Coercion Acts have had to be used to cowe and overpower the freedom-loving sons of Ireland. Mr. Goldwin Smith may supplement Mr. Lecky, for he says, referring to the land system so rigour- ously maintained by the English Governments : — " How many centuries of a widely different training have the English people gone through in order to acquire their boasted love of law." And again referring to the White- boy tribunals, he says : — ** We have seen how much the law and th© ministers of the law have done to deserve the ii6 peasant's love. We have seen too in what successive guises property had presented itself to his mind : first as open rapine ; then as robbery carried on through the roguish technicalities of an alien code ; finally, as legal- ized and systematic oppression. Was it possible that he should have formed so aff*ectionate a reverence either for law or property as would be proof against the pressure of starvation." And again, he says : — " A people cannot be expected to love and reverence oppression because it is consigned to the Statute-book and called law." In a later work, wiitten in 1867, Mr. Goldwin Smith completed his argument, by saying:— "The Irish legis- lation of the last forty years, notwithstanding the adoption of some remedial measures, has failed through the in- diff'erence of Parliament to the sentiments of Irishmen ; and the harshness of English public opinion has embittered the efi"ects on Irish feeling of the indiff"erence of Parlia- ment. Occasionally a serious eff"ort has been made by an English Statesman to induce Parliament to approach Irish questions in that spirit of sympathy, and that anxious desire to be just, without which a Parliament in London cannot legislate wisely for Ireland. Such efforts have hitherto met with no response ; it is too much to hope that it will be otherwise in the year now opening." But in the year just opening (1868), Mr. Smith might have hoped* for Mr. Gladstone then commenced his great ameliorative work ; and it is sad to think that Mr. Smith was destined to be found among the opponents of the man who was endeavouring to put into a concrete and beneficent form, the abstract reasonings of Mr. Goldwin Smith. But Mr. Smith is more succinct in his arguments — for speaking of the Fenian movement, he says: — "The Fenian movement is not religious nor radically economical, (though no doubt it has in it a socialistic element), but national, and the remedy of it must be one which cures national discontent. This is the great truth which the English people have to lay to heart." ^Speaking of the land question he says: — "The land question, no doubt, lies nearest to the heart of the matter, and it is the great key to Irish history in the past ; but I do not believe that even this is fundamental." He then states what is " fundamental."! "The real root of the disaffection which exhibits itself at present in the guise of Fenianism, and which has been suddenly kindled into flame, by the arming of the Irish in the American civil war, but which existed before in a nameless and smouldering state, is, as I believe, the want of national institutions, of a national capital, of any objects of national reverence and attachment, and consequently of anything deserving to be called national life. The English Crown and Parliament the Irish have never learnt, nor have they had any chance of learning, to love, or to regard as national, notwithstanding the share which was given them, too late, in the representation. The greatness of England is nothing to them. Her history is nothing, or worse. The success of Irishmen in London consoles the Irish in Ireland no more than the success of Italian adventurers in foreign countries (which was very remark- able) consoled the Italian people. The drawing off of Irish talent, in fact, turns to an additional grievance in their minds. Dublin is a modern Tara, a metropolis from which the glory has departed ; and the viceroyalty, though it pleases some of the tradesmen, fails altogether to satisfy the people. * In Ireland we can make no appeal * Smith's " Irish Question," pp. 3 to 7. Quoted in " The Hand Book of Honie Rule," pages 183 & 184. \ Ibid, p. 183. ii8 -^ to patriotism, we can have no patriotic sentiments in our school books, no patriotic emblems in our schools, because in Ireland everything patriotic is rebellious.' These were the words uttered in my hearing, not by a complaining demagogue, but by a desponding statesman. They seemed to be pregnant with fatal truths. "If the craving for national institutions, and the dis- affection bred in this void of the Irish people's heart, seem to us irrational and even insane, in the absence of any more substantial grievance, we ought to ask ourselves what would become of our patriotism if we had no national institutions, no objects of national loyalty and reverence even though we might be pretty well governed, at least in intention, by a neighbouring people whom we regarded as aliens, and who, in fact, regarded us pretty much in the same light. Let us first judge ourselves fairly, and then judge the Irish, remembering always that they are more imaginative and sentimental, and need some centre of national feeling and affection more than ourselves." Mr. Dicey's Admissions. Does not all this prove that Mr. Pitt's experiment of 1800 had failed, and that the leaders of the so-called Unionists have acknowledged the folly and impotency of governing Ireland without her consent, and in governing her from Westminster. The statistics which we shall quote later, will still further prove this, and if we want further testimony, it is supplied in the writings of the latest cham- pion of " Unionism," Mr, Dicey, who writes : — " Eighty-six years have elapsed since the conclusion of the Treaty of Union between England and Ireland. The two countries do not yet for-m an united nation. The Irish people are, if not more wretched (for the whole European world has 119 made progress, and Ireland with it), yet more conscious of wretchedness, and Irish disaffection to England is, if not deeper, more widespread than in 1800. An Act meant by its authors to be a source of the prosperity and concord which, though slowly, followed upon the Union with Scotland, has not made Ireland rich, has not put an end to Irish lawlessness, has not terminated the feud between Protestants and Cathohcs, has not raised the position of Irish tenants, has not taken away the causes of Irish dis- content, and has, therefore not removed Irish disloyalty. This is the indictment which can fairly be brought against the Act of Union."* And again, '* The Act of Union did not lead to national unity, and a measure which appeared on the face of it (though the appearance, it must be admitted, was delusive), to be a copy of the law which bound England and Scotland into a common country, inspired by common patriotism, produced conspiracy and agitation, and, at last, placed England and Ireland further apart, morally, than they stood at the beginning of the century. The Treaty of Union, it was supposed missed its mark because it was not combined with Catholic Emancipation. The Catholics were emancipated, but emancipation, instead of pro- ducing loyalty, brought forth the cry for repeal The Repeal movement ended in failure, but its death gave birth to the attempted rebellion in 1848. Suppressed rebellion begot Fenianism, to be followed in its turn by the agitation for Home Rule. The movement relies, it is said, and there is truth in the assertion, on constitu- tional methods for obtaining redress. But constitutional * Quoted in " Handbook of Home Rule," page i88. Jrlr. Dicey's "England's Case against FJome Rule," page 128, 120 measures are supplemented by boycotting, by obstruction, by the use of dynamite. A century of reform has given us Mr. Parnell instead of Grattan, and it is more than pos- sible that Mr. Parnell may be succeeded by leaders in whose eyes Mr. Davitt's policy may appear to be tainted with moderation. No doubt, in each case the failure of good measures admits, like every calamity in public or private life, of explanation, and after the event it is easy to see why, for example, the Poor Law, when extended to Ireland, did not produce even the good effects such as they are which in England are to be set against its numerous evils ; or why an emigration of unparalleled proportions has diminished population without much diminishing poverty ; why the disestablishment of the Anglican Church has increased rather than diminished the hostility to England of the Catholic priesthood ; or why two Land Acts have not contented Irish farmers. It is easy enough, in short, and this without having any recourse to theory of race, and without attributing to Ireland either more or less of origi- nal sin than falls to the lot of humanity, to see how it is that imperfect statesmanship — and all statesmanship, it should be remembered, is imperfect — has failed in obtain- ing good results at all commensurate with its generally good intentions. Failure, however, is none the less failure because its causes admit of analysis. It is no defence to bankruptcy that an insolvent can, when brought before the Court, lucidly explain the errors which resulted in disastrous speculations. The failure of English statesmanship, ex- plain it as you will, has produced the one last and greatest evil which misgovernment can cause. It has created hostility to the law in the minds of the people. The law cannot work in Ireland because the classes whose opinion in other countries supports the actions of the courts, are 121 in Ireland, even when not law-breakers, in full sympathy with law-breakers."* ** There exists in Europe no country so completely at unity with itself as Great Britain. Fifty years of reform have done their work, and have removed the discontents, the divisions, the disaffections, and the conspiracies which marked the first quarter, or the first half of this century. Great Britain, if left to herself, could act with all the force, consistency, and energy given by unity of sentiment and community of interests. The destruction and the uncer- tainty of our political aims, the feebleness and inconsistency with which they are pursued, arise, in part at least, from the connection with Ireland. Neither Englishmen nor Irishmen are to blame for the fact that it is difficult for com- munities differing in historical associations and in political conceptions to keep step together in the path of progress. For other evils arising from the connection the blame must rest on English Statesmen. All the inherent vices of party government, all the weaknesses of the parliamentary system, all the evils arising from the perverse notion that reform ought always to be preceded by a period of lengthy and more than half factitious agitation met by equally factitious resistance, have been fostered and increased by the inter- action of Irish and English politics. No one can believe that the inveterate habit of ruling one part of the United Kingdom on principles which no one would venture to apply to the government of any other part of it, can have produced anything but the most injurious effect on the stability of our Government and the character of our public men »»# ''The advocates of Home Rule find, by far, their strongest arguments for influencing English opinion, in * Dicey, " England's Case against Home Rule," pages 72-74 122 the proofs which they produce that England, no less than Ireland, has suffered from a political arrangement under which legal union'has failed to secure moral union."* Irish nationality could not tolerate the suppression of the national legislature, and the subsequent Government of Ireland has shown that the Nationalists, under Grattan, were right in their objection to the Act of Union. Since then, the intolerance and despotism of English Govern- ments have helped to strengthen the national spirit and have added fuel to the national passion for freedom. The more fiercely the elements have beaten against the nation- ality of the Irish people, the more securely it has taken root in the Irish mind. Mr. Gladstone's Views of Nationality. Mr. Gladstone says, in his article on " Lessons in the 1 8th Century," p. 279, Handbook to Home Rule: — " This is the point at which we may best learn the second and the greatest lesson taught by the history of Ireland in the eighteenth century. It is this, that, awful as is the force of bigotry, hidden under the mask of religion, but fighting for plunder and for power with all the advantages of possession, of prescription, and of extraneous support, there is a David that can kill this Goliath. That con- quering force lies in the principle of nationality." " It was the growing sense of nationality that prompted the Irish Parliament to develop its earlier struggles for privilege on the narrow ground into a general contest for freedom, civil and religious, on a ground as broad as Ireland, nay, as humanity at large. If there be such things as contradictions in the world of politics, they are to be found in nationality on the one side, and bigotry of all kinds * Dicey— " England's Case Against Home Rule." 123 on the other, but especially religious bigotry, which is of all the most baneful. Whatever is given to the first of these two is lost to the second. I speak of a reasonable and a reasoning, not of a blind and a headstrong nation- ality ; of a nationality which has regard to circum- stances and traditions, and which only requires that all relations, of incorporation or of independence, shall be adjusted to them according to the laws of Nature's own enactment. Such an nationality was the growth of the last century in Ireland. As each Irishman began to feel that he had a country, to which he belonged, and which belonged to him, he was, by a true process of nature, drawn more and more into brotherhood and into the sense of brotherhood with those who shared the allegiance and the property, the obligation and the heritage. And this idea of country once well conceived, presents itself as a very large idea, and as a framework for most other ideas, so as to supply the basis of a common life. Hence it was that, on the coming of Lord Fitzwilliam, the whole generous emotion of the country leapt up with one consent, and went forth to meet him. Hence it was that religious bigotry was no longer an appreciable factor in the public life of Ireland. Hence it was that on his recall, and in order to induce acquiescence in his re- call, it became necessary to divide again the host that had welcomed him — to put one part of it in array as Orangemen, who were to be pampered and inflamed ; and to quicken the self-consciousness of another and larger mass by repulsion and proscription, by stripping Roman Catholics of arms in the face of license and of cruelty, and, finally, by clothing the extreme of lawlessness with the forms of law." 124 The Irish Famine. But if anything more is needed in the history of Ireland to show the futility and folly of governing Ireland from Westminster, it is supplied in the terrible story of the Irish famine. We can scarcely, in this land, estimate the awful sufferings of the people during the years when the famine raged. The Government seemed helpless. O'Connell's repeal agitation was paralyzed. The high hopes of the people were checked. The warm impulses springing up in the hearts of the Irish, as they saw the day of freedom drawing nearer, were chilled by the blight- ing, withering seasons that destroyed the chief staiF of life. Whole districts were depopulated. The blight came like deadly nightshade, poisoning the hearts and minds of the people, and leaving behind a terrible legacy of hate. Painful misunderstanding and hostile recriminations have sprung up between the two countries in relation to this subject.* The English people talk of the sympathy mani- fested by England, and the generous contributions which were made to stem the famine. The Irish talk of the delay, pitiful inaction, and criminal mismanagement of the English Cabinet and the Dublin Executive. Everything in the shapeof relief was hindered, by prejudice, ignorance, and short-sighted economy. It was a stupendous calamity^ which the ordinary machinery of the Poor Law system was unable to cope with. What was needed was prompt and liberal local administration of relief out of government resources. The ports were locked up, and protection held the keys, and kept the ship filled with American supplies outside. The food resources of the people — the corn grown in Irish fields was sent out of the country, to be sold for the benefit of the landlords, while the poor *A. M. Sullivan's "New Ireland," 1 125 peasantry were starving by thousands on the road-side. English officers and officials strangled every measure of relief with red tape. Official Investigations. The Government went in for official investigations, at a time when Americans and foreigners were sending ship-loads of grain. The establishment of huge soup kitchens was tried to arrest the famine fiend. The people struggled to reach the soup, some fell to the ground and were trampled to death. The madness of hunger overcame the tenderness of sympathy. The weak waited and died, while the stronger reached the food and were saved from death. The Irish Poor Law system completely broke down under the strain. When the families were separated at the workhouse door, the scenes were heart-rending. Fathers, mothers, and children were parted to meet no more in this world. They abandoned hope when they entered there, for the famine fever was in ev^ery ward, the air was loaded with disease, and the poor starving ones knew that they were being separated to die alone. Oh ! it was terrible ! unendurable ! ! Poor widows, whose husbands had starved, clasped their childen to their breasts and cried, ** I cannot part with them, — if I am to give them up, I'll not come in, — I'll beg the world with them, — we'll die together." But, inexorable officialism said, "You must part or starve out- side ;" and death said, " If you part you shall not meet again !" Mr. TuKE says :* — ** We visited the poorhouse at Glenties, which is in a dreadful state ; the people were, in fact, half starved, and only half clothed. They had not * " Transactions of the Relief Committe of Friends," quoted by O'Connor. 126 sufficient food in the house for the day's supply. Some were leaving the house, preferring to die in their own hovels rather than in the poor-house. Their bedding con- sisted ol dirty straw, in which they were laid in rows, or on the floor— even as many as six persons being crowded under one rug. The living and the dying were stretched side by side beneath the same miserable covering." The general effect of all this is summed up thus pithily but completely in the report of the Poor Law Commissioners for 1R46: "In the present state of things nearly every person admitted is a patient ; separation of the sick, by reason of their number, becomes impossible ; disease spreads, and by rapid transition the workhouse is changed into one large hospital." People committed petty larcenies in order to be sent to gaol, for they were starving outside. But the gaols were also homes of pestilence. Dr. Browne wrote of Castlebar Gaol : — " Our county gaol was crowded to more than double its capacity, those • committed being in a state of nudity, filth, and starvation. Typhus broke out, and by the end of April we were in a state of actual pestilence. Every hospital servant was attacked, and from our wretched overcrowded state the . mortality was fearful — fully forty per cent. ; * * * * not a few of those committed were inmates of the fever wards a few hours after committal." The Census Commissioners reported that, *' Taking the reported deaths from fever alone, between the begin- ning of 1846 and the end of i849, and assuming the mortality at one in ten, which is the very lowest calcu- lation, and far below what we believe to have occurred, above a million and a half, or 1,595,040 persons, being 4* 11 of the population in 1851, must have suffered from fever 127 during that period. But no pen has recorded the number of the forlorn and starving who perished by the wayside or in the ditches, or of the mournful groups, sometimes of whole families, who lay down and died, one after another, upon the floor of their miserable cabin, and so remained uncoffined and unburied till chance unveiled the appal- ling scene." In 1847 °^^ fifteenth of the medical staff" died. A quarter of a million perished from fever alone, while the mortality was further swelled to gigantic proportions by smallpox, dysentry, and other epidemics. Hinged coffins were used, and the dead fell uncoffined into the graves, while the coffin was brought back to be used again and again. Landlords and Famine. The absentee landlords, as usual, did not see the misery. The resident ones did what they could to stem the disaster, and many incurred debts that afterwards brought them to ruin. Some landlords were, however, almost heartless ; and one of them, the Duke of Norfolk, made himself notorious by suggesting to the starving and distressed people, the use of a certain curry powder, of which he would freely give them the recipe, and by which they could stave off' the pangs of hunger. A Royal Duke's Compassion. But even this is surpassed in brutality by a royal duke, described by Daniel O'Connell as " the son of a king, the brother of a king, the uncle of a monarch." This lofty personage said, " Ireland is not in so bad a state as has been represented. * *' *•'* *' I understand that rotten potatoes and seaweed, and even grass, properly mixed, 128 aflford a very wholesome food. We all know that Irishmen can live upon anything, and there is plenty of grass in the fields, even if the potato crop should fail." Surely this prince must have been referring to a royal personage, who, in Babylon, was removed from his throne and com- pelled to ** eat grass like an ox." But the Government was slow to believe in the reality of the famine, and when it was made clear to them, they were tardy and unprepared. The Evening Mail said, in 1 845 : — '* The apprehensions of a famine are unfounded, and are merely made the pretence for withholding the payment of rent." Again, it said, "There is a sufficiency, an abun- dance of sound potatoes for the wants of the people." Blindness of Politicians. Lord George Bentinck said that ** The potatoe famine in Ireland was a gross delusion — a more gross delusion had never been practised upon any country by any government." ** The cry of famine was a mere pretence for a party object." Lord Stanley said : " Famine in Ireland was a vision — a baseless vision." Bills were passed to remedy the misery but they were unsuitable to the conditions of the case. With a Coercion Bill in operation, such measures as relief works. Labour Rate Acts, and soup kitchens were too inadequate. In 1846, when the Relief Works were commenced, the famine had already made frightful progress, and wretched and emaciated people, just alive, tottered with their diminished strength to build roads and make cuttings, that are to-day covered with moss and grass, and are a standing monu- ment of the gigantic folly of the government remedies for a famine-stricken people.* * See A. M. Sullivan's " New Ireland." 129 In J 847 the miserable narrow arrangements had to be thrown aside, and the Government, by extraordinary means, had to deal with an extraordinary crisis. But they were, as usual, too late, and a million of deaths, which might have been prevented, lay at the doors of English mis- government. In 1835 the Poor Law Inquiry reported that 2,235,000 persons were out of work, and in distress, for thirty weeks in the year. The Devon Commission declared *' It would be im- possible to describe adequately the sufferings and privations which the cottiers and labourers and their families in most parts of the country endure." '* Their cabins are seldom a protection against the weather." " A bed or a blanket is a rare luxury.'' " In many districts their only food is the potato, their only beverage water."* Mr. J. S. Mill sums up the question by writing of the Irish landlords as follows: — "Returning nothing tothe soil, they consume its whole produce, minus the potatoes strictly necessary to keep the inhabitants from dying of famine."! But this was before the pinch of famine came. We may judge, therefore, of the more terrible destitution which afterwards existed, when millions were sacrificed at the altar of the landlords' interests, by the restrictive legislation of a House of Parliament comprised chiefly of landlords. Well might Daniel O'Connell say, " If we had a domestic parliament, would not the ports be thrown open — would not the abundant crops, with which Heaven has blessed her, be kept for the people of Ireland — and * Quoted by T. P. O'Conner, " Parnell Movement," p, 24. i Quoted by Mr. Healy, " Why is there a Land Question ?" p. 55. 130 would not the Irish Parliament be more active even than the Belgian Parliament to provide for the people food and employment." Mr. T. P. O'Connor says :* — " The measures pro- posed by the Government for dealing with the distress were, first the importation of corn on a lowered duty through the repeal of the Corn Laws ; and, secondly, the advance of two sums of ^^50,000, one to the landlords for the drainage of their lands, and the other for public works. The ridiculous disproportion of these sums to the magni- tude of the calamity was proved before very long ; but to all representations the Government replied in the worst and haughtiest spirit of official optimism. 'Instructions have been given,' said Sir James Graham, 'on the respon- sibility of the Government to meet any emergency.' Only one good measure was covered by the generous self-com- placency of this round assertion. Under a Treasury minute of December 19, 1845, the Ministry had instructed Messrs. Baring and Co. to purchase /'loo.ooo worth of Indian corn. This they introduced secretly into Ireland, and its distribution proved most timely." The Food Supply and the Starving Peasantry. Reference has been made to the good crops of wheat and oats during the famine time, and to the fact that these crops were largely exported while the peasantry were dying of starvation. Mr. T. P. O'Connor says: — "Side by side with the fields of blighted potatoes, in 1845, were fields of abundant oats." The Mark Lane Express reported that in one week, during 1845, 16,000 quarters of oats were exported from Ireland to London." Lord John Russell, in 1847, wrote to the Duke of Leinster as fol- * " Parnell Movement," p. 27. 131 lows: — " Everyone who travels through Ireland, observes the large stacks of corn, which are the produce of the late harvest." John Mitchell gives a case of a captain who saw at Rio Janeiro, in South America, a \»essel laden with Irish corn, at the very moment when the people of Ireland were vainly crying for food. In similar circumstances, Belgium, Holland, Russia, and even Turkey had closed their ports and kept their corn to feed their starving popu- lation. Daniel O'Connell urged the English Parliament to follow this wise precedent, but as this would have interfered with the landlords' rents and gains, the Govern- ment refused, and the Irish peasants starved. The land system had to be kept up, if the people died to support it» Indignation was felt at the heathen customs, which buried living slaves around the posts of a chiefs dwelling, so as to keep the edifice secure ; but only smirking complacency prevailed, as thousands of Irish people were condemned to starvation in order to perpetuate the land system. Mr. T. P. O'Connor has placed the argument in a nutshell, by saying, ''The Irish land system necessitated the export of food from a starving nation. The Imperial Parliament was the parent of this land system ; the Imperial Parliament was then responsible for the starva- tion which this exportation involved."* Mr. A. M. Sullivan has written, with a pen inspired by the deep sympathies of an earnest and conscientious spirit. He says : — "The first remarkable sign of the havoc which death was making was the decline and disappearance of funerals.f He tells the story of a Catholic priest, who met in Galway, during the famine, a man with a cart drawn by a donkey, on which there were three coffins, * "The Parnell Movement," p. 26. t " New Ireland," p. 64. 132 containing the bodies of his wife and two children. When he reached the churchyard, he was too weak to dig a grave, and was only able to put a little covering of clay on the coffins. The next day the priest found ravenous dogs making a horrid meal ^rom the corpses."* In some cases parents were obliged to dig the graves of their dead children ; and in other cases, were too weak to do so, and were only able, before they laid down by the side of the corpses to die also, to close the door of their hovels, so as to prevent the dogs and pigs from entering and devouring the bodies. Mr. O'Rourke, and Mr. Tuke give a number of instances, and the former quotes an eye witness of a scene in Skibbereen, as follows : — ** The only article that covered the nakedness of the family, that screened them from the cold, was a piece of coarse packing stuff, which lay extended alike over the bod|ies of the living and the corpses of the dead ; which served as the only defence of the dying, and the winding sheet of the dead."f Surely in all this there is proof of the break down of the administration. Red Tape and the Irish Famine. Lord John Russell also refused to interfere with the regular mode by which Indian corn was brought into Ireland. This was in the interests of the retail traders, whose shops were so few that the emaciated labourer on the public works had to walk, in some parts, twenty or twenty-five miles in order to buy meal for himself and family. Some of the traders trafficked on the needs and miseries of the people. Famine prices were charged for food, and one firm in Cork was reported to have made * "New Ireland," p. 379. Quoted in " Parnell Movement." t O'Rourke—" History of the Irish Famine," p. 272. 133 ;^4o.ooo> and another £?o,q>oo by speculating in corn. The Government stores refused to open their doors to the people until the Autumn, and men and women who had crawled long distances, were found dead at the doors of the stores, at which they had knocked in vain, while in the stiffened grasp of the corpses money was found * The money earned on Government works, owing to blunders in the administration, was at times not paid for a week or a fortnight, and the worker either crept into his hut to die, or perished by the road-side. Poor shrivelled men, left their wives and children dying at home, and trudged often eight miles for a day's work, for which they were paid 5d., and at times as low as 3d.t And this from a paternal government, claiming to be enlightened, civilized, and christian, as well as the wealthiest in Europe. Mr. O'Connor gives a few quotations from Irish news- papers, such as "A family of six lived for one week upon the carcase of an ass, in the parish of Ballymackey, County Tipperary." *' Great distress in Ulster, — people eating ass flesh."]: Epidemics of cholera raged through the country also, and were followed by other diseases which decimated the population. In 1 849 the deaths from zymotic diseases, as reported by the Census Commissioners, reached 123,386. This in addition to those who succumbed to starvation and various afflictions induced by privations. Sir Charles Gavan Duffy shows the way in which the people were sent out of the country: — "Vast masses tried to make their way to America. In the year 1845, 74,669 persons emigrated from Ireland ; in 1846 the num- ber had risen to 105,955 ; during 1847 i* ^^^^ ^^ 215,444. * " Parnell Movement,'' pp. 24 and 25. + " New Ireland," pp. 206 to 225. % " The Parnell Movement." 134 No means were taken to preserve these poor people from the rapacity of shipowners. The landlords delighted at getting rid of them, made bargains for their conveyance wholesale, and at small prices ; and in those days emigrant ships were ui>der no sanitary restrictions of any effective- ness. Thus the emigrants, already half-starved and fever-stricken, were pushed into berths that 'rivalled the cabins of Mayo, or the fever-sheds of Skibbereen.' 'Crowded and filthy, carrying double the legal number of passengers, who were ill-fed and imperfectly clothed, and having no doctor on board, the holds,' says an eye-witness, •were like the Black Hole of Calcutta, and deaths in myriads.'" "The statistics of mortality bear out these words. Of 493 passengers during the year in the Queen, 136 died on the voyage ; of 552 in the Avon, 236 died ; of 476 in the Virginius, 267 died; of 440 on the Larch, 108 died and 150 were seriously diseased. 89,783 persons altogether embarked for Canada in 1847. The Chief Secretary for Ireland reported with regard to these that 6, 1 00 perished on the voyage ; 4,100 on their arrival ; 5,200 in hospital ; 1,900 in towns to which they repaired. 'From Grosse Island up to Port Sarnia, along the borders of our great river, on the shores of Lakes Ontario and Erie, wherever the tide of emigration was extended, are to be found one unbroken chain of graves, where repose fathers, and mothers, sisters and brothers, in a commingled heap, no stone marking the spot. Twenty thousand and upwards have gone down to their graves."* The people maddened by their despair, rushed to the ports to secure berths for England. But the Government * Sir C. G. Duffy's " Four Years of Irish History," pp. 531-532. Quoted in the " Parnell Movement," pp. 44 and. 45. 135 . requested the owners of steamships to raise their fares for deck passengers, and thus the already impoverished victim of eviction and despair, was further fleeced by the desire of a paternal government. Emigration. In 1847. between January 15 and May 4, the Census Commissioners state that 180,000 Irish exiles were landed in Liverpool. Between June 15 and August 17 of the same year, 26,335 arrived in Glasgow from Ireland. "Many of these were aged people, unfit for labour ; out of 1,150 patients in the Glasgow Fever Hospital at the period, 750 were Iiish."* **The population of Ireland, by March 30th, 1851, at the same ratio of increase as that of England and Wales, would have been 9,018,799 — it was 6,552,385."! The Census Commissioners calculated ** that the deficit, inde- pendently of the emigration," in the five famine years, was 985,366 — nearly a million of people. But those who emigrated often perished during the voyage. Seventeen per cent, of the emigrants either died during the passage, or immediately on their arrival at their destination, so that of the emigration of 1,180,409, no fewer than 200,668 must be added to the death roll already stated. Destruction of Social Customs and Elevating Institutions. In addition to all this, the evils wrought in the con- dition of the country were very numerous. Take the following testimonies: — "Here are twenty miles of country, sir, said a dispensary doctor to me, and before the famine there was not a padlock from end to end of it, Under ♦ "ParnelliMovement," pp. 44-84. f " Parnell Movement," p. 84. 136 the pressure of hunger, ravenous creatures prowled round barn and storehouse, stealing corn, potatoes, cabbage, turnips, anything, in a word, that might be eaten. Later on, the fields had to be watched, gun in hand, or the seed was rooted up and devoured raw. The state of things struck a fatal blow at some of the most beautiful traits of Irish life. It destroyed the simple confidence that bolted no door ; it banished for ever a custom, which throughout the island was of universal obligation — the housing for the night, with cheerful welcome, of any poor wayfarer who claimed hospitality. ''Fear of 'the fever' even when no apprehension of robbery was entertained, closed every door, audthe custom once killed off has not revived. A thousand kindly usages and neighbourly courtesies were swept away. When sauve qui pent \\diS resounded throughout a country for three years of alarm and disaster, human nature becomes contracted in its sympathies, and 'every one for himself becomes a maxim of life and conduct long after. The open-handed, open-hearted ways of the rural population have been visi- bly affected by the ' Forty-seven ordeal.' Their ancient sports and pastimes everywhere disappeared, and in many parts of Ireland have never returned. The outdoor games, the hurling-match, and the village dance are seen no more."* 'The famine,' says Gavan Duffy, 'swallowed things more precious than money and money's worth, or even than human lives. The temperance reformation, the political training of a generation, the self-respect, the purity and generosity which distinguished Irish peasants, were sorely wasted. Out of the place of the damned, a sight of such piercing woe was never seen as a Munster * " New Ireland," pp. 67 and 68. 137 workhouse, with hundreds of a once frank and gallant yeomanry turned into sullen beasts, wallowing on the floor as thick as human limbs could pack. Unless, indeed, it were that other spectacle of the women of a district wait- ing in pauper congregation around the same edifice for outdoor relief. New and terrible diseases sprang out of this violation of the laws of nature. There was soon a workhouse fever, a workhouse dysentery, a workhouse opthalmia ; and children, it is said, were growing up idiots from imperfect nourishment. In eight of the worst poor- law unions, the contract coffin left the workhouse seventy times a week with the corpse of a human being. The opthalmia often carried with it consequences more painful than death, when it left the sufferer unfit to earn his bread any more in the world. There were upwards of 2,000 cases of this disease within ten months in the Tipperary Union, and as many in the Limerick Union. In Tippe- rary, Sir William Wilde, one of the Census Commissioners, saw eighty-seven patients whose sight was permanently damaged, eighteen incurable blind figures, thirty-two who had lost one eye. In Connaught, where poverty was long the chronic condition of the country, the famine had actually created a new race of beggars, bearing only a distant and hideous resemblance to humanity. Wherever the traveller went in Galway or Mayo, he met troops of wild, idle, lunatic-looking paupers wandering over the country. Grey-headed old men, with faces settled into a leer of hardened mendicancy, and women filthier and more frightful than harpies, who at the jingle of a coin on the pavement swarmed in myriads from unseen places, strug- gling, screaming, shrieking for their prey like monstrous and unclean animals. Beggar-children, beggar-girls, with faces gray and shrivelled, met you everywhere : and women 138 with the more touching and tragic aspect of lingering shame and self-respect not yet effaced. I saw these accursed sights, and they are burned into my memory for ever. Poor, mutilated, and debased scions of a tender, brave, and pious stock, they were martyrs in the battle of centuries for the right to live in their own land, and no Herculaneum or Pompeii covers ruins so memorable to me as those which lie buried under the fallen roof-trees of an 'Irish extermination.'"* Clearing the Land. Some of the landlords seized the opportunity of clear- ing their lands of distressed tenants. Their inability to pay the rent, left them at the mercy of inexorable land- lordism, and their weakness, consequent on insufficient food, prevented them from keeping a "grip on their home- steads." The property was cleared of small tenants, and many of them landing in England, in a destitute and penniless condition, were compelled to herd together in the lowest places of our seaports, until the name of the "Irish settlement" became a name of reproach and con- tempt among fastidious and respectable people, who lived in more salubrious neighbourhoods. In addition, these people were compelled to take labour of the hardest and most dangerous character, at any price that was offered, so as to avoid starvation. The result was that the labour- rate of English workmen was kept in a reduced condition, and the English artisans and labourers had to bear the imposition directly induced by the unfeeling conduct of Irish landlords. The evictions were carried out with great coarseness and cruelty. In these late years the accounts of evictions at Bodyke, and elsewhere, have thrown a flood *Sir C, G. Duffy, Quoted by T. P. O'Connor.—" Parnell Movement," pp. 83 and 84. 139 of light, through the medium of the Press, on the charac- ter and working of Irish landlordism. But still more terrible, and heartless, and unjust were evictions carried out ruthlessly in the days of famine, before the glass of public observation was directed to the scenes. Unsym- pathetic evictions threw the tenants into the storm and the snow in the depth of winter, and the disease germinated under the Irish hedges, afterwards developed in the English towns and counties, and compelled the sufferers to apply for help at English hospitals and workhouses. The rates of the towns and counties was increased, so that, in addition to a lessened rate of wages, the English householders had to pay an increased sum to the rates, to enable Irish land- lords to clear the land of the human beings who had cultivated it, and improved its worth. Lord Palmerston spoke of the evil, and strongly denounced it, but took no steps to call to justice the landlords, whose action brought about the death of the poor peasantry. In a speech de- livered in the House of Commons, he says : — *' The people were turned out of their houses, without the chance of obtaining a home ; were driven to perish on the road-side, or to eke out a hungry existence as squatters on the fringe of a bog, or on the outskirts of some neighbouring town. This is a great grievance. Cases have occurred where landlords have done this to a great extent. I hope the landlords will abstain from exercising that power which the law gives them, and that, by showing a little more consideration to the peasantry whom they find on their estates, they will seek to do away with that grievance, which is expressed in the somewhat absurb term of ** fixity of tenure." 140 An Englishman's Opinions. In 1846, Mr. PouLETT Scrope, an English M.P., spoke clearly on the question, and pointed out the respon- sibility of the landlords who condemned their tenants to death, and who committed wholesale murders in the name of law. "Remember, life is destroyed in Ireland in other ways than by the bullet of the assassin. Life is taken in Ireland by the slow agonies of want, and disease engen- dered by want, where human beings are deprived (however legally) of the only means of living, and no resource offered them in its place. When a landlord clears his estate by driving from their homes hundreds of poor tenants who have no other possible source of refuge, does he not as effectually destroy their lives (at least many of them) as if he shot them at once ? It would be a mercy to do so in compassion. Do you deny that the lives of the peasantry are unprotected by law — that they are obliged to protect themselves by these criminal outrages ? I ask you if, since these very discussions began, we have not had proofs — multiplied proofs — of the mode in which the landlords of Ireland are decimating the people of Ireland.? Ay, in the midst of fever and famine, was not a whole village razed by Mr. Gerrard — 400 souls turned out upon the highway — not allowed even to rest in the roadside ditches ? Was not another village razed by the Marquis of Waterford ? Another, I believe, by Mr. Clarke, of Nenagh, who was murdered ; another by Mr. Pierce Carrick, who was murdered for the same intention, * * * Now, I ask, what becomes of these ejected wretches, whose houses are pulled down, who are driven forth from the land where they were born and bred, hunted even out of the road-side ditches, when they take shelter there, as was literally the case in the Gerrard clearances ? Where HI are they to go ? How are they to live ? * * * If they squat on another landlord's estate, they are driven off again as nuisances, pests — as people, in one word, who have no right to exist. ^ * ijr- * j ^sk, what becomes of them ? Why, we know, on the best authority, they wander to the big towns and try to live by beggary ^' * * Is not an ejectment of this kind tantamount to a sentence of death on a small farmer or cottier, whose only chance of living and maintaing his family is the occupation of a bit of land ? Can you wonder at his retaliating on him whom he feels to be his oppressor ? Or can you wonder that thousands, who know themselves to be exposed to this fate, every day contrive to save themselves from it by a system of outrage and intimidation ?"* How Evictions were Carried Out. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, after quoting the above, says :^ '* A specific case of this kind, where the people of a whole village were ejected, was brouht before the House of Com- mons by Sir Robert Peel, on the official report of a Major McKee, to the Poor Law Board. * It would appear,' he said, ' from the evidence recorded, that the forcible eject- ments were illegal, that previous notice had not been served, and that the ejectments were perpetrated under circum- stances of great cruelty. The time ohosen was, for the greater part, nightfall on the eve of the new year. The occupiers were forced out of their houses, with their helpless children, and left exposed to the cold on a bleak Western shore, on a stormy winter's night ; some of the children were sick ; the parents implored that they might not be exposed, and that their houses might be left till the morning ; these prayers for mercy were in vain, and many of them have since died.' " * " Peel and O'Connell." 142 "Peel, in commenting on this, said: — *I know that the law is powerless in procuring redress in such cases ; but I know also that the mere statement of the facts in the House of Commons, accompanied with the expression of such feelings as can alone be excited where such facts are narrated to us, will not be without their influence.' But why was the law powerless ? or why should no remedy have been attempted ? and why had the report of the Devon Commission produced no result ?" These last questions are very pertinent. Can it be conceived that these terrible massacres of innocents, carried out in the name of justice and the rights of property, would have been tolerated in England ? Would not the divinity that still lives in human hearts, in spite of the hardening influences of a selfish humanity have asserted itself, had these facts been brought home to the minds and hearts of the population ? Would an Irish Parliament in Dublin have tolerated these things, and given armed soldiers, paid out of the public rates, to support this sys- tem, by which the children of the poor were deliberately and cruelly sentenced to death ? O'Connell's Last Arguments. Mr. Daniel O'Connell, in the last speech he delivered in the House of Commons, with the shadow of death already darkening his brow, spoke of the evils of starvation and landlordism, and urged the Parliament to do some- thing more to remove the accumulation of miseries under which the people were groaning and dying. And he gave increased force to the point advanced in a letter written a few days previously. In this letter, the last written by him to the Repeal Association, he said : — " It will not be until the death of hundreds of thousands that the regret H3 will arise that more was not done to save a sinking nation, How different would the scene be if we had our own Parliament, taking care of our own people, of our own resources. But, alas ! alas ! it is scarcely permitted to think of these, the only sure preventatives of misery, and the only sure instruments of Irish prosperity." Evictions Continued. Wholesale evictions followed on the heels of the famine. Houses were levelled, and when the evicted people built temporary dwellings, they were burnt down as soon as the inmates left to dig a few potatoes for the daily food. The famine clearances of 1848, are a dark condemning record against the landlords. The people were exhausted — their means and strength had been dissipated in the long struggle with want. They could not pay the demands of the owners of the property. The resident landlords having mortgaged their lands were pressed for payment. The Encumbered. Estates Act was passed, and provided for the sale of mortgaged land. Mortgages were foreclosed. The land changed hands, and new landlords came into possession with the idea that nothing could be done for the wretched people now living on the soil. Emigration was declared to be the infallible panacea for the miseries of the country, and the only one left to the Irish people. It was asserted that the land must be held by thrifty people from England or Scotland — men with money and modern ideas. The regeneration of the country was attempted by the removal of the ancient toilers and the establishment of a new peasantry. It was the old idea which had repeatedly failed in the past, yet still capitalists and political economists clung to it, and in spite of the misery it inflicted, and the loss of life 144 consequent thereof, they tried it again. Evictions took place in the most barbarous and unchristian spirit. Methods were adopted which were a disgrace to civilization, and which had they happened in Turkey or Austria would have been indignantly denounced. Rain or sleet, thunder or snow, the houses must be levelled and the lands cleared. The aged grandsire, the sick infant, the dying mother, were turned into the road. The houses were unroofed and levelled to the ground. One gentleman solicited immortal renown by inventing a machine for pulling the roof oif by one effort. The Legislature rose to the occa- sion in 1848, and passed an Act to mitigate the miseries and inconveniences of evictions. The milk of human kindness revealed its presence, and to remedy the sorrows of the Irish people, those whose hearts were tender pro- hibited evictions — on Christmas-Day and Good-Friday — and declared that houses must not be unroofed until the inhabitants had been brought out. The Extent of a Government's Sympathy. The force of kindness and justice reached this amazing height, and threw round the unsympathizing landlords these strong restraints (?). Is it not pitiful to read of this meagre attempt to curtail the action of the landlord class ? Welj might Mr. T. M. Healy ask in his book **A word for treland," the question — '' What manner of landlords were these who required such restraints to be solemnly imposed by statute ? " The Kilrush evictions were reported to the House of Commons by Captain Kennedy in his official returns, and Sir Robert Peel said of them " I must say that I do not think that the records of any country, civil or barbarous, present materials for such a picture . . Three such tragical instances I do not believe were evei" H5 presented, either in point of fact or as conjured up even in the imagination of any human being . . . and they were heard with the expression of the deepest abborence by the House of Commons." And to meet barbarities like these, and to regulate men inflamed by selfishness, to acts of demons, the most Christian Legislature under heaven prohibited these things on Christmas-Day and Good-Friday, and "thoughtfully enacted that the roof must not be pulled off a tenant's home — until the inmates had left." Alas for the "rarity" and meagreness of "Christian charity" and civilized judgement. The London Times shouted " In a few years more, a Celtic Irishman will be as rare in Connemara as the Red Indian on the shores of Manhattan." The shouts of the Times have been heard in later periods of English history, and have been resonantly loud whenever tyranny has been dominant, and the reign of peace postponed until the regime of blood, and the " gunpowder and glory business," have had unfettered sway. Lord Sidney Godolphin Osborne, who wrote in the Times, signing his letters with the initials S. G. O., was evidently antagonistic to the policy of that "thunderer," the utter- ances of which have since sunk in England to the hoarse sounds of the mimic elements manufactured on the theatrical stage by an enterprising manager, for the special delectation of an audience that demands " plenty for its money." Lord S. G. Osborne gives information of the way in which these evictions were completed. The starving and dying were carried out into the roads. Coroners inquests were frequently held over the bodies of those who had died upon the roads where they had been cast by the agents of the landlords. The verdicts repeatedly passed were "Death by starvation" and "Death 146 by exposure." The starving were evicted, and died ; and yet the agents and sheriffs and landlords held their heads erect, as if they were irreproachable characters. The poachers who snared and destroyed game were treated as felons, but the ''gentlemen" and officials who hurled from their homes and left to die on the road the poor peasantry of Ireland, were received into the bosom of society, and were recognised as guiltless and honourable men. Lord John Russell stated that in 1 849 — ^just after the famine had left the people helpless — more than 50,000 families, consisting of probably 300,000 persons, were cast out into the roads as though they were dogs ; no pity was exercised towards them, no mercy was extended to them, and no refuge was afforded them. He said : — " We have made Ireland — I speak it deliberately — we have made it the most depraved and the most miserable country in the world ; but we are callous to our own ignominy and to the results of our misgovernment." But these evictions were not simply confined to the time immediately succeeding the famine. They mark the whole course of Irish history, and they have embittered the minds of the Irish youth. Boys cast out with their parents on the road-side in inclement weather, have grown up with inveterate hostility to England, and many like Michael Davitt have devoted their great powers to an attempt to obtain redress for their fellow-countrymen. The Irish National League Pamphlets condense much information on the subject. No. 7 of these pamphlets gives the following : — ** Ireland," said John Bright, in Dublin, on 30th October, 1866, "has been a land of evictions — a word which, I suspect, is scarcely known in any other civilized country." 147 "In newly settled countries," said Mr. Butt, ''land is said to be cleared when the forest is cut down, the jungle or brushwood removed, and the wild beasts are driven away. In Ireland the estates are 'cleared' when the human beings that encumber them are swept from the soil." Many persons — especially in England and Scotland — do not yet know what dreadful and abominable things Irish evictions are and have been. Here are three illustrative scenes described by well-known Irishmen. Mr. Butt in his " Land Tenure," speaking of the Glenveigh evictions, in Donegal, says: — "A few years ago a gentleman purchased in the Landed Estates Court the property of one of the wildest and most beautiful of the highland districts of Ireland. In a valley almost separated from the rest of the world, round a primitive hamlet, there dwelt a peaceful population, who could have probably traced back their generations in the same spot to a period before the Plantation of Ulster. Differences arose between the new comer and the old inhabitants. A man was murdered under circumstances which gave the new proprietor a pretext to say that it originated in this feud. Under the excuse of punishing the non- detection of the murderer, he * cleared.' his estate of every living soul. In vain the Protestant and Catholic clergy joined in a solemn protest against a sentence which they pronounced both as cruel and unjust. In vain they bore their testimony to the peaceful character of the little community whom that sentence doomed to a miserable fate. The proprietor was inexorable in his stern resolve. Nearly three hundred human beings 148 were driven out, without the prospect or the power of doing anything on God's earth to get them bread. Their mountain homes are levelled to the ground, and one great sheep farm occupies the district which gave shelter and bread to numbers of human beings." The same gentleman writes in the same work, of the Tullamore evictions, in the King's County: — "A townland in one of the midland counties was inhabited by a prosperous and contented community. An estate of about five hundred acres was divided into about thirteen farms; thirteen thriving families occupied the ground. They paid a rent the full value of their farms. They paid that rent punctually. The families of some had occupied for centuries the same farms. The industry of themselves and their forefathers had given fertility to the soil. Crime was unknown among them. Disputes with their landlords they had none. It suited the convenience of their landlord to sell his interest in this estate. The purchaser was buying it to traffic in it, and he believed it would be more marketable if it were freed from the incumbrance of human beings. To effectuate this object the seller covenanted to clear the estate. The tenants, who had paid up every penny of their rent, were all served with notice to quit ; they were evicted. Thirteen human habitations were levelled ; the inmates turned out upon the world, reduced at once from comfort to absolute beggary. It so happened that in this instance the landlord adopted a course which enabled a jury to strain the law, and award these poor tenants ample compensation. But for the awkwardness with which the proceeding was carried out, it might all have been done without the power of any human 149 tribunal to take cognizance of the wrong. An accidental blunder in the process put it in the power of a jury of landlords, by the damages they awarded, to mark their sense of the moral character of the act." Dr. Nulty, the Catholic Bishop of Meath, a man of probity and culture, says, when speaking of a sight he saw, — " Seven hundred human beings were driven from their homes in one day. The houses were destroyed. In one house typhus fever held its inmates. Some had died, others were at the height of the fever. They supplicated the agent who superintended the evictions to spare their house a little longer; but no! they must go, was the reply. He ordered a large winnowing sheet to be secured over the beds on which the fever victims lay — fortunately they happened to be delirious at the time — and then he directed the houses to be unroofed cautiously and slowly." The Bishop says, '*I administered the last Sacrament of the Church to four of these fever-victims next day, and save the above-mentioned sheet there was not a roof nearer to them than the canopy of heaven. The heavy rains that usually attended the autumnal equinoxes descended in cold copious torrents throughout the night, and at once revealed to the houseless sufferers the awful realities of their condi- tion. The landed proprietors in a circle all round, and for many miles in every direction, warned their tenantry against admitting them to a single night's shelter. Many of these poor people were unable to emigrate. After battling in vain with privations and pestilence, they at last graduated from the workhouse to the tomb ; and in little more than three years nearly a fourth of them lay quietly in their graves defying eviction. And yet, would you believe it, that agent and those landlords escaped hanging. They had used the law."* * Quoted in SuUivan's "New Ireland," 150 Well might Daniel O'Connell write in John Bright's album, when asked for his autograph : — Within that land dwelt many a malcontent Who cursed the tyranny to which he bent. That land full many a wringing despot saw, Who worked his tyranny in form of law. One of the most terrible evictions recorded was that of Glenveigh, mentioned above. History records the dark deed, and paints it in its true colour, to the everlasting disgrace of a tyrant landlord. The district was prosper- ous ; the landlord who sold the soil spoke in the highest terms of the people, but the new landlord wanted the farms and the people had to go. Houses were torn down. Widows and orphans were cast out on the road-side. One old man, nearly ninety years of age, on leaving his house for the last time reverently kissed the doorposts, with all the impassioned tenderness of an emigrant leaving his native land. Miserably clad, mid drizzling rain, they crouched for shelter under the hedges and trees. Public subscriptions furnished funds for the emigration of the people, and before they left they marched in a body to the burial ground where their forefathers slept, and throwing themselves on the turf they reverently kissed again and again the green covered places of the dead. No doubt they envied the dead their continuance in the soil. They were sent across the water and flung almost penniless into the new world, to cherish an undying hatred of the nation to which that landlord belonged, and to the Legislature, the laws of which enabled him to do this great wrong. Families Evicted. Re-admitted as Caretakers. 1849-51 .. 263,000 .. 73,000 1852-60 .. 110,000 .. " 28,000 1861-70 .. 47,000 .. 8,000 1871-80 .. 41,000 .. 6,000 1881-82 .. 21,000 .. 4,000 Total 33 years .. 482,000 .. 119,000 151 Thus the number of persons actually evicted (on an average of 5 per family) was over 2,000,000 (say 70,000 per annum), about 35 per cent, of the population. In the report of Captain Kennedy, a case is mentioned of two children lying asleep on their father's corpse, \^ile their dying mother lay near them, all homeless because of eviction ; and of another where a man turned out of his house built himself and his children a shelter of loose stones, which was demolished by the agent while the man was gathering shell-fish for the support of his family. Dr. Spence Watson writes as follows in a special Supplement of the Newcastle Leader-. — But even after the proof of this paper has been corrected in this first month of the year of grace (!) 1887, comes the following account from the Killarney district of Ireland, where Lord Kenmare and Mr. Herbert, of Muckross, seem to be trying who will evict the most tenants : — "Patrick Leary's house was first visited. He has nine children. The tenant could not afford to pay a farthing. The children all tattered in rags were seated round the turf fire, impart- ing warmth to their naked limbs, and when the police put in an appearance their heartrending cries could not fail to send a thrill of pity through the spectators. The bailiffs quickly set to work in removing the furniture, &c., and in order to facilitate the removal they were broken up and thrown on a manure heap opposite the door. It was in vain that Leary and his wife expostulated with the bailiff to be allowed to seek temporary shelter in an outhouse. They were put out in a blinding storm of hail. The poor woman sought shelter alongside the furniture, which was piled upon the road. She had a child about two years of age in her arms, who cried bitterly. Three other little bareheaded children standing in the snow, without shoes or substantial clothing to keep out the intense cold, were blinded by hailstones, threw themselves under the skirts of their mother's gown for shelter, and were sobbing and weeping intensely. A little child about nine months old was wrapped up in a blanket in the arms of his sister. The police appeared to be visibly moved ^ Leary held the place under a lease at the yearly rental of £z2, the 152 valuation being /i6 5s. Only twice did he get a reduction of 2s. in the pound. He asked to be allowed into the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed, but was refused. To-day he asked French, the bailiff, for time to pay a part of what was due, but the former said it was Mr. Hussey he had to deal with, and no compromise was come to. There*are only about three acres in the entire holding for tillage, the rest being mountains and rocks. The present tenant came into the place ten years ago. He and Looney are the only two tenants in the place, and the nearest farmer's house is three miles, so that the probability is that they had to take shelter by the ditch for the night, as they got no notice of the eviction, and consequently could not go to their friends to-day, who would provide them shelter. A move was next made to the house of Timothy Looney. He was not able to afford to pay any rent, and he asked for time, but the bailiff would not listen to this. He has seven young children, his wife, and his aged father, eighty years of age, leaning on two crutches. The place was in possession of the family from time immemorial. The poor old man was not permitted to remain for the night, and probably to-day's proceedings will end his days. Before leaving, I saw Looney improvising a sort of shelter by the side of an outhouse, composed of beds and furniture, where they were going to put up for the night. The rent Looney was paying was ^25, while the valuation is only /15 5s. Two years' rent was due." THE RULE OF THE ESTATE. Such was and such is an eviction. Remember that up to 1870, only sixteen years ago, the system continued in all its rigour. At any time and upon any pretext a man might be turned out from his home. The house he or his fore-elders had built might be pulled down about his ears, and he might be driven away from the land to which he had given all its value, the owner quietly pocketing the benefit of the exertions of generations of tenants. The tenant might have paid that rent which justly had never become due with perfect regularity, still out he must go. The landlord held in his hands that which meant life or death to his tenant, and he availed himself in many instances of this power to the full. Upon the Lansdowne Estates, for example, tenants were forbidden to marry without the agent's permission. On the same estates a tenant '53 sheltered his sister-in-law whilst her husband was seeking work. The rule of the estate was that no stranger should be taken in. The poor woman was approaching her confinement, and she was removed to a shed on a relative's land, where the child was born. The relative was fined a gale of rent and made to pull the shed down. The poor sick woman took refuge in a cavern on the mountain, and for allowing it the tenants who jointly grazed the land had two fines levied upon them. Sir John Gray, quoting Chief Baron Pigott's words in passing sentence upon persons accused of the manslaughter of a boy of twelve years of age, spoke thus of evictions and of the rules of this and other estates, the breaches of which being punished by eviction became imperative and dangerous laws, laws which men must obey or suffer the result, which, to an Irishman, is worse than death. The boy's " mother at one time held a little dwelling, from which she was expelled. His father was dead. His mother had left him, and he was alone and unprotected. He found refuge with his grandmother who held a little farm, from which she was removed in consequence of harbouring this poor boy, as the agent of the property had given public notice to the tenantry that expulsion from their farms would be the penalty inflicted upon them if they harboured any persons having no residence on the estate. These two cases showed that the tenantry were, because of the extra- ordinary powers conferred by law on landlords, in such a state of serfdom that the mother could not receive her daughter, that the grandmother could not receive her own grandchild, unless that child was a tenant on the estate ; and the result, in the case he was referring to, was this, — that the poor boy, without a house to shelter him, was sought to be forced into the house of a relative in a terrible night of storm and rain. He was immediately pushed out again, he staggered on a little, fell to the ground, and next morning was found cold, stiff, and dead. The persons who drove the poor boy out were tried for the offence of being accessories to his death, and their defence was that what they did was done under the terror of ' the rule of the estate,' and that they meant no harm to the boy." Now, Englishmen and Englishwomen, who have the love of your own little ones deeply implanted in your hearts, who have understood how close the ties of blood are amongst the Irish people, who know what the land which they have made and which is their 154 one hope and only home means to them, can you not understand how these accursed laws which allow men who have done nothing for them, who have never seen the land from which they have sucked all the improved annual value, who in the sight of God are unjust and extortioners, to turn them and their little ones adrift on the world, homeless and houseless, make the crimes and outrages of which you hear so much, and such exaggerations, not only possible^ but certain ? I have not given you the worst cases. If you will look into the books and papers, which are accessible to all, you will read for yourselves scores of instances as bad, and at times even worse than anything I have told. And remember that in the four years from 1849 to 1852 there were 221,845 evictions, and that in each there was misery to a family of our fellow-beings involved, and that even yet, this very day, the same infernal work is going forward wherever a man is unable to pay his rent, from whatever cause, and that we English people are paying for it, and providing police and soldiers that it may be done effectually." Influence of Laws on Irish Feeling. The oppressive land laws which made these things possi- ble, in an age when slavery was denounced and when slaves in the West Indies and the United States of America had been freed, have done much to make the people of Ireland hate a Parliament which seemed determined at all hazards to keep intact the odious laws until forced to relax them by the pressure, not of justice, but of public force and threatenings. The manner in which the land was seized,, the rents continually raised because of improvements made by the tenants, and the people evicted because they were unable to pay the additional imposts placed upon their own industry, filled the minds of the Irish with intense hatred of English-made laws. The sensitive emotional nature of the people of Ireland was not sufficiently taken into consideration by the governing powers. Unvarying: law in accordance with the rigid ideas of unsympathetic 155 Political Economists took the place of a sympathetic treat- ment of the population. Political Economy uncontrolled by a broad humanity, and therefore destitute of its noblest factor, has been the inspiration of English rulers. The Parliament dominated by the spirit of landlordism, and composed of a majority of aliens, has repressed the native institutions, and fostered methods of restriction which have been ruinous to the energies and aspirations of a people who dearly love freedom. Political Economy and Humanity. The Parliaments of this century have too often been like a huge juggernaut rolling its iron wheels along, impelled by the privileged classes, and in its cruel pro- gress the brightest and best of Ireland's sons have been hurled to the ground and crushed. Loveless theories of the rights of property and the claims of landlordism have usurped the place of a loving attention to the first necessities of a nation's progress, and inflexible and cast- iron like laws with which the governed had no sympathy, have spread misery in the lives of those whose inalienable birthright was a right to live in the world equally with the right claimed by the governors. The voices of the Irish representatives have been disregarded and silenced. The measures carefully drawn up by those who knew best what were the necessities of the people have been contemptu- ously thrown out by Lords and Commons. Instead of trying to pacify and content the people, they have been exasperated to limits beyond human endurance. Their demands were said to be opposed to economical and social laws, and their opponents forgot that these laws to be respected must be inspired and controlled by moral and elevating principles which shall appeal to the Christianity 156 which like invisible ink is written on the human constitu- tion, and is brought out and made legible by the heat of trial and suffering. Englishmen have been surprised at the apparent apathy of respectable people who have refused to co-operate with the law officers in their attempts to grapple with those whom the law calls criminals. We have not always looked at the cause of crime. We should denounce positive and negative sympathy with iniquity and declare that tyranny cannot be a remedy for tyranny^ Light is the only victor over darkness, love the only antidote to selfishness, and a broad and all compassing charity and justice can alone beat injustices to the ground. Good laws, based on the inherent right of all men to live and to be preserved from harm, can alone overcome cruel and iniquitious practices. We should not palliate a wrong done by a tenant or a landlord, a cottier or a bailiif, and in apportioning blame we should look on all sides of the subject. It is as much an assassination to cast out children into the snowy road to die, as to shoot from behind a stone wall at an agent. Both are murderers who do this, and the laws should be so framed as to bring both equally to justice. The English Parliament in refusing to act on the Report of the Devon Commission and other Commissions appointed by itself, has made itself an accessory before and after the fact in the murders which have stained Irish soil. The unfortunate system has produced crime, and the Government has only punished the crime of the murderous and incensed tenant, while it has honoured and supported the equally murderous landlord. Was it likely that men would sit still and see their children destroyed ? Was it to be expected that men should be content to be punished for their labour, and the most successful of them to be loaded with heavier burdens ? Agents, landlords, and ^57 legislators are guilty in the sight of God and of man. Their actions have been clear violations of the Golden Rule, and of the spirit of Him who declared that He came '*not to destroy men's lives but to save them." And if we condemn those who have committed crimes against landlords and agents, let us be equally just in condemning the greater criminals, who with fuller knowledge and vaster power have been the first aggressors. Want of Progress Under the ** Union." If Ireland under the Act of Union had shared a prosperity similar to that realized in England some mitigating features might have been seen in the injustice of her government. But Ireland under the Imperial Parliament has failed to make adequate progress, and has not shared the measure of prosperity she reached during the time of her own Parliament. The supreme test of the worth of any Government is whether it contributes to the prosperity of the people and secures for them an increase of stability and peace, as well as a multiplication of comforts. Governments must be valued and honoured according to their practical results, and the working out of the great fundamental principles of freedom. The Union of 1800 must be tried in the same way as the laws formulated for the government of other lands. All laws are to a great extent experiments, and if they fail, states- men must use their powers to discover better methods for the regulation and development of national life. We have seen that in the year 1800 there was a great advance in Irish manufactures and commerce, and that the wealth of Ireland was so much increased that the people were able to indulge in further luxuries. What has been the condition of Ireland since ? Her trade has declined, her 158 population has been driven from her shores by an enforced emigration, until it numbers fewer than it did three-quarters of a century ago. She has sunk lower and lower until she has reached a level more depressed than that of any nation in Europe. The nobility and the wealthier classes left Dublin to reside in London, near the centre of govern-' ment. The seats and mansions of the aristocracy have fallen into ruins, and are the abode of owls and bats. The Dublin residences of the gentry are now let out in tene- ments, and are in a dilapidated condition. The Irish people have been compelled to pay to an absentee class the moneys needed to enable the landlords to mingle in the gaieties of Court life. " Prior to the Union, ninety-eight Peers, and a proportionate number of wealthy Commoners, inhabited the city (of Dublin). The number of resident Peers at present does not exceed twelve. The effect of the Union has been to withdrawn from Dublin many of those who were likely to contribute most effectually to its operation and importance. A house which in 1797 paid ;£"6 4s. is now subject to £'^,0, whilst the value of property has been reduced 20 per cent. The number of inhabited houses has diminished from 15,104 to 14,949. The num- ber of insolvent houses augmented from the year 1815 to 1822 from 880 to 4,719. In 1799 there were only 7 bank- rupts in Dublin, in 18 10 there were 152."* Thus reads the Report of the Select Committee on Dublin Local Taxation in 1825, and Mr. T. M. Healy declares that a report on the city in 1886 would tell a still more woeful tale. IMr. T. M. Healy says: — f'D'Alton, in his History of the County Dublin, p. 85, f;ives a comparative table, * Quoted by T. M. Healy. " A Word for Ireland." t >, „ ,. ,, pp. 47-48. 159 compiled from the most approved authorities, of the )t the annual ab sentee rental : — 1691 ;^i36,oi8 1729 ^627,799 1782 ;^2,223,222 1783 ;^i,6o8,932 1804 ;^3, 000,000 1830 ;^4,ooo,ooo 183S ;^5, 000,000 " In 1830, Mr. Butler Bryan estimated, before a Com- mittee of the House of Commons, the absentee drain at ;^3,ooo,ooo. Mr. Ensor, ' after a minute calculation,' at ;^4,ooo,ooo. The total rental of Ireland is estimated at about ;(f^i5,ooo,ooo ; and .on 23rd April, 1872, a return of Irish Landed Proprietors was presented to the House of Commons {^Thorn's Directory for 1884, p. 743), from which it appears : — 5,589 persons, owning 8,880,549 acres, valued for rating at £ 4,718,497, then resided * on or near their property'; 4,842 proprietors, owning 5,215,264 acres, valued for rating at /^'2, 499, 343, lived * usually elsewhere in Ireland, and occasionally on the property' ; 821,200 acres, valued at ;^49 1,778, were held by public institutions and persons (unclassed as to absenteeism) owning under 100 acres. The remaining 2,973 proprietors, owning 5,129,169 acres, valued for rating at ^^2,470,81 5, are set down as ' absentees.' The return does not include absentee house -owners, such as Lord Pembroke, who draws over half a million from Dublin alone. The Irish Doomsday Book shows that of the 20,000,000 acres in Ireland, 1,942 own two-thirds, 744 own one-half, 292 per- sons own one-third, 14 persons own 50,000 acres each, 12 persons own 1,297,888 acres, 3 persons own 3,000,000 acres, and one person owns 170,119 acres." i6o Sir Gay AN Duffy says: — "The Union was a profitable compact for one of the parties. England found a market for her fabrics, a recruiting field for her army, a partner in her public burthens, and by making absenteeism a necessity among the wealthy classes who were members of the Houses of Parliament, and the train who followed them, she drew from Ireland an annual tribute of five or six millions of rent. She enjoyed a monopoly of the public patronage, the chief offices paid by Irish taxes were filled by English functionaries. But for the other partner it was a disastrous compact." When legislative independence was secured by Grattan the woollen trade revived, and though the population was only 4,000,000, yet 150,000 were employed in silk and woollen manufactures. In 1 84 1, though the population had then increased to more than 8,000,000, yet the artisans employed in these trades had become fewer than 8,000. The mills in the provincial towns had all closed ; in Dublin, where 90 master manu- facturers had given employment to 5,000 artisans, the number of manufacturers had diminished to 12, and the workmen were under 700. 'The fate of the remainder might, as far as they survived, be learned from the annual reports of the Mendicity Society, some were breaking stones for gd. a day, some were starving for want of that miserable resource. A benevolent Doctor in a report he made, said — " I found in Luke's parish, 65 houses con- taining 1,763 inhabitants, nearly 28 persons in each on an average, among the entire of whom scarcely fifty blankets could be found." Duffy again says — speaking of fifty years after the Union — " The social condition of the country during the half-century then drawing to a close was without a parallel in Europe. The whole population were dependent on i6i agriculture. There were minerals, but none were found in what miners called * paying quantities.' There was no manufacture except linen and the remnant of a woollen trade, slowly dying out before the pitiless competition of Yorkshire. What the island chiefly produced was food, which was exported to richer countries to enable the cultivator to pay an inordinate rent. Foreign traders saw with amazement an island possessing all the natural condi- tions of a great commerce, as bare of commerce as if it lay in some bye-way of the world which enterprise had not yet reached. Harbours looking towards the prosperous western world were completely vacant, harbours looking toward the east were occupied only by ships which carried raw produce and human food to England. There was no foreign trade. . . . The noble quays of Liffey, which would rival the Lung d'Arno if Dublin were the seat of a national Government, held only a few coal barges and fruit boats. Similar decay was nearly universal. The provincial towns in general had an unprosperous or bank- rupt look. There was scarcely a county which could not show some public work begun before the Union and now a ruin. When an Irish gentleman visited other countries, the contrast turned his blood to gall. Lord Cloncurry declared that there was more misery in Dublin than in all Europe." The ** Union " and Manufacturing. " Let us see what was the effect of Pitt's measure on manufactures. In 1800 there were in — Dublin . . 90 woollen manufacturers, employing 4,918 hands „ . . 30 woolcombers, employing 230 hands „ .. 13 carpet-combers, „ 230 „ ,, . . 2500 silk-loom weavers,.-^ — : r^.^ Y^ Cn THE '^ \i (( rNlVERSITY )) l62 Cork . . 1000 braid weavers 2000 worsted weavers 3000 hosiers 700 woolcombers , . 2000 cotton weavers 600 linen-check weavers Wicklow . . 1000 hand-loom weavers Kilkenny . . 56 blanket manufacturers Balbriggan 2500 calico looms at work To-day not a vestige of these industries remain, with the exception perhaps of a single tweed factory in Dublin, while of new works to take their place there are practically none. These are but sample instances of decline, for all over the country may be seen roofless factories, idle mill- wheels, and empty storehouses. * I shall do all that in me lies to discourage Irish woollen manufactures,' said William III. to his Parliament (1698) ; but the discouragements of restrictive laws in the seventeenth century operated less fatally to Irish trade than the indirect blight brought on every Irish industry by the Legislative Union. In the eighty-six years it has been in force there have been eleven Acts for the direct relief, otherwise than by the ordinary poor law, of exceptional distress ; ten for the indirect relief of poverty by public works ; four for giving the poor employment at the public expense ; four for contending with famine fever ; four for saving from starvation the thousands of children deserted through the poverty of their parents ; three for the relief of railway companies unable to proceed with their works ; four for the artificial assist- ance of banks, aud for sustaining commercial credit ; and four affecting encumbered estates ; making in all forty- three Acts in fulfilment of Pitt's prophecies of boundless prosperity as the result of his measure."* * T. M. Healy.— " The Irish Problem and how to solve it, 1883." i63 An eminent French statesman visiting Ireland in 1824, said he had seen the Indian in his wigwam, and the negro in his chains, but that the condition of the Irish tenant-at- will was worse than that of the savage or the slave. In 1834 the Parliament refused to consider the Repeal Question, but it passed a resolution to apply the best attention to the removal of all just causes of complaint, and to the promotion of all well-considered means of improvement for the benefit of Ireland. Promises are good when they are kept, but are useless when they are violated. The Corporations of England and Scotland were reformed, but Ireland was not only destitute of her Parliament, but her Municipal Corporations were also left unreformed and were exclusively in the hands of Protes- tants, although a Royal Commission had reported that in every case they had plundered the public estate granted for their endowment. The Poor Law computed that the number of agricultural labourers in the country was over a million, and that one-half of them were out of employ- ment for thirty weeks in the year. Thomas Carlyle in his "Chartism*' says that this is a fact perhaps the most elo- quent that ever was written down in any language, at any date of the world's history. Evidence of Commissions. Parliamentary Commissions enquired from time to time into the destitution and degradation of the Irish nation, and the statements of the witnesses called are enough to tear the heart-string of every human being. Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare, stated that " It is scarcely imaginable on what a pittance the people subsist ; he lies down on a little straw on the floor, and remaining ihere motionless all the day, gets up in the evening, eats 164 a few potatoes, and then throws himself again upon the earth, where he remains until morning; thus he drags out an existence which it were better was terminated in any way than continue in the manner it is." He was asked the question " Do you think this evil likely to increase ? " and he replied "If the laws be not altered, and the country settled so that people will have a confidence in the peace, and good order to be established, and if the English capitalists do not go to Ireland, I do not know why it must not increase." "The state of the laws keeps every- thing unsettled and insecure, and discourages men of capital and industry from embarking both in the improve- ment of Ireland." Another witness, Mr. Blake said — " I do not conceive that there is any political curse upon Ireland that is to prevent her from being as happy and as peaceable as other countries, if instead of attempting to fit the people to the constitution, the constitution be fitted to the people." Mr. Leslie Foster was asked ** To what cause do you attribute the frequent occurrence of disturbance in Ire- land ?" and he replied "I think the proximate cause is the extreme physical misery of the peasantry, coupled with their liability to be called on for the payment of different charges which it is often perfectly impossible for them to- meet. The immediate cause I conceive to be the attempt to enforce these demands by the various processes of the law ; but that there must also be taken into consideration the fact that they are living under institutions for which they have neither much aff"ection or respect." Reading all these facts, can we be surprised that Lord Chesterfield's statements should be adopted by others, and that many approved of the sentiment, viz.: — ''If the military force that has suppressed the rebellion had killed i65 • half as many landlords as Whiteboys, it would have con- tributed more effectually to restore quiet, for the people of Ireland are worse used than slaves by the masters and the deputies of the deputies." Mr. MuLLHALL gives some very forcible statistics*: — In fifty years the population of the United Kingdom has risen from twenty-six millions to thirty-seven millions, an increase of 42 per cent. But the ratio of increase was reduced from 28 per cent, in 1841 to 8 per cent, in 1861, mainly because of the Irish Famine, which carried off over 1,200,000 persons. Statistics of Emigration. Emigration has removed from the United Kingdom in fifty years more than nine millions of people, of whom 10 per cent, have returned. '* Most of those who went to the United States were Irish ; the bulk of whom went westward to open up the new Territories. In thirty years down to 1880, the aggregate wealth of eleven Western States multiplied twelve and a half times, showing an increase of 2654 millions sterling; at least one-fourth of this amount, or a sum equal to our National Debt, was the result of Irish settlers." Since 1837 ^^^ emigrants have comprised : — Irish persons .. .. 4,186,000 English and Welsh . . 4,045,000 Scotch . . . . . . 870,000 Total .. .. .. 9,101,000 Population. The population of Dublin from 1841 to 1886 has increased 45 per cent., but Manchester has increased 97 * '• Fifty Years of National Progress," by Michael G. Mullhall. i66 per cent., Liverpool 105 per cent., Glasgow 10 1 per cent., Birmingham 138 per cent., Leeds 122 percent., Sheffield 180 per cent., London 108 per cent. Property The value of house property in relation to population is as follows : — Dublin ^44 per inhabitant, Birmingham ;^76, Glasgow ;;^ioo, Manchester £\<:>^, Liverpool ^,114, London £\^^- The general average is England £'^^y Scotland £^2, Ireland £iz. The Death Rate. With the increase of poverty in Ireland there has been an increase in the death rate. In 1886 the death i eight principal cities were ; — London . . 207 Glasgow . . 24-8 Liverpool . . 237 Edinburgh . . ig'i Manchester. . 25-9 Leeds . . . . 20*8 Birmingham 20*0 Dublin. . . . 27-0 Committals for Crime. With regard to crime, the annual average of com- mittals for the ten years ending 1885 was per 100,000 of the population — England and Wales 60, Scotland 71, Ireland 77. Education. With regard to education, the percentage of persons able to write their names in the marriage register has been at three different periods as follows : — 1836 1850 1881 England . . 57 . . 64 . . 84 Scotland . . 78 . . 83 . . 88 Ireland .. 48 .. 55 .. 67 167 Mr. MuLLHALL, in speaking of the condition of the masses, says: — " Suicide and divorce are likewise increas- ing, except in Ireland, where both are almost unknown." The chapter on Ireland in MullhaWs Fifty Years of National Progress, pp. 114- 116, deserves careful study: — '' The present reign has been the most disastrous since that of Elizabeth, as the following statistics show : — Died of famine .. .. 1,225,000 Persons evicted . . . . 3,668,000 Number of emigrants .. 4,186,000 Evictions were most numerous immediately after the Famine, the landlords availing themselves of the period of greatest calamity to enforce their *' rights." Official returns give the number of families, and these averaging seven persons we ascertain the actual num- ber of persons evicted : — Years. Families. Persons. 1849-51 263,000 . . 1,841,000 1852-60 110,000 770,000 1861-70 47,000 329,000 1871-86 . 104,000 728,000 Total . . 524,000 . . 3,668,000 The number of persons evicted is equal to 75 per cent, of the actual population. No country, either in Europe or elsewhere, has suffered such wholesale extermination. i68 "Emigration since 1837 ^^^ amounted to a number equal to 84 per cent, of the present population : — 1837-50 1,085,000 1851-60 .. .. .. 1,231,000 1861-70 .. .. .. 867,000 1871-86 .. .. ., 1,003,000 Total . . . . 4,186,000 "Existing Irish settlements abroad and the estim- ated wealth in their possession show that the bulk of the emigrants were good citizens, of thrifty and industrious habits, viz. : — Number. Wealth, millions United States . . 2,040,000 .. 388 Canada . . 1,053,000 I II Australia . . . , 666,000 .. 132 Buenos Ayres 27,000 18 Cape Colony, &c. 25,000 6 Total.. .. 3,811,000 .. 655 *' In one generation four million emigrants, who left home penniless, have become possessed of real and personal property to the amount of 655 millions sterling, besides having sent home to their friends since 1851 a sum of thirty-two miHions. This shows an average accumulation of fourteen millions yearly, or £'] per head on the medium number of exiles since 1837." Failure of Feeble Remedies. Attempts have been made in late years to remedy these evils. All the leading statesmen of the century have 169 tried their utmost powers to induce Ireland to accept the badge of servitude, and bow to a system of government which they declared to be the only possible one. Failure has been inscribed upon all their plans. That which has been fatal to the success of all the purposes and schemes of the English Cabinets, has been the assertion of the principle that Ireland must never be allowed to have a separate legislature, but must always be ruled in the inter- ests of England. The spirit of landlordism of Protestant ascendancy and of the predominance of England is the inspiring and directing force of the legislation of Pitt and Percival, of Palmerston and Peel, and even Russel, Canning, Melbourne, and Aberdeen, while sincerely in sympathy with progressive measures in England, could not divest their minds of the idea that Ireland must be kept as a subject-island. The central injustices of the country were never dealt with. The blotches on the cheek were vigorously treated by drenching admixtures of the brim- stone and treacle of alternate coercion and the relaxation of coercion, but the cancer of injustices, which was eating away the life of the nation, was left untouched. The small measures of relief, reluctantly passed, were accompanied by the flourish of trumpets and the acclamations of the governing classes. All the Cabinets tried only to cure Ireland by opium-like doses of legislation, which lulled to sleep and dulled the pain, but when the patient awoke, the anguish was as intolerable as ever, and another course was demanded by the condition of the suffering one. National Phlebotomy. Then a course of coercion, which acted like the old process of phlebotomy was adopted, and the life-blood of Ireland was let out with no stint or remorse. I have heard of a coachman wko regularly brought down his lash on one of the horses at a certain part of the road. When asked the reason of this chastisement each journey, he said ''that the horse once shied at the whitened gatepost close by, and now," he continued, "I alius gives 'im some- thing to remember, so as he can't notice that post." That has been the policy in Ireland — a sharper pain in the shape of coercion and martial law has been inflicted, to draw Ireland's attention from her real diseases, when the opium-like doses have failed. In consequence, the country has been reduced to a condition of increased weakness. But all in vain. Drenches of coercion and small sweet- meats to take away the nauseous taste have all failed. Ireland was not satisfied with homeopathic donations of aconite and sulphur, when she needed food. She demanded to be treated as one who had long suffered from disease and neglect, and who required not only that the diseases affecting her life at its citadel should be removed, but that her weakened system should also be strengthened by generous and just supplies of food. Removal of iniquitious class government, and the supply of honest and just laws, strengthening freedom and developing industry was needed. But instead of this, coercion laws of the severest character were passed and administered with cruel hand. The Black List. Mr. Boyd Kinnear, M.P., in June, 1884, in a small leaflet, says:* — "From 1800 to 1870 there were some forty coercion bills passed for Ireland. Between 1819 and 1830 five Royal Commissions and Select Committees took evidence (and the evidence would break your hearts) ; and between 1829 and 1869 there were twenty-seven Bills and * Quoted by T. M. Healy, " A Word for Ireland," pages 95-96. 171 Resolutions offered by Irish members on the Land Question, and every one was rejected. Yet all these Bills were of the most moderate character. No matter what they pro- posed, the Irish members could not obtain a hearing in the English Parliament. Yet the Land Question involved the life and death of 6,000,000 of Irish human beings. Of these 6,000,000, about one-half have perished or been driven into exile by evictions since 1845. Think of it! And all this by laws which you, the people of England and Scotland, have enforced upon Ireland." In a pamphlet on Ireland {■^. 5), published in 188 1 — the same Mr. Kinnear, after alluding to the way in which Ireland has always been ruled by foreigners, according to their foreign ideas, ex- claims : — ** Would Scotland be contented with such a system t Assuredly not. Before ten years were out, there would be a smouldering rebellion from one end of the country to the other, and an English official's life would not be safe beyond the radius of a policeman's baton." 1800 f to 18051 1807 1808-9 1814 to ■ I8I6 1817- 1822 to 1830 Habeas Corpus Suspen- sion. Seven Coercion Acts. ist February, Coercion Act. Habeas Corpus Suspen- sion. 2nd August, Insurrection Act. Habeas Corpus Suspen- sion. Habeas Corpus Suspen- sion. Insurrection Act. Habeas Corpus Suspen- sion. One Coercion Act. Habeas Corpus Suspen- sion. Two Coercion Acts in 1822, and one 1823. 1830 Importation of Arms Act. 1 83 1 Whiteboy Act. 1831 Stanley's Arms Act. 1832 Arms and Gunpowder Act. 1833 Suppression of Disturb- ance. 1833 Change of Venue Act. 1834 Disturbances Amendment: and Continuance. 1834 Arms and Gunpowder Act. 1835 Public Peace Act. 1836 Another Arms Act. 1838 Another Arms Act. 1839 Unlawful Oaths Act. 1840 Another Arms Act. 1841 Outrages Act. 7.2 1 84 1 Another Arms Act. 1843 Another Arms Act. 1843 Act Consolidating all Pre- vious Coercion Acts. 1844 Unlawful Oaths Act 1845 Additional Constables near Public Works Act. 1845 Unlawful Oaths Act. 1846 Constabulary Enlargement 1847 Crime and Outrage Act. 1848 Treason Amendment Act. 1848 Removal of Arms Act. 1848 Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 1848 Another Oaths Act. 1849 Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 1850 Crime and Outrage Act. 1851 Unlawful Oaths Act. 1853 Crime and Outrage Act. 1854 Crime and Outrage Act. 1855 Crime and Outrage Act. 1856 Peace Preservation Act. 1858 Peace Preservation Act. i860 1862 1862 1865 1 866 1866 1867 1868 Peace Preservation Act. Peace Preservation Act. Unlawful Oaths Act. Peace Preservation Act. Suspension of Habeas Corpus Act (August). Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Suspension Corpus. of Habeas of Habeas Suspension Corpus. 1870 Peace Preservation Act. 1 87 1 Protection of Life and Property. 1 87 1 Peace Preservation Con. 1873 Peace Preservation Act. 1875 Peace Preservation Act. 1875 Unlawful Oaths Act. 1 88 1 to 1882 Peace Preservation Act (suspending Habeas Corpus) . 1 88 1 to 1886 Arms Act. 1882 to 1885 Crimes Act. 1886 to 1887 Arms Act. Many of the remedies proposed were heroic but futile. There was a clever cartoon a few years ago in Fun — **Poor Ireland" — the "sick sister" of the British family is sitting in a doleful plight, surrounded by above a dozen political doctors, every one pressing his peculiar specific. Dr. Russel offers his *' Whig mixture," Dr. Bright a " land cordial," Dr. J. S. Mill insists on severe ''heroic remedies," whilst Dr. Gladstone recommends " generous treatment." A Communist shows a dangerous knife; a Roman Catholic Priest has a prescription for " complete isolation." Dr. Disraeli is feeling the patient's pulse with puzzled shake of the head, while Dr. Robert Lowe in the back-ground holds up his hands in hopeless despair of any good being done.* "The Hour and the Man." Ignorance of the true needs of Ireland has been one of the causes of her misgovernment, and selfishness in national policy has spread bitterness over the Irish life. All the measures of tyrannical force have failed, and Ireland has remained as poor and destitute and dissatisfied as ever. Nay ! her poverty, destitution, and dissatisfaction have in- creased, as her sons have become more educated, and by constitutional privileges have been better able to appre- hend and realize their position. Many of the great states- men who were unable to see the primary needs of the people, or were not sufficiently strong to free England from a traditional policy which had been outstripped by the progress of thought and freedom, passed from view, and left the problem still unsettled. The Andromeda of Erin was still chained to the rock, and assailed by unjust government and landlordism and a compulsory alien church. A modern Perseus was needed. Those who essayed the task were too weak for it, and were compelled to flee before the attacks of privilege, many of them with wrecked reputations. But during part of this time, nursing his strength into increased vigour, and training his great mind to cope successfully with the dangers, there lived one who was destined more than any other of his age to be the great statesman of the Irish Question. Slowly but surely he progressed from Toryism to become a follower of Peel. Slowly but surely influences born in association with Canning took fuller form and * "Ireland in 1872,"— Dr. Macaulay. 174 increased life in his nature and policy. ' Through the Coalition Government of Lord Aberdeen, he marched to a position still more advanced and renowned. The lesser offices of the Government were but rungs in the ladder by which he climbed to the first position in English Parlia- mentary life, and in the nation's esteem. And then when he had risen to a height which enabled him to take a wider view of the great questions of the day, and when his power and influence in the nation enabled him to work out his beneficient purposes, he staked his honourable reputation upon great and hitherto discarded methods to settle the difficulties of Irish government. His mind refused to be bound and crippled by the hoary traditions of an age out of date, and in 1868 the Disestablishment of the Irish Church — the forerunner of the Land Act of 1870 — showed the Irish people the sympathy and states- manship, the justice and righteousness of England's noblest and greatest political leader — the peerless and fearless Mr. Gladstone. March 'jth, 1888. Dear Sir, You are doing good service by educating the people on the Irish Question, and if the next part of your work is as instrudive as your last, I have no doubt it will have a large circulation. Our opponents are hoping by denunciation to stem the onward progress of the Home Rule Movement. They complain that Mr. Gladstone's measures would not meet the requirements of the case. What have they offered in place of it ? Nothing but a system of intensified restrictive government, which increases the race-hatred which has been so long indulged in by Englishmen, and unless the Irish people had been well advised, would have led to increased resentment on the part of that people. I am, dear Sir, Yours truly, John Barran. Rev. S. Lloyd, PART 111 MR, GLADSTONE'S REMEDIES FOR IRELAND'S GRIEVANCES. Mr. Gladstone is the first great Statesman of the century who has succeeded in popularising measures based on the principle laid down by Mr. C. J. Fox in 1797. Mr. Fox then declared that it w^as his desire to have Irish Government regulated by Irish notions and Irish prejudices and he said, *' I firmly believe that the more she is under Irish government the more she will be bound to English interests." This was no new idea to Irish Statesmen. It was the position taken up by Grattan and Flood, and by Sir John Parnell, as well as by most of the great Irish leaders who preceded them. But English Premiers during the chief part of this century, have clung tenaciously to the principle enunciated by the English Cabinets of the 17th and i8th centuries, viz., that Ireland should be ruled in the interests of England, by English ideas of government, and should simply be governed in the same way as England. They have ignored the want of similarity in the conditions of the two countries, and have refused- to note the race- distinctions between the inhabitants of both islands. Mr. Disraeli with acute perception of the necessities of Ireland, and being at the time untrammelled by the .78 exigencies of office, declaimed strongly against the idea, and the Tory Cabinet of Lord Salisbury, with the Unionist buttresses and their candid friend Lord Randolph Churchill are acting in opposition to a principle at one time laid down by the great chief, now departed from the arena of this life. Modern Elishas, upon whose shoulders the mantle of the great political Elijah has fallen, are showing their superiority to the dead seer, by reverting to a principle of government which he has declared to be erroneous and impotent. The great difference to be observed between the legislation of Mr. Gladstone and that of the Tory Party is, that while the latter desire to continue the plan of governing Ireland by English-made laws and English notions, Mr. Gladstone is anxious to bring Irish government into harmony with native ideals, sustained by native forces, so that confidence in the admin- istrative executive may be secured, and the people of Ireland may be induced to render to the law, not a sullen submission, but a wise, cheerful, and prompt obedience. A New Era of Legislation. A new era dawned upon the history of Irish legisaltion after the futile Fenian Insurrection of 1867. Previously the Statesmen of England appeared satisfied with the repression by force of Irish disloyalty. But now Mr. Gladstone's great aim was directed at the removal of Irish disaffection by the destruction of Irish grievances. He sought to secure greater confidence in English fairness, and to make the Union between England and Ireland one not of force but of love and of a common interest equally recognised by the democracy of both countries. In the year above named, the Irish nation was in the throes of revolution. For some time previously, men secretly met 179 for the purpose of preparing, if need be, for opposing the English claims by force of arms. Fenianism, like Nihilism in Russia, honeycombed the life of the people. It was reported that cellars were used, even in Yorkshire, for the purpose of drilling the Irish manhood, and fitting them to take part in the coming strife. The embers of rebellion were being fanned into a flame by the tardiness of English governments in granting reforms, and by the heartlessness with which the landlords of Ireland enforced their exactions, supported by the authorities at Dublin Castle. It was at this crisis that Mr. Gladstone came forward with his resolutions for dealing with the anomaly of the Irish Church. The Irish Church. Whatever may be said in favour of the Established Church of England by its doughty defenders, it is now generally acknowledged that the Irish establishment was practically indefensible. This became clear, during the progress of the debate. It was the Church of a dominant minority, and it had been considered by the majority of the population as a part of the garrison, by which a foreign power kept them in subjection, and under the pretence of rendering them religious service, fleeced them of their hard-earned gains. The brilliance of Mr. Disraeli, the glib impetuous speech of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, and tha dashing impulsive oratory of the late Lord Derby — the Rupert of debate — all failed to make out a substantial case for the maintenance of the Irish Church System. As a missionary church it had failed. The wisdom of its prelates and the devotion and piety of many of its ministers failed to commend it to the Irish mind. To the large number of Catholics it represented an arrogant and i8o tyrannical mistress, and they were angry at being compelled to tolerate and maintain in the name of religion, a Church, the ministries of which they rejected, while they looked upon its ministers as the liveried and subservient creatures of a conquering State. To the Irish the system reeked of tyranny, extortion, and favouritism, and they regarded it as opposed to those principles which are the basis of true religious faith. Dean Swift wrote unsparingly of the evils of the Irish Church system. The prelates were drawn chiefly, and almost entirely from England. The Irish ecclesiastics of the Church itself were consistently over- looked. Swift said that Ireland was like a hospital, where the poor for whom it was built were starved, while the house officials grew rich and fat. The best livings were given to men in England who did not understand the Irish people. Many of the Clergy were absentees drawing large sums from the livings, and neglecting the spiritual work. Bishops were known, who had never been in their dioceses for twenty years but had lived in England, and sold their benefices as they became vacant. Archbishop Bolton said that " a true Irish bishop has nothing more to do than to eat, drink, grow fat, rich, and die." Dean Swift, however, with his usual humour said that the explanation of the matter was that ** excellent and moral men have been selected on every occasion of vacancy, ^ut it unfortunately has uniformly happened that as these worthy divines crossed Hounslow Heath on their way to Ireland to take possession of their bishoprics, they have regularly been robbed and murdered by the highwaymen frequenting that common, who seize upon their robes and patents, come over to Ireland, and are consecrated bishops in their stead." In 1849 ^^- John Bright said "I assert that the I8l Protestant Church in Ireland is at the root of the evils of that country." Mr. McCeoghegan asserts that during the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Elizabeth and James I., **not sixty of the Irish embraced the Protestant religion." The reason of this is stated by Mr. Godkin, "because the Reformation would have been more truly called the Confiscation " and " because there is at this moment scarcely an Irish noble- man, inheriting an ancient property who does not owe the bulk of it to the confiscated lands of the Church." The Church Degraded by Alliance with the State. Dr. Macartney, Dean of Melbourne in 1874, pub- lished a pamphlet in which he said that ** England laboured for centuries to degrade the Church of Christ into a political tool. So far from the experiment of attempting to convert or benefit Ireland through her national Church having been tried for 300 years, discoun- tenance, neglect, or open persecution has attended every exhibition of spirituality, within her own bosom, or of missionary exertion without. Her confidence has been gained to betray, her wealth and honours used to corrupt her, she has been feasted like Isaac to be deceived, invited like Tamar to the fraternal mansion, to be defiled and then cast out." Raumer, the German Historian, who visited Ireland in 1835, says, " Acts of intolerance and injustice deepened the hate of the Irish to the new faith. The Protestantism that was bolstered by wrong was hated and despised, and the evils of government were associated with the Church which the Protestant rulers maintained in opposition to the traditions and desires of the people." Sydney Smith said of the Irish Church, ** There is no abuse like it in all I82 Europe, in all Asia, in all the discovered parts of Africa, and in all we have heard of Timbuctoo. Count Cavour, the great Italian Statesman, was a firm friend of England's, and his admiration of English Institutions was expressed with no reticent tongue, yet of the Irish Church he wrote, "It remains to the Catholics a representative of the cause of their miseries, a sign of defeat and oppression. It exasperates their sufferings, and makes their humiliation keenly felt." In the early part of the century, the progress of the Church was associated with open rebellion and bloodshed. The system of tithes was in operation, and the tithe dues were gathered in by military force from the fields of the poor peasantry. Sydney Smith says, " With Henry II. came in tithes to which in all probability about one million of lives have been sacrificed in Ireland. The Tithe Agitation. There was nothing that filled the Catholics with greater repugnance to the Protestant Faith in Ireland than the imposition and gathering of tithes. Every visit of the tithe collector was a reminder of the injustice of the Church and the humiliation of the nation. Those who did not avail themselves of the services of the Established Church were compelled to pay for the service of its ministers. It was a badge of inferiority placed upon the neck not only of Roman Catholics, but of dissenters of all the sects. Nonconformist Protestants, as well as Catholics regarded the Clergy as professional officers of the English Government. Poor tenants, whose children were hollow- eyed and shrunken in frame, were compelled to give the food their family needed, to support ministers whom they detested because they represented spoliation and wrong. •83 The clergyman and the tithe proctor rode into the fields and selected the tenth of the crops, but invariably refused to take the tenth child and support it. Tithes were resisted. Cattle and crops seized could not find a pur- chaser. Blood was shed in the gathering of an impost required to support ministers of a gospel of peace and glad tidings. The clergy, themselves suffered, for as the tithes were part of their stipulated income, when they were deprived of them, they were often thrown into depths of poverty, the parishoners frequently looking on at the sufferings of the clergy without compunction or regret. The tithe question was for nearly fifty years of the present century and during a large part of the 1 8th century a constant subject of trouble. Mr. Grattan in 1787 tried vainly to induce the government to settle this burning question by the removal of its most obnoxious features. In 1833 the government confessed its inability to collect the tithes, and proposed at a cost of £993, S^^ to buy up the arrears of tithes for the years 1831, 1832, 1833, and to levy this sum in the shape of a land-tax, on all lands, to be spread over ten half-yearly payments, until the land- lords had repaid the amount. When O'Connell succeeded in securing a clause in the government measure by which a reduction of 40 per cent, on the composition was to be allowed to the payers of the tax, the House of Lords threw it out. O'Connell opposed the Government method of settling the question, for he knew that though the land- lords paid the tax in the first instance, it would ultimately in the great majority of cases have to be paid by the tenants in the form of an increased rental. The tithes had often been farmed to a tithe - proctor who secured re-imbursement by exercising the most ruthless rapacity. Police batons and military bayonets were the weapons 184 employed in the gathering of an impost required for the support of the kingdom of Him who came to reveal Divine Love to man, and to proclaim the glad tidings of peace and goodwill. The cost of this tithe-gathering was also very great, and it is roughly estimated that the nation paid twice as much in securing this unpopular and unjust demand as the total amount received. It was an infliction on the poorest part of the community to sustain the Church of a wealthy minority. A catholic landlord a little more than forty years since was able to say — " I pay tithes in eight parishes. In the whole of these parishes there is not one church or glebe, or one single resident clergyman. I am not aware that there is a single Protestant in the whole eight parishes ; and I do not believe that Divine Service according to the Protestant ritual has been celebrated in any since the Reformation." And these parishes were not isolated cases. At least 199 similar ones could be found. Conversion of Tithes into a Rent-charge. In 1 838 Lord Melbourne took the first steps in the direction of Disestablishment by doing as intimated above, viz., converting the tithes into a rent-charge or land-tax, payable first of all by the landlords. This, however, while it removed the obnoxious method of collecting the tithes did not afford absolute satisfaction to the people. In most cases the landlords seized the opportunity of raising the rents so as to cover the sum which the government had determined should be paid by the landlord to the rector. Catholic landlords, were especially embittered because they were now made tithe-proctors of a Church they hated and condemned. Still, on the whole, the bitterness was mitigated, and the tithes continued to be paid in an indirect, instead of a direct way. But the sting of an ■§5 Unaccepted Church system still remained fixed with venom in Irish life. In the Parish Church that was neat and tidy, the parson and clerk with occasionally a listener or two met to worship, while in some hovel near, hundreds of eager Catholics took part in the weekly devotions. Condition of Catholic Places of Worship. j\Ir. GoDKiN quoting from waitings of Mmisters of the Protestant Church, says, "While the penal laws were in force, the Roman Catholic Clergy were obliged to administer spiritual consolation to their flocks rather according to their temporary convenience than any systematic plan. No places of public worship were permitted, and the clergyman moved his altar, books and everything necessary for the celebration of his religious rites from house to house, among such of his flock as were enabled in this way to support an itinerant domestic Chaplain, while for the poorer part some ivaste house or stable in a remote or retired situation was selected, and here the service was silently and secretly performed, unobserved by the public eye." As years rolled on, and the spirit of toleration grew, the secrecy was removed, but still the Catholics were unable to maintain a dominant Protestantism and also erect commodious places for their own form of worship. This was ever to them a cause of extreme rancour and enmity. Mr. Godkin says, *' appeals were made to the British Legislature on behalf of the Irish Catholics, and made in vain, which I verily believe would have melted the stern fanaticism of Turks if made by Greeks." In the Report on Public Instruction, evidence of the religious needs of Catholics were sworn to on oath. An M.P., Mr. D. Browne stated that on festivals, such as i86 Christmas or Easter, he had seen from lo to 15 times as many people kneeling outside on the road, as the Chapel could contain. Colonel Carey, the Agent to the Duke of Devonshire, said, " That the places of worship on his Grace's property were very wretched thatched Chapels, so irregular in the line of their roof that they looked like several cabins joined together." The Parish Priest of Skibbereen stated that he had a Chapel which was so decayed that it was in danger of tumbling down upon the people. It could not hold half the number of persons who attended the services each Sunday, and therefore, Mr. Collins said, " you may see them in severe weather under the pelting of storms, with their hats off, kneeling in the mud." The Earl of Kingston corroborated this testimony, saying, " There is not room for one-third of the congregation. Anybody travelling through Ireland on a Sunday will see them kneeling all about the Chapel yards and in the streets. They have no means to build. The Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, Dr. , Kelly, did much to raise voluntary contributions for the erection of suitable places of worship, but he stated before the Com- mission "that there were in the Archdiocese 15 or 18 slated Chapels, and 8 or 10 in progress; the remainder of 106 places of worship were wretched thatched cabins, none of them sufficiently capacious to contain the con- gregation, and in many places the public prayers were celebrated in the open air, having no covering but the canopy of heaven." Refusal of Governments to help the Catholics. Many private individuals among the Protestant Churches were ashamed of this condition of things and i87 aided the Catholics, but the Government refused to vote " one shilling " for the building of Churches for the poor and oppressed Catholics. When William Pitt secured the passing of the Act of Union, it was understood that he would immediately do something to remedy this grievance, but when he suggested a State provision for the Catholic Priesthood, and the emancipation of Irish Catholics, the King and the Tories crushed it out of life. And during the century, while hundreds of thousands were ** voted from the Imperial Exchequer for the purposes of the Established Church, and in particular of the erection of ^Protestant Churches, the Parliament persistently refused to aid the Catholics. A rich Protestant Church, with comparatively few worshippers, already endowed and supported by tithes and confiscated estates, was further aided by large grants, while " the sons of peasants were left kneeling in the mud, under the canopy of heaven, exposed to rain and storm. "f Government Grants to the Church of THE Rich. From 1 79 1 to 1803 the Board of First Fruits granted to the wealthy Church of the minority viz. : the Protestants the sum of ;^5oo in 88 cases ; making a total of / 44,000. During the same period for Clergymen's Houses they granted ;^ioo in 116 cases ; making a total of ;^i 1,600. From a Parliamentary return ordered in 1826, it appears that since the Act of Union the following amounts had been voted by Parliament up to that date : — Gifts for Building Churches /^Z2^,g^6 Loans ,, ,, ;^286,572 so that there was a total of ^511,538 for building + Godkin, " Land War," p. 536. Protestant Churches in 25 years. But that is not all. During the same period Gifts were made for Glebes . . ;!f6i,484 Gifts for buildingGlebe Houses/^144,734 Loans for the same purpose -jf 222, 291 making a total for Glebes and Glebe Houses of /'428,509. Thus between the years 1791 and 1826 the establishment obtained for Churches and Glebes /^94o,047. Is there any wonder that while the parishes were helped so liberally that the Bishops when they died were able to leave large fortunes to their children, and bring them into the ranks of the Aristocracy. Twenty Bishops left a personality of /'86i,868, or ^43,093 on an average for each Bishop. In 1831 a Census of Ireland showed that the inhabi- tants numbered 7,767,400. It was estimated that of these the Protestants numbered 800,000, while nearly 7,000,000 were Roman Catholics. For the 800,000 people the Protestant Church provided 4 Archbishops, 32 Bishops, and 1385 Benefices. The revenues of the Church amounted to ;^865,ooo per year. The tithes, chiefly contributed by Catholics were of the annual value of /^62o,ooo. Some of the Bishops received large amounts. The Bishop of Derry had/ 12,000 a year. The benefices ranged from £\o to /^2,8oo per annum. Rectors, in whose parishes there were ten or twelve Protestants, including the family at the rectory took as much as ^800 or ^1,000 as annual stipend, besides profits arising from glebe lands and Church Cess. The measures of 1833 reformed some of these things, but the great evil remained that the Catholics were compelled to support a Church which they believed to be associated with a tyrannous and foreign yoke. In the year 1871 the gross income of two Archbishops and ten Bishops amounted to ;^58,03i — the total income of the Church reached /^6 13, 984 — while the actual members of the Church reached only 668,000, as compared with a Roman Catholic population of 4,140,000. But in spite of all the representations of the Irish Party, the English Parliament time after time refused to believe that there was in Ireland any earnestness on the question, or any real grievance. It is only a sentimenta grievance they said ! Men who talk like this forget that nations have feelings as well as individuals, and when the spirit of a nation is aggrieved and she believes herself to be oppressed, the injustice that oppresses make the apparently sentimental grievance a real one. But men in England, like the ostrich that buries its head in the sand, could see no danger. It was a fools paradise in which many lived ; but there came a rude awakening. Mr. Gladstone and the Clerkenwell Explosion. The Fenian movement, and at last the dread Clerken- well explosion, came as a hideous surprise to many in the nation, and showed the deep hatred of the Irish people, and their desperate determination no longer to be content to live under this gigantic spoliation and wrong carried out in the supposed interests of religion. Mr. Gladstone saw this, and finding that now at last the people of England were aroused, stepped forth to proclaim with loud and commanding voice the principle that should guide English Government in Ireland. Tories have persistently misrepresented Mr. Gladstone's references to the Clerkenwell explosion. They have obstinately refused to see the meaning of the speech, when it has been explicitly explained. If they did not so repeatedly announce themselves as the Educated Party we should igo fancy that plain etymological meanings were beyond the grasp of their mind. But are they not honourable men ? Of course ! For was not Lord Nelson an honourable man when he put the telescope to his blind eye ? None are so blind as those who will not see. The black owlet of Coleridge's Poem dropped his heavy fringed eyelid and said I cannot see the light. It would be a wonder if any- one could see who resolutely shut his eyes. The Tories have declared that Mr. Gladstone, by speaking of the Clerkenwell explosion, offered a premium to violent des- peradoes to secure political notoriety by crime and violence. He did nothing of the sort, but simply pointed to what was a fact, viz., that Englishmen had refused to believe in the reality of an Irish grievance, and were careless in investigating it until the Clerkenwell explosion and the riots in Manchester came to startle them into a belief in its reality. And now that the nation was aroused, he saw a Statesman's golden opportunity for relaxing the oppressive bonds that fettered religious life in Ireland. Sydney Smith, more than 60 years ago, expressed his opinion as to the need of earnest agitation in order to secure Irish reforms by saying, ** The mild and the long- suffering may suffer for ever in this world. If the Catholics had stood with their hands before them simpering at the Earls of Liverpool and the Lords Bathurst of the time, they would not have been emancipated until the year of our Lord four thousand. As long as the patient will suffer the cruel will kick." In quoting this, I must not be understood as approving of the Clerkenwell explosion and the Fenian movement, but as simply calling attention to the wisdom of Mr. Gladstone's action, in seizing the moment for reforming the Church, when the Irish people, acting on the advice of Sydney Smith, had refused any 191 longer to lie still under the infliction of so great an injustice. Sir Robert Peel and the Irish Church. In 1828 Sir Robert Peel said ** The Protestant Constitution in Church and State must be maintained at all hazards and at any means ; the maintenance of it is a question of principle, and every concession or compromise is the sacrifice of principle to a low and vulgar expediency. This is easily said, but how is Ireland to be governed ? How is the Protestant Constitution in Church and State to be maintained in that part of the Empire ? Again, I anticipate the reply. By the overwhelming sense of people of Great Britian, by the application, if necessary, of physical force for the maintenance of authority, by the employment of the organized strength of government, the police and the military to enforce obedience to the law." Here was the modern imitation of Uzzah supporting the ark with vengeance. But in 1868 the greater disciple of Sir Robert Peel, advancing with the increased charity and enlightenment of 19th Century civilization, presented to the House of Commons his famous resolutions in favour of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. In spite of Gathorne Hardy's defiant opposition. Lord Stanley's temporising delay, and Mr. Disraeli's ostentatious imitation of James Fitz-James — Mr. Gladstone was triumphant in the encounter. The Government appealed to the country, and were defeated at the polls, and Mr. Gladstone stepped into place and power amid the enthusiastic hurrahs of a nation bent on reforming a grave and hoary injustice. In his bill, Mr. Gladstone, like a true and living son of the Church, tried to make the change felt as little as possible to the Protestant Bishops and Curates. Vested interests were safeguarded — the Constitution of the Church was carefully drawn up, so as to avoid future difficulty or schism, and a large surplus of money was set apart for the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering. Speeches of Mr. Bright and Mr. Lowe. The Speeches of Mr. Bright, and Mr. Lowe, were among the brightest features of the debate. Mr. Gladstone had pointed out that with the surplus of money, provision might be made for those who suffered from various afflictions, and that institutions for the blind, deaf, and dumb might be sustained as well as reformatories, homes for the training of nurses, and county infirmaries. Mr. Bright emphasized this purpose of Mr. Gladstone's. He pointed out how much better the money would be spent in sustaining these institutions, than in maintaining a clergy three times more numerous than the requirements of the population. He said, with an outburst of the truest eloquence — *' We can do but little it is true. We cannot re-illumine the extinguished lamp of reason ; we cannot make the deaf to hear ; we cannot make the dumb to speak ; it is not given to us From the thick film to purge the visual ray, And on the sightless eyeballs pour the day : but at least we can lessen the load of affliction, and we can make life more tolerable for vast numbers who suffer." Mr. Robert Lowe — now Lord Sherbrooke — excelled even his most brilliant orations in the magnificence of his attack on this religious despotism. He said " The Irish Church is founded on injustice ; it is founded on the dominant rights of the few over the many, and shall not stand. You call it a Missionary Church — if so, its mission is unfulfilled. As a Missionary Church it has failed 193 utterly. Like some exotic brought from a far country with infinite pains and useless trouble, it is kept alive in an ungrateful climate, and an uncongenial soil. The curse of barrenness is upon it ; it has no leaves, it bears no blossoms, it yields no fruit. Cut it down — why cumbereth it the ground." How THE Money was divided. The gross value of the Irish Church property was estimated at sixteen millions — of this sum five millions went to the incumbents. yf 1,700,000 was given as compensation to curates, a^d certain of the laity. /^5 00,000 went to remunerate men and churches for the loss of private endowments. The grant that had been made to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, and Regium Donum, or gift of King Charles II. to the Presbyterians of Ulster swallowed up ;^i,25o,ooo. The rest ^7,000,000 was reserved to be applied to the relief of those who suffered from calamities referred to in Mr. Bright's speech. Only a few years later a large portion of of the amount was lent to Irish landlords to aid them, one per cent, being charged for the loan, after they had had the money for two years without percentage. The Bluster of Orangeism. Of course the wildest excitement prevailed in Ulster. The defenders of privilege and class, and of a protected religion were furious. One said it was a national sin ; another called upon the Queen to jeopardise her crown rather than see the Church of God destroyed. In Exeter Hall, Mr. Gladstone was stigmatised as a traitor to his Queen, his country, and his God. One minister of religion called the Cabinet a " Cabinet of brigands." Another christened Mr. Gladstone "Judas Iscariot Gladstone." But it was all senseless frothing at the lips of disappointed men. Nobody seemed any the worse for it. Everybody seemed the better, the kifuriated clergymen cast the bile out, and were relieved, while Mr. Gladstone was the more endeared to the people, because of the noble way in which he had raceived the unreasoning attacks. The Church was not injured, but was vastly improved. She was left free to do her spiritual work without being handicapped by her connection with an intolerant and oppressive system. Her coffers were stj^ll full, and her ministers were still well paid ; and the Irish Catholics were able to rejoice that now no stupendous and frOwning ecclesiasticism buttressed by force, overtopped the national life, or over- shadowed ttiat free religious equality, that ought to be the birthright of every child of God, in every land under the sun. Another Reforai. Scarcely a year passed away after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, before Mr. Gladstone again stepped forward to grapple with another huge abuse. The Tories were again maddened by anger and the Public Halls rang with the clamour of men who have ever supported land- lordism and the wealthier classes in their conflict with the strengthening Democracy. To these, Mr. Gladstone was now like Herod, who, when he had killed James, the brother of John, with the sword, proceeded further to take Peter also ; " He has destroyed the National Church ! " they cried, " and now he aims at destroying the absolute rights of landlords." How they longed for the palmy days of Palmerston, and wished that his voice could ring from tha halls of the dead, and emphasize his assertion 1!hat '^* TenanJt right is la»dlord -^ong." 195 The Irish Land System. I have already referred to the large agricultural interests of Ireland, and to the fact that by the crippling of the Irish manufactures, the people had been thrown upon the land for a living. There was nothing else for them to do. Their choice was between emigration, obtaining a bit of land for cultivation, and death. Patriotism and love of nationality appealed against emigration, and all the love of life found in human nature protested against death, so they clung tenaciously to the land as their only means of salvation from expatriation or death. And yet their hold upon the land was feeble and precarious. They had no security for improvements except in the case of those who lived in Ulster, and there what was called Tenant Right, was a provincial custom and not a statute-law. They had no compensation for disturbance, no certainty of tenure, no guarantee of per- manency in their holdings, however much they improved them. They lived from hand to mouth, afraid to improve their land, or build neat cottages, or make the present ones tidy and respectable in appearance, lest the landlord should take his premium on the improvements by increas- ing the rent. The more labour and money a tenant put into the soil, the more it was endeared to him, and yet the more he was in the power of the landlord and his middlemen, who were able to secure a rack-rent by the threat of eviction. The holders of the farms were merely tenants-at-will, and were liable to be dispossessed at any time, at the mere whim of the landlord or his agent. A rascally landlord was able to raise a tenant's rent £/\. per annum, because the tenant at his own expense, had removed the old thatched roof of his house, and put a slated one on. It was thought by this expenditure that he 196 was doing so well on the farm that he could afford to pay more rent. The rents were taxes on industry and enter- prise. The middlemen acting between the landlords and the tenants were often placed in great difficulty. The landlord, absentee as he was, spent his money out of the country where it was raised. At times he wanted larger sums for the luxuries of London and the Continent, and for the extravagances of his sons and daughters, and so the middleman, by putting the screw on the tenant, had to raise more money, or else incur the obloquy of his employers. Some of the landlords themselves were in debt, and were feeling the screw of Jewish money-lenders, and they were " between the devil and the deep sea." Money they must have to save foreclosure and bankruptcy and it mattered not who suffered or starved, so long as the landlords were able to keep up a respectable appearance. The farms were exploited and the tenants starved to satisfy the rapacity and greed of money-lenders. Shakespeare represents Brutus, as being far ahead of the so called Christian Landlords of Ireland, for he says : — " By heaven ! — I would rather coin my heart And drop my blood for drachmas than to wring From the hard hands of peasants their vile trash, By any indirection." Freedom of Contract in Ireland. People have said, why did not the tenants refuse to pay, and leave their holdings ? Was there not freedom of contract ? Of course there was freedom of contract, similar to that which exists between a starving man and the only baker in the town, or, to that which exists between thirsty travellers in a wilderness and the possessor of the only well. The question, "why did not the tenants leave 197 their farms ? " is the outcome of the crassest ignorance of the subject. Their very life, and the lives of their children depended upon their staying. If they left what could they do for a living ? The labour market was overstocked, there was no capital in the country for manufacturing purposes* The only alternative was emigration or death, unless they threw themselves into the already crowded unions of the land. Besides, they had all their little capital invested there in the soil and buildings, and to leave would be to re-commence life without capital, with the burden of years resting upon their shoulders, their strength diminished, to pass into tke condition of a mere labourer in a foreign land. Many of them did this, and thousands of the emigrants soon found graves in other soil. The privations of the people were terrible, their food scanty and poor, and the money sent to them by friends and relatives in America and Australia went to make up the rent. I am persuaded that many of the landlords if they had seen the misery and despair of the people would have relented, but they were far from the heart-rendering scenes, and they preferred the bliss of ignorance to the anguish which must have come to them, had they gazed upon the wan faces and stunted limbs of the Irish children. The land was held at the mercy of an absentee landlord class, who could evict, and thereby pass a sentence of perpetual poverty or of death upon men, women, and children, whose wails never reached their oppressors amid the music of Parisian operas, or the chink of the dice in the hell of the Monte Carlo gambling saloons. Influence of the Land System on Irish Character. The system itself tended to degrade the Irish character, and it bred laziness and a condition of living 198 not far removed from starvation. The system was wrongly grounded. One writer says, that when he was in Ireland he had a passion for flower gardens and clean yards, and said to one of the tenants — why don't you clear away these dry heaps, and plant flowers to climb up the walls of your houses ? ** Begor Sir," was the reply **if I make the place so nate as that, the agynt will say I am able to pay more rint."* The Devon Commission of 1843 condemned the Penal Code, the Confiscations of Elizabeth and James I., and the wars of Cromwell for the influence they had exerted on the landed property of Ireland, and for the restrictions necessitated by them. The Commissioners felt that even the measures of 1771, 1777, 1782, and 1793, by which the stringent laws aff"ecting Roman Catholics were relaxed had been passed in the interests of the landlords, who had found that confining the land to Protestant tenants did not pay. I cannot deal with all the features of the land system in this small pamphlet. They may be studied by the English Student with great advan- tage in larger works. Some things should, however, be noted. The ** lease for a life " by which one life held the land, might have been good, had the land been held as in England where the landlord feels the influence of public opinion, and where he makes the improvements on the soil. But in Ireland, when the tenant died, and his son desired the farm, an additional price was placed upon it, and as the father's legacy to his children was chiefly the improvements he had secured in his land, when his son objected to pay and left the holding, he lost all hold of his father's legacy also. At one time one-seventh of the land of Ireland was held under this provision. * A. M. Sullivan, Young Ireland, 199 Ulster Ten^nt-righT|. The tetiant-right of Ulster was a very old custom. Public bodies, such as some of the London Companies, and individuals who held large tracts of land, let out portions to tenants who took the entire responsibility and paid to the landlord a specified sum. The tenant as in the other provinces made all the improvements, but was allowed freedom in management, and was able to obtain from his successor in the farm a sum of money which was paid a?s remuneration for what had been expended in the land, and also as a purchase of the good-will of the farm. This was the first instalment of the joint-proprietorship in the soil, which was one of the main principles of Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1870. Sums equal to i o or 1 5 years purchase were at times given in Ulster for the tenant-right. The districts where it prevailed flourished, while other districts declined where it was not in vogue. One great reason, therefore, of the difference in the appearance of Ulster farms and those in other parts is to be found in the difference of the land system that prevailed. Landlords resolutely refused for years to allow the customs of the Ulster tenants to be extended to the people of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. Mr. Justin McCarthy says, that '' offering land for hire in Ireland was like offering money on loan to needy spendthrifts: any terms would be snatched at by the desperate borrower of to-day, no matter what was to happen to-morrow. When the tenant had got hold of his piece of land, he had no idea of cultivating it to the best of his strength and opportunities. Why should he ? The moment his holding begun to show a better appearance, that moment he might look to having his rent raised, or to being turned out in favour of some other competitor who offered higher terms for occupation. Why should he improve ? Wherever he was turned out of the land he would have to leave his improvements for the benefit of the new comer. He was therefore content to scratch the soil instead of cultivating it. He extracted all he could from it in his short day. He lived from hand to mouth, from hour to hour."* If the tenant became a labourer, he had to submit to receive wages, which were often 6d. a day, and at times less even than that. In addition, the employment was only occasional and uncertain. To sustain life, potatoes were an absolute necessity, and yet the wages of these labourers were insufficient to secure a full supply of this watery diet, and there were 2,235,000 persons who were out of work or in distress for 30 out of the 52 weeks every year. It became a necessity of existence that some- thing should be done to eke out the miserable wages received in Ireland. In 1835, the Commission reported that in Ireland there were 1,131,000 agricultural labourers whose average earnings were only from 2/- to 2/6 a week. The Devon Commission in 1845 suggested remedies for this lamentable state of things, but as Mr. Gladstone pointed out in his speech in introducing the Land Bill of 1870, a quarter of a century had elapsed and the terrible blots remained a disgrace to English government and a cause of misery to the Irish people. Commissions are miserable and useless things, unless their findings are em- bodied in wise and remedial legislation. The Law and Private Contracts. When Mr. Gladstone came forward with his remedy, the Tories cried out '* The law has no right to interfere * History of our own times. with private contracts ! " That it was a startling invasion on what were considered to be the rights of property is true. But so was the Encumbered Estates Act of 1849, which interfered with the possessions of landlords in what were considered to be the more pressing and legitimate claims of the Community. But when men claimed that it was beyond the province of the Legislature to overpower the claims of landlordism, they were treading on unsafe ground. Their opposition made many persons enquire " how have the rights of landlordism been established ; have they been the outgrowth of native customs and original rights ; are they indigenous to the soil, or have they been planted there by a later hand ? " Research into the history of the Irish race proved that landlordism was not a native product, and that the rights and claims of Irish landlords were not established by traditional usage, but were the outcome of spoliation and confiscation, and were the gifts of the Legislature, and of the Monarchs after the conquest of the island. People saw that landlordismjn Ireland was the creature of law, and of authority acting in the place of law ; that it was opposed to the native clan system, and that it had been imposed upon the people by the power of the few against the will of the many inheriting the island. They saw, too, that it had been made dependent upon feudal conditions of military service and military support which were not carried out by the owners of the soil. The more the question was considered, the more fully the foreign character and the injustice of the institution were recognised and many people cried loudly ** that what the law had made unjustly the law could unmake with justice." It was not until 1850 that the English people began to read these things in their true light, and to wake up to the enormity of the evil that was 202 impoverishing and injuring the sister-isle, and now that 2 years had passed, they were prepared to support Mr. Gladstone in his endeavour to remedy this grievance. It was then that the English people began to see that the landlord had let land to a tenant, and then when he had spent the best years of his life in reclaiming it, and the improved land represented so much brain and muscle, and strength, and years of vigour, that the landlord had stepped in and appropriated to himself the tenant's improvements, and turned the tenant out with spent forces and bent frame to grapple with the difficulties of life afresh. Berkeley said that landlords were " vultures with iron bowels," and Mr. GoLDWiN Smith has declared that '*in the days of Elizabeth the eagles took wing for the Spanish main, and the vultures settled down on Ireland." The term vultures has commended itself to these gentlemen as typical of the character of Irish landlords, but I am persuaded that many of them are more truly represented by the vampires who, in fabled story, are said to suck the blood from the veins of living victims, for these men in Ireland drained from their living channels, health, strength, and life itself, and left the poor aged tenants portionless and feeble to face an un- sympathetic world, and pass from the roads and fields to the workhouse and the grave. And what is the worse feature of the case is that many English gentlemen who went to Ireland honestly intending to benefit the people, became infected with the poisonous influence of Irish landlordism. It seemed as though, like Lot, among the people of Sodom, they had caught the vices of the class with which they identified themselves, or like those who looked into the eyes of Medusa, the Gorgon, they had lost their human characteristics, and had becorae transformed into stony, unfeeling beings. 203 Disraeli and the Irish Question. Discussing, on i6th February, 1844, some of the eternal coercive *' remedies," Mr. Disraeli said : — " He wished to see a pubHc man come forward and say what the Irish question was. Let them consider Ireland as they would any other country similarly circumstanced. They had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien Church, and the weakest executive in the world. This was the Irish question. Gentlemen would say at once on reading of a country in such a position, the remedy is revolution — not the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. But the connection with England prevented revolution. Therefore England was logically in the position of being the cause of all the misery of Ireland. What, then, was the duty of an English Minister ? To effect by his policy all the changes which a revolution would do by force ! "^* But Mr. Disraeli did little to remedy these evils, and it was not until 1868 and 1870 that Mr. Gladstone saw the possibility of successfully applying his axe to the upas tree. There is a story told which suggests the method of English legislators. An Irish Priest once asked a milk- man who admitted that he filled his pail occasionally from the pump, " how do you know, Michael, when to stop watering ? Begorra — your reverence, was the reply, we go on watering till the customers cry out agin it." As long as Irishmen refused to cry out in the shape of disorder and crime, as we have seen, English Statesmen only hawked legislation which was diluted to the weakest point. Until Mr. Gladstone took the question in hand, Whigs and Tories were nearly on a level in the matter, and the only difference is stated in the humorous language of Daniel * Hansard, Ser. hi., vol. Ixxii. p. 1016, 204 O'Connell — "A Whig Government, Sir, is like Paddy's old hat, thrust into a broken pane. It is true it doesn't let in much light, but at any rate it keeps out the cowld."* The Land Act of 1870. Mr. Gladstone had laid his ruthless hand on the sacred ark of the Church which had so long been the possession of Tories and their children who were dedicated to an easy and indolent life, and now he stretched forth his hand on the still more sacred ark of landlordism which had always been the favourite heirloom of the educated party of privilege and caste. But Mr. Gladstone saw that the system was wrongly based, that the foundation was insecure in policy and morality. And so he proceeded to present a list of principles that should guide English Statesmen of the future in their treatment of the land question, and to meet the present crisis, he gave effect in his Land Bill to the principles he had enunciated. The Law Superior to Landlordism. The complete and unfettered right of a landlord over his property was overthrown. There was an assertion, that just as the law was superior to an ecclesiastical establishment, so it was above landlordism. There was a recognition, too, of the partial rights of a tenant in the land he tilled. Mr. Gladstone's bill acknowledged to some extent, a partnership of tenant and landlord in land cultivated or reclaimed. Just as a tenant must not injure the property of a landlord, neither must the landlord filch the property of the tenant. It was a great revolution and it denied the doctrine of absolute and irresponsible owner- ship. It asserted the right of the State to control the landlord interest, as well as the interest of the Manufac- * Mr. A- M. §ulliv^n. Young Ireland, . 205 turers of the realm. It threw upon the landlord the burden of proving his right to evict. The Ulster Tenant Right was made a legal institution. Compensation for Improvements. If any tenant were disturbed, the bill provided that the improvements belonged to him, and not to the landlord, as heretofore, unless the landlord proved they had been made at his expense, and that he could therefore refuse compensation. The right of the tenants to compensation for improvements not proved to belong to the landlords was asserted. But the burden of proof lay with the landlords instead of the tenants, and a special institution was arranged to carry out the provisions of the bill. Mr. Justin McCarthy says " It allowed the tribunals thus instituted to take into consideration not merely the strict legal conditions of each case, but also any circumstances that might affect the claim of the tenant as a matter of equity. Mr. Gladstone's great object was to bring about a state of things by virtue of which a tenant should not be dispossessed of his holding so long as he continued to. pay his rent, and should in any case be entitled to full compensation for any substantial improvements which his energy or his capital had effected." How hard the work was, seemed to be known to Mr. Gladstone, and he desired to give to the tenant the value of his toil. Of American virgin soil "t has been said, that it needed only " to be tickled with a spade, to laugh into a harvest," but in the stony soil of the mountain farms, much hard work and expenditure were needed to make it produce even a moderate supply of potatoes and market produce. The cry of the people of Ireland had been for fixity of tenure, and Mr. Gladstone hoped to secure this. The sequel has shown how futile 2o6 were his efforts to thwart and make sympathetic the land- lords of the day. Tory Opposition to the Land Bill. But moderate as were the provisions of the bill, the Tories opposed it tooth and nail, and the men who now are pointing to the Act as a great revolution in Irish landlordism, and as one of the finest efforts ever made to exalt a fallen and poor peasantry, were the men who toned down the measure as far as they could, and placed all possible difficulties in its path. But the rare genius and lofty spirit of Mr. Gladstone triumphed, and the main features of the bill were passed into law. Defects in the Land Bill. The bill was a great one, though it was not perfect. It was, however, as complete as it could be made at the time. Still, it had many defects, which have become more palpable now that the nation has reached an advanced position on the question, and now that we have increased enlightenment on the character of Irish landlords, and the workings . of Irish landlordism. It fettered the action of the tenant in draining, road-making, quarrying, turf-cutting, and the making of water-courses, and it provided that in case he violated these strict details, eviction should not be deemed a disturbance. Compensation was restricted in a large number of cases, and there was not sufficient provision for compensating those who were evicted in consequence of not paying a rack-rent. *' Freedom of contract " was still upheld, but when bad harvests and falling prices prevented the tenants from paying the rent enforced upon them, their improve- ments were confiscated, and became by law the spoil of the landlord. But in spite of defects, the bill was a startling 207 interference with the supposed rights of landlords, and was to some small extent a restitution to the occupiers and tenants of the rights of which they had been despoiled. ^ It gave definite form to the assertion that property had its duties, as well as it rights, and it declared that one of the duties of those who possessed property was to recognise the rights of tenants. In spite of Mr. Disraeli's attempt to challenge and defeat the main principles of the bHl it was carried, and on August ist, 1870, it received the royal assent. Some of the Irish party opposed the bill in its ultimate form, and were denounced as paid agitators who did not want their country pacified. The eleven members who voted against it were abused by both parties in Parliament, and yet experience has shown that their action was wise, and that their objections founded on the assertion that the bill was not sufficiently broad to meet the case, were forceful and true. Mr. T. M. Healy, however, has said " the bill was as much as Parliament at the the time would allow Mr. Gladstone to grant," and the leader of the Liberal Party had therefore again shown his knowledge of political movements in the national life, by giving statesmanlike effect to the utmost desiae of the country. But the result in Ireland was as the Irish party had predicted. Increase of Evictions. " What happened ? As plainly foretold by them, the Land Act of 1870 worked little benefit to the Irish occupier. Evicticms actually increased ! In the three years before its passing, the ejectments on notice to quit were 4,253 ; in the three subsequent years, they reached 5,641, showing an increase of 1,388. In the next three years they were 8,439 ! These figures represent only the capricious evictions, aad do not incilude ejectment for 208 non-payment of rent or non-title. While it recognized the grievous wrong done to the victim of a capricious eviction, the Act left full power to perpetrate what it thus admitted to be unjust. It still left the tenant at the mercy of the cupidity, the malice, or the whim of his landlord. Instead of giving security of tenure, it gave the County Court Judge, at his discretion, the power of imposing on the evicting landlord a limited pecuniary fine. In other words, as has been well said, it gave the homeless, and perhaps penniless tenant, "the right to a law-suit." While it carefully fixed a maximum on the amount of com- pensation which could be awarded to a tenant for disturbance by the landlord, it left to a judge — too often a landlord himself — an absolute discretion as to what amount under that limit he might choose to award."*' ''Since 1880 the landlords have been prevented from evicting with such ease as before that date ; but even within the last five years they have, nevertheless, turned out of their homes no less than 22,429 families, or 1 12,026 persons. Those families were evicted for non- payment of exorbitant rack-rents, and a large number of them have been partly sustained for years out of the funds of the Irish Land League and the Irish National League. Cruel evictions are still going on in almost every part of Ireland."! Failure of the Act to Grapple with Rack-Renting. Mr. A. J. Balfour, M.P., Chief Secretary for Ireland under Lord Salisbury's Premiership, in a letter written December 8th, 1887, says: — ** The law as to com- * a Word for Ireland— Mr. T. M. Healy. f Pamphlet on Irish Landlordism. 209 pensation for improvements is contained in the fourth section of the Land Act of 1870. Under that section a tenant on quitting his holding whether in consequence of an ejectment or for non-payment of rent, or by his own voluntary surrender, or for any other cause whatever, is entitled to full compensation for improvements, and the Court in making its award is governed solely by the value of the improvements. If the ejectment has been for non-payment of rent the landlord is of course entitled to set off the rent in arrear, so far as it goes, against the sum awarded for compensation." Precisely, and that is the greatest defect of the bill. It did not grapple with rack- renting. It allowed landlords to raise the rents, and to threaten the tenants with eviction unless the iniquitous demands were complied with. Mr. Healy says : — " The fatal imperfection in the Act of 1870, however, was that, in the vital matter of rack-renting, it provided no remedy. Landlords could still continue to rob their tenantry as freely as before. That "silent system" of rent-raising, which has choked the Irish Court of Bankruptcy with tenant-farmers, could flourish as malignantly as ever. It afforded no protection when a grasping proprietor demanded an increase under a threat of eviction. Before the farmer could derive any benefit from the " protective " clauses of the Act, he must have left his holding for ever. And to the struggling tenant, who for long years had been paying a rack-rent, the protection was a mockery. The impossible rent broke him down, and the fact that he was evicted for non-payment of it, alone excluded any claim for compensation for disturbance, while the paltry sum which might be awarded him for improvements was but a poor viaticum to face the world upon. Non-payment of one year's rent defeated the right to compensation for 210 disturbance, though under the scale provided in sec. 3, compensation amounting to several years' rent might otherwise be awarded."** Protection to the rack-rented tenant was a sham. Impossible rents still left him helpless in the hands of hard taskmasters. To make bricks without straw was not more difficult and slavish to the Israelite of old than to pay a rent raised to a sum larger than the land could bear, was difficult, and indeed impossible, to the Irish tenant. The small amount allowed in the case of improvements made by evicted tenants, especially when the rent owing was deducted from it, was no real compensation for the loss of the home, where the tenant had reared his children, and of the land into which he had put the strength of his early manhood. Then if he owed more than a year's rent, as Mr. Healy shows, he could not claim compensation for disturbance. Are the Landlords to be " Hoisted with their OWN Petard " ? Perhaps one of the most obnoxious clauses is that contained in section 4 of the bill, where the judge is directed to " take into consideration the time during which such tenant" may have enjoyed the advantage of such improvements," in *' reduction of the claim of the tenant." This clause, imported into the bill in the interests of the landlords, admits a principle which I fancy the representatives of their class will not be prepared strenuously to support when they are paid out and dismissed by the Irish people. It will materially reduce the cost of the land to the nation if the time when the landlords have enjoyed the advantages of rents raised on * A Word for Ireland, p. 3. 211 tenants' improvements, and rack-rents raised on land still unimproved, be considered "in reduction of the claim" of the landlord. When the State disturbs the landlords, I opine that those who hold briefs for them will not insist upon the principle for which they demanded recognition when the bill for the relief of the Irish tenantry was passed in 1870. The Land Courts themselves did not secure the confidence of the Irish people, and their impartiality was much doubted. Law in Ireland had ever in the experience of the men appointed to adjudicate in the Land Courts, favoured the landlords, and it must have been very difficult for them to overcome prejudices and conceptions of law founded on long-standing customs. Some of their decisions ' seemed to be based on the principle of giving the tenants as little compensation as possible. Different standards of compensation were set up in the various Courts, and it was admitted by chairmen of the Courts that they had never given the maximum compensation allowed by the Act. The Bessborough Commission of 1880 discovered many of the defects of the bill, and of the administration of the Courts appointed for making the bill operative. The Irish leaders were desirous of supplementing the bill by other measures for securing additional relief to the tenants, and from 1871 to 1880, no fewer than 31 measures have been rejected by Parliament, or have been withdrawn in consequence of the strong opposition brought against them. Mr. Gladstone's measure was well conceived, but he could not foresee the difficulties likely to arise, and the magnitude to which those difficulties grew. Penalties of Wrong-doing. The Irish peasants of America, forced there by the 212 land laws prevailing in Ireland, in company with other emigrants, many of whom were compelled by petty tyrannies to leave English villages, tilled the productive soil of the Far West so effectually as to be able to send an abundance of produce by the cheap water carriage to Liverpool to compete with English producers. As a result of this prices fell, and the English and Irish landlords and farmers have suffered from the competition of the United States. Had these landlords treated the people with greater kindness and less haughty self- assertion of superiority, how much of the competition of America would have been delayed, and how much longer the financial gains of the landlord interest would have been maintained ? But this is a subject for the moralist and speculatist ! Failure of Harvests. In addition to the competition referred to, a bad harvest in 1877 was succeeded by a poor harvest in 1878, and a worse one in 1879, and in the last-named year, the potato crop was almost an absolute failure. The crop of 1876 was worth over ;^i 2,000,000, but in 1877 it sunk to ;^5, 000,000. In 1878 there was a slight improvement, and the value of the crop rose to the sum of ^7,000,000; while in 1879, it fell to the extremely low sum of only a little ^3,000,000. And this in a country where the population so largely depended for their daily food on the supply of potatoes. What stands out in grim and dark outline is the conduct of the landlords in these years of privation ! In proportion to the badness of the harvests evictions increased. In 1876 they were 1269 n 1877 „ „ 1323 213 In 1878 they were 1749 „ 1879 „ „ 2667 Further than this, in consequence of a defective harvest in England another source of revenue was cut off from the cottiers of Connaught, who usually came to England to supplement by wages earned here, the money gained on their own soil, and without which they could not pay the landlord. It was estimated by Dr. Hancock, the Irish official statistician, in February, 1880, that the loss of the Connaught harvest men in 1879 from the failure of English wages alone was ;/^ 250,000. The landlords and their allies refused to believe in the reality of the distress. They made out that it was only a pretence to avoid payment of rent. Mr. Lowther's Sagacity. The London papers made light of the matter, and Mr. James Lowther, the Irish Chief Secretary, had nothing but sarcasm and jibe for the Irish leaders, declaring that the assemblies of those who met to protest against the high-handed exactions of the landlords, and to appeal to the Government, were simply anti-rent gatherings. He said, " With reference to the state of affairs in certain parts of the West of Ireland, brought about by what is known as the anti-rent movement, the Government is fully alive to the necessity of dealing promptly with it. Colonel Bruce, Deputy Inspector- General of Constabulary has been despatched on a special mission to the districts concerned. His duty will be to consult with the resident magistrates and the local constabulary, and report to the Government as to what additional police force and special police stations may be required to enable full protection to be afforded to all 214 persons in the exercise of their legal rights. Special police protection will be afforded to process-servers or others requiring it. Considerable reinforcements are being drafted into these districts, and it has being notified to the inhabitants that in the event of any attempt at outrage, the cost of these measures will be levied off the neigh- bourhood in which it occurs." — Hansard, ser. hi. vol. ccxlvii. p. 433.*' At last the authorities of Dublin Castle began to yield, and in the end Relief Acts, a Seed Act, and ultimately a Disturbance Bill were either formulated or passed. In 1 88 1 Mr. Parnell and Mr. John Dillon sent over from the United States contributions amounting to _;^70,ooo, of which ;^5o,ooo was directly spent in charity. The Irish emigrants had become tired of contributing money to keep up landlordism, while they had afterwards to provide for their evicted relatives, and now they sent their contributions partly to relieve distress and partly to provide machinery for wresting justice by constitutional methods from the unwilling hands of dominant English Statesmen. The Lord Mayor of Dublin started a fund in the Mansion House, and during the year distributed in seed and food / 181,000, a great part of which came from Australia! f The New York Herald alone raised ;^5o,ooo; the Canadian Government sent a large grant, and at length the " Castle " itself was driven to make official acknow- ledgment of the famine which its mouthpieces so long denied. This took the shape of a letter from the Duchess of Marlborough, the wife of the Lord Lieutenant, appeal- ing for help in The Times (which resulted in /^i 35,000 being administered in charity from Dublin Castle) ; and * Quoted by Mr. T. M. Healy — A Word, for Ireland, p. 123. fHealy, p. 126. 215 then the Government, when Parliament met two months later, was moved to pass a comical Relief Act, which resulted in the Irish landlords being allowed to borrow out of the Irish Church Surplus / 1,100,000, This money was lent without interest for two years, and afterwards bore only one per cent., and was ostensibly granted to enable employment to be given by the proprietors in im- proving their estates. The measure of course was a flagrant job, and brought little benefit to any deserving person, while the most serious allegations have been made as to the manner in which the bulk of the money was spent.^ But even then Mr. Lowther was not satisfied that the land laws were wrong. Nothing could disturb his immaculate self-complacency. Everyone else who spoke on the subject was ignorant or selfish, he alone remained the one infallible authority on Irish questions. To the appeals of the Irish members to cure these disastrous famines by an alteration of the land laws, he replied : — '* The hon. member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) spoke of the extension to the whole of Ireland of what is commonly known as the Ulster tenant custom, and he says that on a former occasion I spoke of that suggestion of his as pure, undiluted communism. That, sir, is a statement I did make, and which I am quite ready to repeat now. . . • Much has been said of the present state of the land laws, but I have no hesitation in saying that they have nothing to do with the present state of Ireland." The "Daily Telegraph's" Investigation. Mr Healy has done good service by quoting in his book, letters that appeared in the Daily Telegraph under * Healy. 2l6 the heading of " The Distressful Country." The Special correspondent of this prominent Tory paper, wrote : — "The cabins of the peasantry seemed to be about the very worst dwelHngs for human beings I had ever viewed. I noted that many of the cottages I passed boasted no windows, that they all had mud floors, and most of them mud walls ; that many were insufficiently thatched ; nearly all were shared by the family pig, as well as by the family children ; that in the majority of cases a very slough of mud faced the door, and that the utmost misery of appear- ance characterised every dwelling. I have been in many lands and have seen many so-called oppressed people at home, but I declare that neither in the Russian steppes, nor in the most neglected Bulgarian villages, still less in the very poorest Hindoo hamlets, have I ever seen such squalid kraals as the farmers of this part of Mayo inhabit. Here they are not hidden away from public view, but front the high road — a dreadful testimony to mismanagement and uncleanness, such as can be met with nowhere else. An officer of one of Her Majesty's regiments, who lately served with honour in Zululand, declared to me that not even in the worst parts of Cetewayo's dominions did he come across anything so bad as here ; and I am inclined to believe that he was not exaggerating in the slightest." . Writing of the rents of Western tenants, the same gentleman said : — '* Their rents seem immoderately high, taking the Poor-law valuation as a standard. John Grady, for example, occupies land valued at £■}, los. and pays £,^\ while Tom Ball has a still smaller holding rated at 30s., for which he pays ^^5 and taxes. It is manifestly impos- sible that these men can make a living off" poor land so heavily burdisned — land brought under cultivation by themselves or their predecessors, without the owner 217 stirring a finger or investing a sixpence in its improvement. The rent, in point of fact, had to be made up by labour in England, and it is just this state of things which should be borne in mind by people who are disposed to complain of the Irish tenant's revolt. His life is often one of slavery for the benefit of the men who own the soil of a country where agriculture is the only industry." Report of Mansion House Committee. In the vivid report officially addressed to the Dublin Mansion House Relief Committee on the condition of the North Mayo peasantry in 1880, pp. 11- 13, and 34-35, Mr. J. A. Fox says : — " I have taken the precaution of seeing with my own eyes many of the recipients of relief in their miserable hovels, which, so far as I have yet observed, are a shocking reproach to the civilization of the nineteenth century ... I do not believe that tongue, or pen, how- ever eloquent, could truly depict the awful destitution of some of these hovels. The children are often nearly naked. Bedding there is none, everything of that kind having long since gone to the pawn-office, as proved to me by numerous tickets placed in my hands for inspection in well nigh every hovel. A layer of old straw, covered by the dirty sacks which conveyed the seed potatoes and artificial manure in the spring, is the sole provision of thousands— with this exception, that little babies sleeping in wooden boxes are occasionally indulged with a bit of thin, old flannel stitched on to the sacking. Men, women and children sleep under a roof and within walls dripping with wet, while the floor is saturated with damp, not uncommonly oozing out of it in little pools. In one case I asked a gaunt, starved looking man, whom I found literally endeavouring to sleep away the hunger, where his little children slept, when he pointed to a cotner in the moist room, in which I could see no sign of bedding. * Do they wear their clothes at night?' 'No.' 'How then do they keep warm ?' 'There is,' he replied, in the most amazing simplicity and composure, 'a deal of warmth in children,' signifying that they obtained warmth by huddling together like little animals. This occurred at Carrycastle. ... I invariably found them on the occasion of my visit crouching around the semblance of a fire lighted on the open hearth. And this at midsummer, showing how terribly low must be the vitality among them. ... It was only when I was accompanied by a Catholic priest I could get an insight into the appalling want. Alone, some of the most destitute tried to screen from me the poverty of their truckle beds, upon which the straw was often so thin that I could touch the bare boards with my hand. These received me with a dull, passive surprise, wondering what might be the object of my curiosity in so wretched a country. And even the priest himself had occasionally to use no little persuasion to overcome this modest feeling, by assuring them that I was present in the capacity of a friend. Everywhere the condition of the children was otherwise dreadful, besides, there being for them nothing but the indian-meal, badly cooked, to live upon, and the parents only too glad if the charitable funds provided the family with half enough even of that. Sometimes there was a miserable cow about the premises — for in every case I am referring to the class of small farmers, mostly residing on three to five acres of land, which in North Mayo is generally found to be reclaimed bog or mountain slope ; and this cow was supplying milk, principally gratis, to a small number of children other than the owner's, to mix with the indian- 419 meal. Occasionally people appealed privately to my companion on no account to cut off the charitable supplies from the possessor of the cow, seldom worth more than few pounds, and just then unsaleable in any market, as the animal was the hope of so many little ones. At other times cooked cabbage, without a morsel of condiment save salt, was found where there was no meal, and in some instances one was found mixed with the other. But in numerous cases there was neither milk, meal, nor cabbage about the premises, and in those I gave some temporary relief to fill up the interval till the next general distribution of the local committee. Sometimes even charity itself had failed, and the mother of the tender young family was found absent, begging for the loan of some indian-meal from other recipients of charitable relief — the father being almost in every instance away in England labouring to make out some provision for the coming winter. Yet in the most destitute cases hardly a word of complaint was uttered on the subject, it being a habit with, if not the nature of, the Mayo peasant sub- missively to ascribe his lot in the times of scarcity as well as plenty to the ' will of Providence.' We visited more than thirty hovels of the poor, principally in the townlands of Culmore and Cashel, in which I beheld scenes of wretchedness and misery wholly indescribable. In some of those hovels evicted families had lately taken refuge, so that the overcrowding added to the other horrors of the situation. In one hovel, in the townland of Cashel, we found a little child three years old — one of a family of six, apparently very ill, with no person more competent to watch it than an idiot sister of eighteen, while the mother was absent begging committee relief, the father being in England ; in another, an aged mother, also very ill, lying 210 alone and unattended, with nothing to eat save long- cooked indian-meal, which she was unable to swallow ; in another, in the townland of Culmore, there were four young children, one of whom was in a desperate condition for want of its natural food — milk — without which it was no longer capable of eating the indian-meal stirabout, or even retaining anything whatever on its stomach." Gereral Gordon's Verdict. In the south of Ireland things were little better, and the late General Gordon, the hero of Khartoum, writing from Roche's Hotel, Glengariff, County Cork, in Novem- ber, 1880 (published in The Times) said: — "I must say, from all accounts and from my own observation, that the state of our fellow-countrymen in the parts I have named is worse than that of any people in the world, let alone Europe. I believe that these people are made as we are — that they are patient beyond belief, loyal, but at the same time broken-spirited and desperate, living on the verge of starvation in places which we would not keep our cattle. The Bulgarians, Anatolians, Chinese, and Indians are better off than many of them are. ... I am not well off, but I would offer Lord [Bantry] or his agent [Mr. J. W. Payne, J. P.] /^i,ooo if either of them would live one week in one of these poor devil's places, and feed as these people do."* The Servant Girls of America Taxed. The Irish in America, exiled from their homes and native soil, denuded themselves of comforts, and freely sent their hard-earned wages to relieve the victims of the landlords' injustices. While the gentry, who had exploited * Quoted by Mr. T. M. Healy, pp. 116-120. 221 the country, did comparatively little for the struggling, starving peasantry, the ** servant-girls of New York," and the thrifty toilers on the distant farms, sent through bankers alone, in addition to the money sent in other ways, the returns of which were ordered to be printed by Parliament, viz. : — In 1848 .. /^46o,i8o „ 1849 .. /^540,6i9 „ 1850 .. /957>o87 „ 1851 .. /^99o,8ii It has been estimated that remittances since 1852 have amounted to no less than ^2,000,000 a-year. This has been chiefly the Irish landlord tax on the people of the United States and the colonies. Lord Dufferin has given some very interesting statistics.* He states that between 1848 and 1864, the Irish emigrants sent back to Ireland more than ;^ 13,000,000. Sergeant Heron, Q.C., has supplemented this state- ment in a paper read before the Statistical Society in 1862. He asserts that a sum equal to one-fourteenth of the rental of Ireland is annually received from foreign charita- ble persons. From 1851 to 1861 ;^ii,ooo,ooo were sent in charity to Ireland from North America, by the emi- grants. In 1852 Ireland received a larger sum in charity from America than was realized by the profits of the trade of exporting horned cattle to England. Growth of Mr. Parnell's Influence. In March of 1880, Lord Beaconsfield dissolved Parliament and issued his letter to the Duke of Marl- borough — the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland — which attracted so much notice from friends and opponents. The Irish * " Irish Emigration and Tenure of L^nd in Ireland," page 3. 222 representatives were without an accredited leader. On the death of Mr. Isaac Butt, the founder of the Home Rule Party, Mr. Shaw acted as sessional Chairman, and was looked upon generally as the authorised leader. It was, however, apparent to those who understood the inner workings of the national life, that Mr. Shaw's policy was too timorous and hesitating to secure that enthusiastic following which was necessary to success. Close observers saw that Mr. Shaw's influence was rapidly becoming over- topped by the greater power and courage of a member of the Party who, though a landlord and a Protestant, was to the finger-tips a patriot and a Statesman. Gradually this was recognised, and it was further seen that his policy was more in harmony with the desires of the population than the rival plans of Mr. Shaw- Mr. Butt had felt the mastery of this cooler and clearer mind, and had called a Confer- ence to strengthen his own position as a leader in dealing with this strong member of the Party. But Mr. Parnell, the member in question, came out of the struggle with flying colours. In 1877, the English Home Rule Confederation had shown their appreciation of the position by deposing Mr. Butt from the Presidency and appointing Mr. Parnell to the position. Now, in 1880, in the City Hall in Dublin, Mr. Parnell was appointed leader of the Party and Mr. Shaw vacated his position as sessional chairman. When the elections were over it was found that the Tory policy had been repudiated by the nation, and Mr. Gladstone was once more Premier of England. Mr. Forster's Secretaryship. Seeing the gravity of the situation in Ireland, he, in conjunction with Mr, W, E. Forster, M.P. 223 for Bradford, introduced a Relief Act to deal with the temporary needs of the people. Mr. Forster had been appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland, with a seat in the Cabinet, and those who knew his sympathy with Ireland, and his great work in the cause of education, predicted much benefit to the two countries as the result of his work. It is surprising to note that many who now laud his statesmanship then denounced and defeated his far-seeing and beneficient plans. To stave off evictions, until Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill could be passed, Mr. Forster introduced what was practically Mr. Parnell's previous measure for the suspension of evictions, viz., '* The Compensation for Disturbance " Bill. \ The Tories and Compensation. But the Tories opposed this, and thwarted the beneficent purpose of Mr. Forster. Foot to foot their leaders fought him and his measures in the House of Commons, and though the Government succeeded in securing a majority in that house, yet the permanent Tory majority in the gilded chamber of the peers, shutting their ears to the cries of the evicted in Ireland and to the deniands of the preponderating electorate that had returned Mr. Gladstone to power, contemptuously threw out Mr. Forster's bill. How much the Tories are to blame for the subsequent failure of Mr. Forster's Secretaryship, to settle the grievances of the Irish people, and for the clouding of his last days, their own consciences and judgments must tell them in their calmer hours ! The country continued to be despoiled, and, sad to say, depraved characters, instigated by the notorious and diabolical James Carey, attempted to destroy the life of the man, who in spite of the defects of his administration, 224 loved Ireland and the Irish people, and who from the day when he climbed mountain and forded river fighting the famine and saving the people, was ever anxious to do what he could to rescue Ireland from its misery and poverty. Let no tongue revile the dead. If Mr. Forster is to be blamed for the error of attributing to Irish Statesmen the guilt which belonged to a few murderous and deluded men, at least let him be freed from the stigma which rests upon the system of administering law in Ireland, and which the Tories in the Houses of Commons and Lords refused to alter. Mr. Forstek. and Mr. Balfour Compared. If Mr. Forster had lived a little longer, he would have found that even in the estimation of the men who opposed him, and had been imprisoned during his term of office, that he occupied a position of respect as compared with Mr. A. J. Balfour. One of the most prominent of the leaders of the Irish nation, in my hearing, said, * Though I fought against Forster and his adminis- tration of the law, I could not think hardly of him. I always felt that he had a warm heart.' Roused to anger, his philippics in the House of Commons stung and withered, but they were preferable to the cool insolence and studied contempt of the defender of philosophic doubt, who from the height of his fancied superiority looks down indifferently upon the representatives of the Irish people. Mr. Balfour's coldheartedness is apparent to all. The Bill of Mr. Forster's which the Tories rejected was only intended to remain in force for a year, and it applied only to such districts as were scheduled under the head of *' distressed " in the Relief Act. The defects of the Land Act of 1870 were to be temporarily 225 remedied until a more detailed and permanent bill could be prepared. In the ''distressed" districts the bill provided that the tenants who could show the County Courts that the non-payment of their rent was due to the existing distress were to be allowed compensation for improvements and disturbance, on condition that these exceeded in value the amount of rent owing. It really was to prevent the landlord from confiscating the tenant's goodwill and improvements, when, in consequence of distress in the district, he was unpunctual in paying his year's rent. If this bill had been passed, evictions would have been stopped in most places during the existence of the distress, and the country would have been kept quiet until the tranquilising policy of Mr. Gladstone could have found expression in his Land Act. But the House of Lords defied justice, humanity, and the expressed wishes of the people's representatives by a vote of 282 to 51. The Lords threw out a bill for lessening tenants' costs in cases of eviction, although the Commons had passed the bill, and then they further rejected a bill for assimilating in Ireland and England the laws for the registration of voters. The cry of the Tories for equal laws in the two countries was shown to be but a deceptive cuckoo-cry by the action of the most prominent and decorated orna- ments of the Party. Land Act of 1881. I cannot deal with the details of the question from that time to the present. Mr. Gladstone's Land Act was passed in 1881, and was intended to further complete the great work done in 1870. The landlords had had eleven years of grace given to them, and instead of endeavouring to establish harmonious and confidential relations between 226 themselves and their tenants they had used the time to further their own interests. Now, Land Courts were estabHshed and Commissioners were appointed to fix fair rents, and so the principle of interfering with the landlord to secure justice to the tenant was further developed. The Healy Clause. One of the most important sections of the Land Bill of 1 88 1 is what is called the Healv Clause. By this clause the benefits of the bill were to apply retrospectively. It provides that "no rent shall be allowed or made payable in any proceedings under this Act in respect of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, and for which, in the opinion of the court, the tenant or his predecessors in title shall not have been paid or otherwise corapensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title." The feeling of landlords in relation to this is expressed in the declaration of Lord Lifford, who objected to it because he thought its "effects went back to Adam." But the clause was passed. In the discussion, Mr. Parnell suggested that this clause should be strengthened by an additional resolution, but the Govern- ment thought it was not necessary. Mr. Gladstone said, on August 9th : — " I am obliged to decline the proposed addition of the words of the hon. member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) on this ground. In the Act of 1870 we did in respect to the tenant recognise the principle that he might be compensated by a reasonable lapse of time in respect of improvements he had made We do not recognize that principle in the present Act. . . . It is much better that those who make the improvements should have the whole benefits of the improvements." 227 On August loth : — ** The doctrine accepted at the time of the Land Act of 1870, and which he certainly decHned to accept the night before, was the doctrine that the enjoyment by the tenant for a certain time of his own improvements might have reimbursed him for the cost of these improvements, and by a natural process they passed over to the landlord. . . . The tenant's improvements were the tenant's own property, and he would not admit the principle that the time during which he enjoyed those was any reason for their passing away from him." On August 15th: — 'Tt was nothing short of impossible that the court should imagine or adjudge that to be com- pensation by the landlord which had never cost the landlord in any shape, in money or money's worth, a single farthing. Consequently the Government could not accede to the amendment.* Mr. Healy complains very bitterly of the Land Com- missions for making his clause of little effect. He expected that the clause would save millions to the tenants. The tenants themselves regarded this clause as of great value, but the Court of Appeal ruled — in the case of Adams z^. Dunseath — ist. That enjoyment of im- provements made before the Land Act of 1870 was a compensation for them, i.e., that they practically became the landlord's by process of time ; 2nd. That the im- provability of the soil belongs to the landlord ; and 3rd, That the improvements to come within the protection of the Act must be suitable to the holding, i.e., that if the tenant built thereon a corn-mill or a mansion he might be rack-rented for those unsuitable structures without mercy. The late Lord Chancellor Law dissented from these findings, and declared that they did not harmonize with * Quoted by Mr. Healy, p. 134— A Word for Ireland. 228 the intentions of the Government, and were not the correct interpretation of the law ; and as he had been the Attorney-General in the House of Commons during the progress of the bill, I take it that he knew the mind and intention of Mr. Gladstone respecting it. The Land Courts were speedily blocked by a large number of applicants, and when in several cases the rents were greatly reduced, the landlords in many instances made arrangements with the tenants instead of coming into Court. As a rule the reductions amount to at least 20 per cent, on the rental. The reductions out of Court amounted in some instances to 23 per cent. ; and in Court in the case of Lord Arran of over 30 per cent., Lord Ashbrooke 36 per cent., Jones Burne nearly 33 per cent. Some of the worst landlords dare not face the Courts, and others made up for the reduction of rent by imposing prices on the peat that the tenants had usually cut free of cost from the bogs. Landlord Mercies in Achill. "Many of the wretched cottiers of Achill, who were too poor to fee lawyers to conduct their cases before the Sub- Commissioners, were forced to surrender their " fair rents," and pay a higher amount, in consequence of a threat by the landlord to appeal and subject them to further law costs, which they could not pay. On the 20th November, 1885, the special correspondent of ihe Freeman' s Journal (Mr. Michael MacDonough), who visited the island to report on the distress, stated that in some places the natives, who use seaweed for manure, " brought huge stones from the mountain tops down to the seashore, in several cases many miles distant, and thence transported them in boats a long way out to sea, where they were 229 deposited. In course of time the stones become covered with seaweed, and the crop thus produced is collected by the tenants every year. These stones are called * carrigeens,' and on some of the properties of the island a yearly rate is charged for their use, although it cannot be denied — nor is it attempted to be denied — by the land- lords that the tenants alone underwent the trouble and expense of putting them in position."* An extreme case, but one by no means a solitary one, illustrating the way in which the Land Act frequently fails to do justice, is that of a poor widow living near Kilkee* on the West Coast of Co. Clare, the particulars of which are as follows : — " This woman, and her husband before her, had for 30 years paid a rent of about £11 for eleven acres of very poor land. She took her case into the Land Court and the rent was reduced to £$- Yet the landlord, in vengeance, evicted her for £ig arrears of the old rack-rent, leaving her at once both homeless and penniless. So that, taking the judicial rent of £s as a sample, or basis, of fair rent, the landlord had taken in 30 years 30 times £6, or say ;^i8o (less £ig arrears due) over and above what the Court declared to be a just rent ; in other words, the fee-simple had been paid for by the tenant more than one and a half times (/'160 is over one and a half times twenty years' purchase of ;^5), and yet the landlord evicted the tenant without any compensation, thus legally robbing her, under the Land Act, of ^160, or counting interest, of more than ^200." f Mr. Gladstone's bill was an honest attempt to meet a huge grievance. The unprecedented fall of prices, the exclusion of 120,000 leaseholders, however, prevented it ♦ T. M. Healy. t Pamphlet by Mr, E. Harvey. 230 from being that complete settlement that was aimed at. 'Tis not in mortals to command success, but Mr. Gladstone's courage deserved it. He saw the great blot of the system in vogue and tried to remove it, and this he did in a fear- less and statesmanlike way. But the cost to the tenants has often been very great, and it has been declared that up to the present time the total cost of working the Act has been greater than the entire sum granted in annual reductions since it became law. Sir James Cairo's Views. Sir James Caird {The Times, 20th March, 1886) shows the chief reason for the failure of the Act : — ** The land in Ireland is held by two distinct classes of tenants — the small farmers who pay rent from £,\ to £^0, and the comparatively large farmers who pay rent from ^20 upwards. Of the first class there are 538,000 holdings, averaging ^6 each ; of the second class, 121,000 holdings, averaging £1^ each. The rent payable by the first class is /^3, 572, 000, and by the second class ;^b,845,ooo. Five-sixths of the Irish tenants thus pay about one-third of the total rental, and one-sixth pay nearly two-thirds. ... If the present price of agricultural produce continue, I should fear that from the land held by the large body of poor farmers in Ireland any economical rent has for the present disappeared." Upon this The Times, after describing Sir James Caird as a man "whose authority on agricultural questions is universally recognized," declared : — " It is not too much to say that the rental of the 538,000 holdings is practically irrecoverable by anybody, whether landlord, English Government, or Irish Government." Whereupon the Pall Ma'l Gazette exclaimed : — " Nothing that Mr. Parnell in his worst momenta ever said approaches in gravity to this momentous declaration. For the doctrine of no rent for holders under £zo is now formally advanced on the authority of the leading English economist and endorsed by the chief advocates of the Irish landlords. Here is ' prarie value ' with a vengeance. . . . The conclusions of the Land League are now endorsed — as far as five-sixths of the Irish holdings go — by Sir James Caird and The Times'"^ Irish Education. After the Land Bill of 1870 had been passed, Mr. Gladstone's Government devoted itself to the settlement of vexed questions in England, and a series of beneficial reforms were promptly inaugurated. But in 1873 Mr. Gladstone essayed the herculean feat of attempting to settle the question of University Education in Ireland. In the Royal Speech it was announced that the measure would have for its object "the advancement of learning" in Ireland, and would " be framed with a careful regard to the rights of conscience." The critical questions at issue in the education of the people of Ireland are too large for this small work, for the subject shows that the conflicts between the various sectarians of Ireland were severe and prolonged. Schools in Ireland had been founded and endowed for the sole purpose of educating children in the Protestant faith, and of alienating the children of Roman Catholics from the religion of their fathers. Erasmus Smith's Schools, endowed by lands confiscated during the Cromwellian Era, were of this class. Roman Catholics * (Quoted by Mr, T. M, Healy. 232 were excluded; and of 105 schools in 1880, there were in Connaught 2, in Munster 14, in Leinster 31, and in Ulster 58. Sixteen private schools, with a revenue of /"1700 a year and owning upwards of 4000 acres of land, educated less than 300 children. The schools of Primate Boulter established in 1730 were afterwards secured by a royal charter, and ultimately in 181 1 received a Parliamentary grant of ^^40,000. The proceeds of a tax on hawkers and pedlars is said to have been given to this work, besides endowments and the king's bounty, so that many of the schools had a yearly income of over ;£"2ooo. These schools are declared to have been erected in order to educate the children of Catholics in the Protestant religion. When this purpose failed, they were changed from day schools into boarding schools; and Howard, the prison philanthropist, said to a Committee of the House of Commons in 1785 that the children were "sickly, pale, and miserable objects, and were a disgrace to all Society, and that their reading had been neglected for the purpose of making them work for their masters." It was further reported that among these children there is no form or shade of conceivable vice that did not abound in these infamous proselytising institutes ! The great fault of Irish education has ever been the attempt to train the children in the interests of rival religious sects. Even when Mr. Stanley — the late Earl Derby — instituted in 1831 a reform of education, and established a Board of National Education, the religious sects could not tear themselves away from the old system of proselytism. Religious instruction was allowed at fixed hours, and under the sham of teaching common Christian principles each Protestant and Catholic rivalled the other in advocating simply their own distinctive tenets. 233 Between 1847 and 1867 the District Model Schools were erected, but half of them were in Ulster, a fourth in Leinster, while Munster had only five and Connaught two. So unequal and unjust was the distribution. The Roman Catholics lost confidence in the system. Indeed the more the subject is considered, the more it must be seen to be unfair to the Roman Catholics in offending |^"eir religious ideas, and ultimately of making them the^,opponents of undenominational secular education. The religious differ- ences that had been fostered by centuries of religious bigotry and injustice, and that had been intensified by the efforts of English Governors to buttress a dominant minority, interfered with the success of Sir Robert Peel's scheme for international education by means of Queen's Colleges. The Catholics, deeply religious, distrusted it, while Sir R. H. Inglis, as the spokesman of the Protestant and Tory combination called it a ** gigantic scheme of god- less education." The "Maynooth" grant to Catholics suggested by Lord Fitzwilliam in 1795, and inaugurated by the erection of a Roman Catholic College under the tutelage of the Marquis of Camden did not clear away the difficulties. The Marquis stated that a wise foundation had been laid for educating the Roman Catholic Clergy at home, instead of on the Continent. Mr. Gladstone's Aim. It was made almost purely a clerical seminary contrary to the original intention. This was unfortunate, as it shut out many children of catholic gentlemen. After the Union the grant in its favour was reduced one half. The sum, however, was variable, and Peel endeavoured to secure for it improved management and an adequate grant of £zb,i^o a year. This grant was commuted in 1868 for a 234 sum of ;^372,33i. In 1873 Mr. Gladstone aimed at consolidating the Universities and excluding subjects that bore a religious complexion as far as possible. The new University was to have no chairs " for theology, moral philosophy, or modern history." The scheme was well designed and elaborated, but it seemed at last to be rejected by each party for whose benefit it was designed. The choruii of approbation that greeted its introduction was changed in storms of denunciation. The bill was rejected. Since then the difficulties have still obstructed the path of free sectarian education. In 1878^1,000,000 was granted for intermediate education, and in 1885 the Educational endowments of Ireland were re-organised, and an attempt made to carry out the spirit and intentions of the founders of the various educational institutions. But the work has been tedious and slow, and Englishmen have not yet been able to undo the wrongs of the past, or sweep away the suspicion that centuries of class education have engendered. The legacy of moral wrong is still unpaid, and in Ireland there exists to-day the remains of a sad mistrust that free and secular education would contribute either to godlessness and vice, or to the secret dissemination of sectarian dogma. The nation has become more educated, but the strides would doubtless be all the greater if education were undenominational, and nothing would give greater confidence to the English electorate than the freeing of the Schools of Ireland from all clerical control, either Catholic or Protestant. But in this as in other national matters, the Irish people have a right to decide for themselves. Experience will show them what to do to secure for the children of their land the same freedom and growth that are being realised in the educational life of the boys and girls in England, 235 Of Mr. Gladstone's effort in 1873, Mr. J. McCarthy says that it " was a gallant and well meant effort to reconcile the conflicting claims." .... " The great minister had failed. Like the hero of Schiller's ballad, the brave swimmer had plunged once too often, to bring out a prize, and he perished.''* Before referring to Mr. Gladstone's latest bills for dealing with Irish land and Irish self-government, a few things must be noted in Irish history. In 1874 the return of a Conservative majority was also attended by the return of 51 Home Rulers. Modern Irish History took a new departure. The Times newspaper in 1875 said of Ireland that "at no period of her history did she appear more tranquil, more free from serious crime, more prosperous and contented. And yet the Peace Preservation Act^ which was a measure of Coercion passed to grapple with Fenianism was renewed for five years. The Land League. The Irish Land League then came to birth under the progenitorship of Mr. Michael Davitt. The nation had sufiered a succession of bad harvests, and the potato crops of 1877, 1^7^ ^^^ 1879, as previously pointed out were of the most scanty character. The average produc- tion of potatoes for the ten years ending 1878 was 60,752,918 cwts., but in 1879 it fell to only 22,273,520. And evictions increased. Large bodies of police, paid out of the rates drawn from those who objected to the work these police were sent to do, carried out evictions and starving tenants were cast out on the hard highway. Mr. W. E. FORSTER declared that the country felt strongly the injustices which were being perpetrated. When his bill =** liistory of our pwn tiines, ^36 for compensation for disturbance was thrown out the people of Ireland felt that something must be done by themselves to save the lives of the poorest of the tenantry. Boycotting, intimidation and repressive measures were resorted to in many districts. Lord R. Churchill, the son of the late viceroy, then in the days of Juvenile effrontery and omniscience declared that the Irish question was " all bosh." 4 Cost of Police Protection. Seven thousand men were employed to keep the peace in County Mayo. Their very presence was a stand- ing menace and an incitement to secret rebellion. The cost was tremendous. Turnips saved for Captain Boycott cost the Government one shilling each. The Tories refused reforms. Sir Stafford Northcote, who became leader in the House of Commons at the elevation of Mr. Disraeli to the peerage as Lord Beaconsfield, mid that the three F's, viz. :'■ — fixity of tenure, fair rent, and free sale, were impracticable. Tke Times praised Lord Salisbury for his implacability to land-reform. The classes hurried the Government on with coercion bills, but refused all consent to ameliorative measures, except when the passing of them was necessary to the existence of a Tory Govern- ment. When Mr. Gladstone formulated the Land Bill of 1 88 1, the Peers tried in every conceivable way to oppose and curtail the measure. They wriggled their amendments into the bill, to have them again thrown out, until their impotence to injure the measure became manifest ; like Hercules of old, Mr. Gladstone was able to destroy his sinuous assailants. The session of 1882 witnessed once more the failure of coercion. Notwithstanding the suppression of the 237 Land League, and the imprisonment of the Irish leaders, coercion did not cowe the spirit of the Irish people, or prevent them from loudly demanding further reforms. On April 28th Mr. Gladstone announced the determination of the Government to promote legislation about arrears. Resignation of Mr. Forster. Lord Spencer went to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, and Mr, Forster resigned. It was currently reported that he was forced from the Cabinet chiefly through the influence of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P. for Birmingham. The Leeds Mercury and other papers, which sympathized with Mr. Forster, spake out their indignation with no reticent voice. Lord Frederick Cavendish, the firm friend of Mr. Gladstone, accepted the post of danger, and with the olive branch went over to Ireland as Chief Secretary, honestly intending to secure the truest administration to that country. A Terrible Crime. Then came the news of his terrible and deplorable assassination, and the country for a time seemed given over to a phrenzy of passion and vengeance. The assassination interrupted a remedial work. The "invinci- bles," led by James Carey, slew one of the noblest and most honoured men of the times, and Ireland was again plunged into darkness and sorrow. The leaders of the Nationalists — Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and Davitt — issued an address stating " that no act has ever been perpetrated in our country during the exciting struggles for social and political reforms of the past fifty years that has so stained the name of hospitable Ireland as this cowardly and unprovoked attack on a friendly stranger, and that until the murderers of Lord F. Cavendish and Mr. Burke (the 238 Under-Secretary) are brought to justice, the stain will sully our country's name." Mr. Parnell, in his place in the House of Commons, expressed on his own behalf and that of his party their abhorrence of the crime, and their deepest sorrow in consequence of it. Severe laws were immediately passed, and it is said that for the time Mr. Parnell despaired of his cause. The letters of Lady F. Cavendish in the hour of her great trouble, in which she deplored her husband's tragic death, and the country's unreasoning cry of revenge, are models of christian writings. When Lord Salisbury assumed office in 1885 he determined not to renew the Prevention of Crimes Act. This was one of the planks of his plat- form. Without considering the question of its bearing upon the Irish people, but consulting party exigencies and retention of office, he determined not to court defeat in the House of Commons, but to allow the Act to lapse. The Alliance of Tories and Parnellites. The Tory- Parnell ite alliance then became known. Mr. T. P. O'Connor now says, '* throughout the whole Parlia- ment of 1880 to 1885 the Tories and the Irish Party acted in close combination, except when the Government was proposing coercion. On coercion the Tories and the Parnellites parted company, for when a Liberal Government proposed coercion, it was filching a Tory policy, and naturally found Tory support." Every victory of the Tory opposition was won by aid of the Irish vote. The Irish representatives took to themselves the work of a permanent opposition to any Government that would not grant their demand for self-government. Their help carried the Tories to victory. Mr. T. P. O'Connor says :— " The new Tory Cabinet honourably and promptly fulfilled their 239 engagements to the allies who had brought them into office. Coercion was at once dropped." In addition to this, the Government of Lord Salisbury defying all the honourable traditions of Statesmen, was willing for the Maamtrasna question to be re-opened, to the detriment and condemnation, if necessary, of the late Lord Lieutenant — Earl Spencer, for his conduct in carrying out a policy of coercion, which the Tories had supported. Even Mr. Goschen was moved to condemn this combin- ation of the Tories and Parnellites — called the Maamtrasna alliances. The criticisms of Lord Randolph Churchill and others of the Tory Cabinet, in flouting the decisions of Earl Spencer in his Irish Administrations, were discreditable to them as men, and disgraceful as politicians and administrators. In 1880 The Times gave expression to the opinion of the Tories by calling the proposals of the Land League "confiscation, pure and undisguised." But in 1882 Mr. W. H. Smith proposed a resolution on behalf of the Tory Party demanding exactly the same settlement for the land question as had been demanded by the Land League in 1880. The elections of 1885 are notable for the support given by the Irish Party to the Tory Candidates. I have repeatedly heard Irishmen declare that they never voted for Tories but once, and would never do so again. But the policy of the Tories was to secure office by the aid of the Irish vote, and hopes were held out to the Irish sufficiently strong to secure their loyal adhesion to the Tory candidatures. Tory Pledges to gain places in Parliament. Mr. T. P. O'Connor says : — ''In a large number of cases either the scruples of conscience or the determination 240 to avoid any form of inconvenient pledge, induced the Tory candidate not to say one word on the Irish Question. Indeed, an examination of the Tory addresses at the election of 1885 will reveal the astonishing fact that in, if not the majority, at least almost the majority of them, there was no mention whatever of the burning question of Home Rule. This was especially the case in constituencies where, there being an Irish vote, the Tory candidate was anxious, while leaving himself unpledged, at the same time not to say anything which would estrange an Irish elector. The Houghton-le-Spring division of Durham contains a large number of Irish voters. The Irish voters had resolved to support the Tory candidate, and Colonel Nicholas Wood accordingly did not say a word about Ireland. In the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool there is a considerable Irish vote, and the Irish voters had resolved to support the Tory candidate, and Mr. Royden in return left them to draw their own conclusions as to his Irish policy by not even mentioning the name of Ireland. In other districts bolder spirits not only mentioned Ireland, but came forward with a programme which might be developed into an adoption of Home Rule. Candidate after candidate pledged himself to the support of an extension of local self-government, and an extension of local self-government is a vague term which might dwindle down to a mere extension of county government, or might be enlarged to such a scheme of Home Rule as that pro- posed by Mr. Gladstone. But this same class of candidates were still more outspoken in their denunciation of coercion ; and, indeed, it was largely on the cry of coercion and no coercion that the Tories fought the General Election of 1885. 'I would give,' said Sir Frederick Milner, the Conservative candidate for York, 241 * to the Irish every privilege which is extended to the other inhabitants of Great Britain. I am in favour of a measure for the extension of local self-government, and am of opinion that we ought to do our utmost to encourage and develop Irish industries, and to promote the welfare and happiness of her people.' * I cordially approve,' said Major Dixon, the Conservative candidate for Middlesboro', * of the conduct of the present Government in not renew- ing the Crimes Act in Ireland, and hope to see other coercive measures also abandoned ; and I shall be prepared to support any well-devised scheme for giving to Ireland a large amount of self-government.' ' At home, what do we find ! ' exclaimed Mr. Hammond, the Conservative candidate for Newcastle-on-Tyne, * Our sister kingdom — Ireland — ruled with the iron rod of coercion.' 'To Ireland,' said Mr. Gumming Macdonald, the Conservative candidate for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, ' I would continue to hold out, with the Conservative Party, the olive-branch of peace, conscious that in times past she has suffered many wrongs.' More Truckling for the Irish Vote. *' In Hyde, Manchester, the Irish electors were asked to 'vote for Flattely; no Coercion;' similar placards were posted over Leeds in the interest of Mr. Dawson, the Tory candidate. 'I have declared myself,' said Mr. Jennings, the Tory member for Stockport, when tasked in Parliament with his attitude at the November election of 1885, *in favour of a Liberal measure of local self-govern- ment for Ireland. I have expressed myself as being opposed to Coercion Bills, and such Bills I have said I never would vote for; and I never will.' The name of Mr. Jennings has since appeared in the divisions on the Coercion Bill of 242 the present Government; but that does not alter his own statement as to his attitude during the election of 1885. In one of the Metropolitan constituencies Mr. Wilfrid Blunt stood as an avowed and advanced Home Ruler, and at the same time as a member of the Tory Party. The relations between the two parties, the Irish Nationalists and the Tories, were even more intimate in private than in public. The Tory candidates paid all the expense of printing all the documents of the National League in Bolton, and the money appears in the official return of the election expenses of the Tory members. At the Flint Burghs I heard the Tory candidate speak to a meeting of Irish Nationalists after I had concluded my own speech. In North Kensington, Sir Roper Lethbridge followed his return as Tory member by paying a visit to a branch of the National League in his constituency and thanking them for his return ; in Kennington, Mr. Gent Davis, the Tory member, declared to one of his Irish electors that if he were ever to vote for coercion the Irishmen would be at liberty to break his windows." There had, however, been more important evidences of the prevalent opinion of the Tory party at this crisis. The Earl of Carnarvon had communication with Mr. Parnell, and at one time it seemed as though the Tories were about to attempt Liberal work and " dish " their opponents. Mr. T. P. O'Connor says: — ''Meantime, everybody in England acknowledged the important aid which the Irish Party had given the Tory candidates. ' Fair Trade may have deluded a few,' said Mr. Gladstone, commenting on the borough elections while speaking in Flintshire on behalf of Lord Richard Grosvenor, * as Free Trade has blessed the many, but that has not been the main cause. 243 . . . The main cause is the Irish vote.' * They ' (meaning the Tories), he wrote to the Midlothian electors, * know that but for the imperative orders, issued on their behalf by Mr. Parnell and his friends, whom they were never tired of denouncing as disloyal men, the Liberal majority of forty-eight would at this moment have been near a hundred.' ' Lancashire,' he said, in the Flintshire speech, * has returned her voice. She has spoken, but if you listen to her accents you will find that they are tinged strongly with the Irish brogue.' * We have had,' said Mr. Chamberlain, * a most unusual and extraordinary combina- tion against us, and I am inclined to describe it as the combination of the five P's, and I shall tell you what the five Fs are in the order of their importance, beginning with the least important. They are Priests, Publicans, Parsons, Parnellites, and Protectionists.' * Whatever else,' wrote the Birmingham Daily Post, 'may be the issue of the elections, or however they may benefit by the Parnellite vote. Great Britain has most unquestionably rejected the Tory Party. But for the aid of the Irish allies, their position on the present polls would have been as bad as it was in 1880, if not worse.' * But for the Nationalist vote in English and Scotch constituencies,' said the Manchester Examiner, ' the Liberals would have gone back to Parlia- ment with more than their old numbers.' Lord Randolph Churchill's Candour. " But the Irish vote had not succeeded in bringing the Tories to a position in which they would be of any service to Ireland. When the General Election was over, the numbers were: Liberals, 333 ; Conservatives (including 2 Independents), 251; Nationalists, 86. The Liberals were thus in a majority over the Conservatives of 82. If 244 the Tories got the Irish vote and were able to poll the full strength of their own party, they would have had a majority of but four over the Liberals ; and four is not a working majority. Besides, it was more than doubtful if they would have carried the whole of their own party with them on a policy of Home Rule. All or nearly all their supporters from Ireland belonged to that terrible Orange faction which has obstinately opposed every concession to the majority of the Irish nation. A certain number of the same unholy gang have been returned for English con- stituencies. There can be little doubt under these circum- stances that the proposal of Home Rule by the Tory Ministers would have led to a Tory cave which would have placed the Government in a hopeless minority, and have given them the discredit of having proposed Home Rule without the merit of having carried it. The Tory and the Irish leaders had little difficuty inl recognising that the stroke of 1885 had not succeeded. A Tory statesman who had acted throughout in a frank and manly spirit gave the word to a prominent Irish member that there was nothing more to be expected from the Tory leaders, and that the Irish Nationalists had better fix their hopes elsewhere. The situation was more frankly put to the same member by Lord Randolph Churchill. ' I have done my best for you,' he said, ' and failed ; and now, of course, I'll do my best against you.' So ended the Tory-Parnell combination." Conflict of Churches. For many years Catholicism and the influence of the Pope of Rome was a terrible bogie that prevented the Protestants from uniting with the Catholics in political work. They persistently refused to join in promoting the cause of self-government in any form in Ireland, And yet both Churches felt that something should be done to cheapen and make easier the passing of measures that were needed for the internal peace and prosperity of the country. There was, however, so little of the confidence which is ever necessary to a reliable union between the two parties, that no satisfactory amalgamation could be secured. Protestantism Reassured. When John Martin was nominated as micmber for Longford, in spite of the opposition of the priests, many leading Protestants began to see that the political power of the priests was not so great as had been supposed and feared, and that just as Catholic patriots at the time of the Spanish Armada refused to obey the behests of Rome because they interfered with patriotic devotion to their country, so the patriots of Ireland were not disposed to sink their political convictions and aims at the call of ecclesiastical functionaries. Further, the Protestants were in large numbers incensed by the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and they expressed themselves very strongly in favour of freeing their country from the Legislature which had inflicted upon them a supposed wrong. In the Act of Union the Established Church was declared to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union. In 1869, when Disestablishment was secured, the Act of Union was interfered with. The Orange Lodges and Dissolution of THE Union. In consequence of this, many of the Oranges Lodges recorded their protest, and declared that if Her Majesty sanctioned it she would forswear her Coronation Oath. 246 When it was passed, one of the members of the Grand Orange Lodge moved that now the Orangemen be not compelled to maintain the Legislative Union. A special meeting of the Grand Lodge was afterwards summoned to consider the question, and by twenty-two votes to eighteen it was resolved : — ** That all statements and provisions in the objects, rules, and formularies of the Orange Institution, which impoS^ any obligations upon its members to maintain the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, be expunged therefrom." But as the constitution of the Orange Lodges declared that no alteration could be made without a two- thirds majority the resolution was declared by Lord Innerskill, the Imperial Grand Master, to be defeated. But the fact remains that in 1869 the Grand Lodge, by an actual majority of those present, voted for expunging from its constitution the obligation to sustain the Legislative Union. The Deputy Grand Chaplain advocated not simply a dissolution of the Union, but absolute separation. He said : — " When the Protestant chain that unites Protestant England and Protestant Ireland is severed, the two countries are separated for ever ! " And he further declared that " if such a time should come as 1848, and if England looked to the Protestants for hearty sympathy with the Union, they would fold their arms ; they would say * The Union was dissolved when that B,ill wa^ signed by the Sovereign.' " And this from a loyal Orangeman. But this statement is only in harmony with much of their history. Grattan, himself a Protestant, described them as ** ferocious banditti committing atrocities in the name of God." 247 English Statesmen and the Loyalty of Orangemen. The Orange Lodges were founded in 1795 for the purpose of maintaining class injustice and religious despotism, and they have striven to carry out the work for which they were formed. From 1835 to 1839, Lords Normanby and Morpeth and Mr. Thomas Drummond endeavoured to restrain and suppress this secret organiza- tion. In 1836 Mr. Joseph Hume brought the question of their disloyalty before the House of Commons and Lord John Russell endorsed his statements. King William IV. was petitioned " to take means for the effectual dis- couragement of Orange Lodges, and generally of all political societies excluding persons of different faith, using signs and symbols, and acting by associated branches." The King's brother, who was Grand Master of the Orangemen — the Duke of Cumberland — recom- mended the societies to dissolve. But though his advice was acted upon, so disloyal and reprehensible were 1»he Orangemen regarded that the Executive treated them as incapable of holding any office of public trust, and promptly cashiered them, great and small, from the sub- constable to the Lord Lieutenant of a County.''^ It was proclaimed in public that they were agitating to alter the succession, and to place their bigoted head, the Duke of Cumberland, upon the throne. They were, however, foiled, and more than "fifty years of a good Queen's reign" have been gained by the defeat of the Orange Party. England lost Hanover to the English Crown by the Salic Law, which forbad a woman to reign there, and the Duke of Cumberland was made King of Hanover. Many English people thought that it was a cheap price to *Deane's History of Ireland. 14^ pay for the removal of this narrowminded and despotic prince. In 1832 Lord Stanley said of the Orangemen, that they *' persecuted more than others in keeping up feelings of religious animosity," and that of their loyalty as the *' bigoted partisans of an expiring faction" he entertained great doubt. Lord Palmerston asked : — ** Is it an organization which belongs to the age in which we live ? Is it not rather one that is suited to the middle ages — to those periods of society when anarchy prevailed." In 1870, however, leading Orangemen began to turn their attention to the question of self-government for their country. The various sections of politicians drew nearer together, and in 1870 a meeting took place at the Bilton Hotel in Dublin, and was attended not only by Mr. Patrick Egan, but also by the late Colonel King Harman, M.P. A Committee was formed to draw up resolutions. The complete list, recorded by Mr. A. M. Sullivan in his " New Ireland," includes the names of many prominent Orangemen. How THE Home Rule Movement commenced. It was then that Mr. Isaac Butt, an old antagonist of Daniel O'Connell's — an Irish Protestant — moved his famous resolution in favour of Home Rule, and it was carried unanimously. The Home Rule movement was therefore brought to birth at a Conference of Protestants and Catholics, and the Committee that drew up the resolution in favour of Home Rule was composed of 35 Orangemen and Protestants, and only 26 Catholics. Let those who say that the movement is a Catholic movement, and intended to secure the greater predominancy of the Papacy, ponder this fact. Mr. Butt was for some time the leader of these men, but it seemed as though his method 44^ of procedure did not secure full approval. Perhaps this was chiefly because his first object was to obtain first a further reform of the Land Laws, and Home Rule was, notwithstanding that he was elected leader of the party chiefly on this question, made subordinate to the land question, Mr. Parnell, however, saw that there was little hope of settling the difl'erences existing, and of securing that reverence for law that is necessary to national peace, until there was a central body in Ireland freely elected in which the people had confidence, and the establishment of which was a recognition of the national right and aspiration to legislate for its internal welfare. Lord Beaconsfield on a Nation's Strength. Lord Beaconsfield's famous manifesto said : *'The strength of this nation depends on the unity of feeling which should pervade the United Kingdom and its wide- spread dependencies." But where can there be unity of feeling when there is an enforced bondage, and a compulsory legislative centralisation which is not in harmony with the desires and interests of one part of the Empire, and how can unity of feeling be maintained and continued when national leaders are sneered at by Premiers and Members of the dominant Cabinet, and when they are told that the questions which they consider important are ** all bosh." Mr. Gladstone to the fore. Mr. Gladstone's mind, ever changing in the direction of greater light and freedom, and facing the rising Sun of the Democracy, saw that the only hope of contenting Ireland was to give her self-government, so he set himself to the work of drawing up an adequate scheme, and also 250 of associating with it a further reform of the land laws, that both might be presented simultaneously to Parliament. Matthew Arnold and Irish Questions. The late Mr. Matthew Arnold had foreseen the need of other reforms than those connected with the land. In 1882 he said, speaking of the land question : " The land question is the question of the moment. Liberals are fond of saying that Mr. Gladstone's concessions will remove Irish discontent. Even the Pall Mall Gazette, the most serious and clear minded of the exponents of Liberal ideas, talks sometimes as if a good Land Bill would settle everything. It will not, and it is deceiving ourselves to hope that it will. The thing is to bring Ireland to acquiesce cordially in the English connection. This can be brought about only by doing perfect justice to Ireland, not in one particular matter only, but in all the matters where she has suffered." Miss O'Brien quotes an excellent saying of Fox's : ' We ought not to legislate for a nation in whose feelings and affections, wants, and interests, opinions and prejudices we have no sympathy.' It is most true, and it is of general application."* Slain by the Landlords' Representatives. Many efforts were made to amend the Land Acts, and improve the condition of the tenantry from 1870 to 1880, but the efforts proved futile and abortive. The majority of landlords in Parliament were too powerful for the Irish representatives to overcome. The following list of dead bills — slain by the Parliament of Westminster in nine years — is given by Mr. T. M. Healy — page 113 of '*A Word for Ireland " : — * "Arnold's Essays." 251 Date. Bill. 1871 . . Landed Property Act, 1847 Amendment 1872 . . Ulster Tenant Right 1873 . . Ulster Tenant Right 1873 . . Land Act, 1870, Amend. . . 1873 .. Land Act, 1870, Amend- ment No. 2. . 1874 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1874 . . Land Act, 1870, Amend- ment No. 2. . 1874 . . Ulster Tenant Right 1874 . . Irish Land Act Extension, 1875 . . Landed Proprietors' 1875 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1876 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1876 .. Tenant Right on Expira- tion of Leases 1876 .. Land Tenure, Ireland 1877 . . Land Tenure, Ireland 1877 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1878 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1878 .. Tenant Right .. 1878 . . Tenant Right, Ulster 1878 . . Tenants' Improvements . . 1878 .. Tenants' Protection 1879 .. Ulster Tenant Right 1879 .. Ulster Tenant Right, No. 2, 1879 . . Landlord and Tenant 1879 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1879 . . Land Act, 1870, Amend- ment No. 2 . . 1880 ..fLand Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1880 . . t Ulster Tenant Right 1880 . . + Fixity of Tenure 1880 ..JLand Act, 1870, Amndmt., 1880 . . :[ Compensation for Disturb- Introduced by Sergt. Sherlock . Mr. Butt Mr. Butt Mr. Butt Mr. Heron Mr. Butt Sir J. Grey Mr. Butt The O'Donoghue Mr. Smyth Mr. Crawford . , Mr. Crawford . , Mr. Mulholland . , Mr. Butt Mr. Butt Mr. Crawford Mr. Herbert Lord A. Hill Mr. Macartney . , Mr. Martin Mr. Moore Mr. Macartney . , Lord A. Hill Mr. Herbert Mr. Taylor Mr. Downing Mr. Taylor Mr. Macartney . , Mr. Litton Mr. O'C. Power.. Fate Withdrawn Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Rejected Withdrawn Dropped Rejected Rejected Withdrawn Dropped Rjctd. Lords Withdrawn Rejected Dropped Rejected Withdrawn Dropped Dropped Rejected Dropped Dropped Rejected Dropped Mr. W. E. Forster, Rjctd. Lords + First Session. I Second Session. Mr. Gladstone's Last Land Bill. A discussion of Mr. Gladstone's last Land Bill, intro- duced in 1886, cannot now be entered upon in these pages, but an analysis of the Bill will be found on the following pages. The bill is dead. The landlords would not have it, though it was intended to give them an opportunity of reliev- ing themselves of their land in cases where they preferred to invest their money in other ways. Mr. Gladstone's financial reputation was staked on the assurance that the landlords who desired to be relieved of their estates could be paid out without any permanent loss of cash or credit to the British ratepayer. He knew that with the security offered for the regular enforcement of judicially revised rents, no other investment in accredited Government funds could be found to bring in so high a return, and that therefore those who possessed large estates would be chary in throwing away an opportunity of retaining the higher rate of interest in the shape of rent. My own conviction is that it was drawn up with too liberal a hand in the interests of the landlords, and I do not think that ever again will Mr. Gladstone or the Liberal leaders offer them such advantageous terms. I think also the country should be careful that by no species of jobbery shall the Tories deal with the landlords at the expense of either the English or Irish ratepayers. Analysis of Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill. Mr. Sydney Buxton's Analysis of the Bill is very concise and expressive : — The object of the Bill is to give to all Irish landlords the option of selling their rented agricultural lands on certain terms. The tenants have no power to force the sale ; or to prevent it if the landlord elects to sell, and is willing to accept the price fixed by the 253 Land Court. Only "immediate landlords" have the power of option ; encumbrances cannot, by foreclosing, obtain any right of sale under the Bill. The normal price is to be, under ordinary circumstances, " on a fairly well-conditioned estate," twenty years' purchase of the net rental of the estate — equal to about sixteen years' purchase of the nominal rental. If, however, the land be especially good, or the estate in an exceptionally good condition, the number of years' purchase can be increased by the Land Commission to twenty-two. On the other hand, where, in the opinion of the Commission, the land is not worth twenty years' purchase, they can fix a lower price ; or, if the land be so valueless as to make it inequitable for the State Authority to purchase, they can refuse the offer altogether. The 7iet rental of the estate is to be fixed by the Land Commis- sion, who, in order to find it, are to deduct from the gross rental — chief rent, tithe rent-charge, the average percentage (over the last ten years) of outgoings for bad debts, management, repairs, etc., and for rates and taxes paid by the landlord. In fixing the price, the Commission may take into account any circumstances or surround- ings they judge right. The gross rental of an estate is the gross rent of all the tenanted holdings on the estate, payable in the year ending November, 1885. The gross rent of a holding is the judicial rent, or, if none be fixed, then a fair rent is to be fixed by the Land Commission. Arrears of rent becoming due between November, 1885, and the date of purchase (and which the landlord has endeavoured to obtain) are to be added to the price. In the case of holdings at or under £^ annual value, if the tenant does not desire to become the freeholder, the State Authority shall become the owner, the tenant remaining liable for rent as before. It is provided, moreover, that in certain " congested districts " — to be scheduled afterwards — if the State Authority buys the land, it shall retain the ownership and not vest it in the occupiers. The whole of the rented estate, including town parks, houses, and villages, if part of the agricultural estate, but excluding the mansion, demesne land, or home farm, must go together. If, how- ever, the landlord desires, and the State Authority agrees, it can 254 buy the mansion, demesne land, and home farm. No estate, which is within the limits of a town, or is not in the main agricultural and pastoral, comes under the Act. Grazing lands of a value of over /50 a year may be excluded by the landlord from the sale, or the purchase can be refused by the State Authority. The Land Commissioners are to be appointed by name in the Act. Any vacancy is to be filled up by "Her Majesty," and the Commissioners hold office " during her pleasure." "When the price is fixed, the landlord, and the legal encum- brancers — whose position will not be affected in any way by the Act — will receive the money, and the tenant will at once become the freeholder of his holding, subject to the payment of a terminable annuity for forty-nine years, equal to 4 per cent, per annum on the capitalized value, at twenty years' purchase, of the old rent. This annuity, and the rent in the case of small holdings where the occupier remains as tenant, is to be collected by the department of the Irish Government called the State Authority ; and the surplus (equivalent to 4 per cent, per annum on the difference between tha capitalized value of the old rent and that of the redemption money) will be applied, after payment of the interest and repayment on the capital advanced by the British Treasury, to the purposes of the Irish Govenment. The State Authority will be enabled to enforce the payment of its annuities in such manner as is afterwards provided by an Act of the Irish Parliament, and until that provision is made, the present laws relating to the enforcement of payment of rent, etc., in Ireland will remain in force. During the time that the holding is subject to the annuity, the occupier may neither subdivide nor let without the consent of the State Authority. If he does, or in case of bankruptcy, the holding can be sold. The State Authority is to pay the British Treasury an annual amount equal to 4 per cent, on the capital sum advanced by the latter and received by the landlord.* * Thus, if the whole £50,000,000 be advanced, the State Authority will rec«ive £2,500,000 a year, subject to cost of collection, etc., and have to pay the British Treasury only £2,000,000. It will thus, if thought necessary or expedient, be able to grant further remission to the occupier. 255 The total liability under the Bill is limited to /50, 000,000, as follows : — ;,fio,ooo,ooo in the year ending March, 1887-8. ;^ 20,000,000 ,, ,, ,, 1888-9. /20, 000, 000 ,, ,, ,, 1889-90. The applications from the landlords will be considered in priority of time. No application can be made after March, 1890. The money advanced by the British Treasury is to be raised by the issue to the landlords of 3 per cent, stock at par. The stock is to be redeemed by the repayment of a terminable annuity for forty-nine years by the State Authority. In order to obtain security for the loan, the British Govern- ment appoint a Receiver-General, through whose hands the whole of the Irish revenues are to pass, together with the proceeds of Irish Customs and Excise; but he will have absolutely nothing to do with the levying of the revenue. After deducting from these receipts the amount due from the State Authority for interest and repayment of capital advanced, and after deducting also the Irish contributions to the Imperial charges, the balance of the receipts will be handed over to the Irish Exchequer. Assuming that the whole loan is called up, the Irish balance- sheet will then stand as follow : — Expenditure. For Imperial purposes 3,602,000 Constabulary, etc. .. 1,000,000 Collections of Customs and Excise . . . . 247,000 Annuity on loan ad- vanced for purchase 2,000,000 Irish Civil charges .. 2510,000 Collection of revenue,etc. 587,000 Collection of rent-charge and expenses, say. . 100,000 Surplus.. ., .. 804,000 /lo, 850, 000 Revenue. Customs and Excise.. 6,180,000 Stamps.. .. .. 600,000 Income Tax . . . . 550,000 Other sources revenue 1,020,000 Rent-charge . . . . 2,500,000 ;^io, 850,000 In addition, the Surplus will be increased by the economies made in the Civil Service, Constabulary, etc. 2s6 Influence of an Extended Franchise. No event has had a wider and healthier influence on the Irish question than the extension of the Franchise to Irish householders. The Tories, adopting their traditional policy, opposed the enfranchisement of the Irish Cottiers, just as they refused previously to give a vote to the labourers of the Agricultural counties. Mr. Chaplin, aided by the full blown Tories of the hunting shires, did his utmost to limit Mr. Gladstone's measure to Great Britain, and to exclude Ireland from the benefits of the Act. Mr. Goschen announced his intention to vote against the measure unless the number of representatives from Ireland was reduced. The meeting of the National Federation, held in Leeds in 1884, decided the question so far as the bulk of the Liberal Party was concerned. The Liberals, with the exception of a few old-fashioned Whigs, went solidly for enfranchisement for the three Countries ; and even the Marquis of Hartington felt compelled, in spite of opposite declarations made twelve months previously, to yield to the pressure of public opinion, and to the determined will of Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal Party. The result lifted the Irish cause to a higher level than it had ever previously reached. The spontaneous enthusiasm of the people for nationality secured a return of 86 members pledged to support Mr. Parnell in his endeavours to secure a recognition of Irish nationality in the form of self-government. It was the test question at every election, and Ireland spoke with a clear and distinct voice. The Voice of Ulster. Even Ulster — that special preserve of the Unionist Party — sent a majority of its members to emphasize ^57 the demand for Home Rule. Then came the logical result of the extension of the Franchise. To give a people political power and then to refuse to listen to them was felt by the Liberal Party to be but a burlesquing of popular representation. Mr. Stanhope, M.P., speaking for his party, announced his intention of refusing to listen to the cry of the people of Ireland, but Mr. Gladstone saw that such a course would be opposed to the traditions and practices of the country, as well as to the genius of representative government, and he clearly perceived that the old temporising policy of delay ought to be exchanged for one of confidence and a willingness to accept and to act upon facts which were proven. Representative Government counteracted by AN Arbitrary Executive. Mr. Fox in 1779 speaking of the Government of Ireland said : — " The advantages, which the form of free Government seemed to promise, have been counteracted by the influence of the Executive Government and of the British Cabinet." This is the charge that may fairly be brought against Irish Government to-day. The forces of freedom demanding self-government are met by the serried phalanx of Tory Squires, ranged on the side of restriction and coercion. Experience has shown the truth of Byron's words, that " Freedom's battle once begun, Bequeathed by bleeding sire to son, Though baffled oft, is ever won ; " and yet the clearly expressed will of Irish constituencies is arbitrarily opposed by those who have themselves accepted election to give effect to the wishes of their constituents. Fierce aad furious fanaticism has been listened to, while the agonized cries of a suffering people 458 asking for redress, and requesting to be trusted with the working of their own institutions of government, have been disregarded. Dives has been pampered and petted, the covetous Ahab has been gratified, and in spite of the denunciations of Holy Writ, those who have removed their neighbour's landmarks have been regarded as virtuous characters; while the Lazaruses, the Naboths, and the despoiled, who see in the restoration of ancient rights their only hope for the future are treated by the Tory Government as iniquitious or deluded men, who must be punished or restrained. But of what use is the Franchise, and the Ballot, and the forces of the military and police to secure election without intimidation or rioting, unless the voice of the electiors be listened to ? Better deprive Ireland of representative institutions, than mock her freedom with the travesty of trust and power. To deck her in the garb of liberty, and to place a gag in her mouth, and shackles on her hands, are to commit a further crime against her. It is to crown her with thorns, and not with the coronet of power, and to mock her with apparent and not real sovereignity. Her purple robe will be but the badge of her shame, and the sceptre of her authority will be but a pliable reed placed in manacled hands. Forcing a Man to become a Volunteer. I have heard a story of a man who was passing the end of a street where an altercation was going on. He enquired, of a woman in the crowd, what was the cause of the disturbance, and she replied "O! they are only forcing a man to become a volunteer ! " But force destroyed his voluntary action and made him a mere machine. So to nullify the eifect of the Franchise, by overpowering the 259 representatives of Ireland, and by refusing to carry out the wishes of the Irish constituencies does away with the worth of popular and free election. The democracies which are the strongest and most contented, are those which have been trusted with the power of determining their own government, and they are sustaining their own laws and the administration of them with a loyalty born of confidence and a sense of responsibility. The Home Rule Measure. It was this deference to the wishes of the Irish nation, expressed constitutionally at the polls, which induced Mr. Gladstone in 1886 to bring in his famous measure of Home Rule, amid the grateful cheers of the Irish nation, and the plaudits and encouragement of all free countries, both in the Old World and the New. The legislative Union of force and fraud, inspired by short-sightedness and selfishness, had failed. Under it, Ireland had declined, and Mr. Gladstone saw that there was but one way to restore confidence, peace and prosperity to Ireland, and that was to unite the peoples, and separate the legislatures, and to bind Ireland to England, not by martial law and coercion, but by mutual trust and good- will. His famous measures cut the Gordian knot of the difficulty and they show the genius and greatness of his mind and the nobility and courage of his heart. In the Home Rule Bill he safeguarded the interests of the Imperial Parliament, and carefully defined the measures that should not be touched by the statutory Parliament in Dublin. Digest of the Bill. Mr. Sydney Buxton has prepared a very able and lucid digest of the bill, as follows : — 26o The Bill provides for the constitution of an Irish Parliament sitting in Dublin, with the Queen as its head. The Parliament — which is to be quinquennial — is to consist of 309 members, divided into two " orders," 103 members in the " first order," and 206 in the " second order." The " first order" is to consist of such or all of the 28 Irish representative peers as choose to serve ; the remaining members to be "elective." At the end of 30 years the rights of peerage members will lapse, and the whole of the " first order " will be elective. The elective members will sit for ten years ; every five years one-half of their number will retire, but are eligible for re-election. They do not vacate their seats on a dissolution. They will be elected by constituencies subsequently to be formed. The elective member himself must possess a property qualification equivalent to an income of /200 a year. The franchise is a restricted one, the elector having to possess or occupy land of a net annual value of £z^. The " second order " is to be elected on the existing franchise, and by the existing constituencies, the representation of each being doubled. For the first Parliament, the Irish members now sitting in the House of Commons will, except such as may resign, con- stitute one-half the members of the "second order" of the new House. The two orders shall sit and deliberate together, and, under ordinary circumstances, shall vote together, the majority deciding. If, however, on any question (other than a Bill) relating to legislation, or to the regulations and rules of the House, the majority of either order demand a separate vote, a separate vote of each order shall be taken. If the decision of the two orders be different, the matter shall be decided in the negative. The Lord-Lieutenant has power given him to arrange for the procedure at the first sitting, the election of Speaker, and other minor matters for carrying the Act into effect. If a Bill, or any part of a Bill, is lost by the disagreement of the two orders voting separately, the matter in dispute shall be con- sidered as vetoed, or lost, for a period of three years, or until the 26l next dissolution of the Legislative Body, if longer than three years. After that time, if the question be again raised, and the Bill or provision be adopted by the second order and negatived by the first, it shall be submitted to the Legislative Body as a whole, both orders shall vote together, and the question shall be decided by the simple majority. The Bill then, if within the statutory power of the Parliament, and unless vetoed by the Crown, passes into law. The Lord-Lieutenant — who, as Lord-Lieutenant, will not be the representative of any party, and will not quit office with the out- going English Government, and who in future need not necessarily be a Protestant — is appointed by the Crown, and will represent the Crown in Ireland. Neither his ofiice nor his functions can be altered by the Irish Parliament. The responsible Executive in Ireland will be constituted in the same manner as that in England. The leader of the majority will be called upon by the Lord-Lieutenant, as representing the Queen, to form a Government responsible to the Irish Parliament. It will stand and fall by votes of that Parliament. The Queen, just as in the case of the Imperial Parliament, retains the right — to be exercised through the Lord-Lieutenant— of giving or withholding her assent to Bills, and can dissolve or summon Parliament when she pleases ; she will probably, as in England, exercise the latter function, and as a rule the former, on the advice of the responsible Irish Executive. All constitutional questions which may arise, as to whether the Irish Parliament has exceeded its powers, will be referred to, and decided by, the Judical Committee of the Privy Council ; their decision will be final, and the Lord-Lieutenant will veto any Bill judged by them to contain provisions in excess of the powers of the Irish Legislature, and such a Bill will be void. The prerogatives of the Crown are untouched. The following matters remain intact in the hands of the Imperial Parliament: The dignity of, and succession to, the Crown ; the making of peace or war ; all foreign and colonial relations ; the questions of inter- national law, or violation of treaties ; naturalization ; matters relating to trade, navigation, and quarantine, beacons, lighthouses, etc. ; foreign postal and telegraph service ; coinage, weights and 262 measures ; copyrights and patents ; questions of treason, alienage ; the creation of titles of honour. The Imperial Parliament is, moreover, to keep in its own hands the army, navy, militia, volun- teers, or other military or naval forces ; is responsible for the defence of the realm ; and may erect all needful buildings or defences for military and naval purposes. In addition, the Irish Parliament is not permitted to make laws establishing or endowing any religion, or prohibiting in any way religious freedom, by imposing a disability or conferring any privilege on account of religious belief. Nor may they prejudically affect the right of any child to avail itself of the " conscience clause" at any school it may attend; nor of the private right of establishing and maintaining any particular form of denominational education. It cannot, without the leave of the Privy Council of England, or the assent of the Corporation itself, in any way impair the rights, property, or privileges of any body created and existing under Royal Charter or Act of Parliament. For a time, at all events, the Customs and Excise duties are to be levied by officers appointed, as now, by the British Treasury. With these exceptions, all other matters, legislative and administrative, are left absolutely in the power, and to the discretion, of the Irish Parliament and its executive government. It will be responsible for law and order, though the Imperial Parliament, by retaining the military forces, holds the ultimate power. It can raise and pay a police force — as in England, under local control. The responsible Government will have the appointment of the Judges (to be life appointments, as in England), and of all the other officials throughout the kingdom. The Parliament can make or vary courts of law, legal power, or authorities, etc. On the recommendation of the responsible Government, the Parliament can levy such internal taxes as they please (with the exception of Customs and Excise), and can apply the proceeds to such purposes as they think fit. They can raise loans, and under- take public works of every sort. They can manage their own post- offices, telegraphs, and post-office savings banks, 263 They can create such local bodies as they choose. They can regulate education : in a word, they will have the power of legislating on all local Irish matters. After the first election, they can alter any matter affecting the constitution or election of the "second order;" the franchise, the constituencies, the mode of election, the system of registration, the laws relating to corrupt and illegal practices, the privileges and immunities of the legislative body and of its members, etc. To prevent any breach of continuity, existing laws will remain in force until altered or repealed by the New Parliament. All existing rights of civil servants and other officials at present in the employ of the Irish Government are carefully guarded. In order to preserve the continuity of Civil Government, they will continue to hold office at the same salary they now receive, and to perform the same or analogous duties, unless, from incompatibility of temper, or from motives of economy, the Irish Government desire their retirement, when they will receive their pension. In any case if, at the end of two years, they wish to retire, they can do so, and will be then entitled to a pension as though their office had been abolished. The judges, and certain permanent officials, can only be retired, or allowed to retire, by " the Crown," and they will then receive their pension as though they had served the full time. The existing rights of the constabulary and police to pay pension, etc., are preserved. All these pensions become a charge on the Irish Treasury, but are further guaranteed by the English Treasury. It is not intended that the Irish representative Peers should any longer sit in the House of Lords, nor the Irish members in the House of Commons, but that Ireland (with the assent of her representatives) should be practically unrepresented at West- minster. The Act constituting the Irish Parliament cannot be altered in any way, except by an Act passed by an Imperial Parliament, and assented to by an Irish Parliament ; or by an Act of the Imperial Parliament, passed after there have been summoned back to it, for 264 that especial purpose, 28 Irish representative Peers, and 103 " second order " members. The Financial arrangements are as follow : The imposition and collection of Custom duties and of Excise duties, so far as these are immediately connected with Custom duties, will remain in the hands of the British Treasury. All other taxes will be imposed and collected under the authority of the Irish Parliament. The proceeds of these latter taxes will be paid into the Irish Treasury ; the proceeds of the Customs and Excise to be a special account of the British Treasury. From these receipts, certain deductions are first to be made for the Irish contribution to Imperial Expenditure, etc., and the balance is then to be paid over to the Irish Treasury. Ireland is to pay one -fifteenth as her portion of the whole existing Imperial charge for debt (/aa, 000, 000 a year), representing a capital sum of /48, 000, 000, and in addition a small sinking fund ; and one-fifteenth of the normal charge for Army and Navy (;^25,ooo,ooo), and for Imperial Civil charges (/"i, 650, 000). In addition, until she supersedes the present police force, she is to pay ;^ 1,000,000 a year (or less if the cost be less) towards the cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin police. Thus the Irish proportion of Imperial expenditure will be as follows : — Debt ... ... ... ;^i, 466,000 Sinking Fund ... ... 360,000 £1 ,826,000 Army and Navy ... ... 1,666,000 Civil expenditure ... ... 110,000 /3, 602, 000 Constabulary and police,.. ... 1,000,000 /4, 602, 000 This is the maximum amount payable, and it cannot be increased for thirty years, when the question of contribution can be again considered. On the other hand, the amount can be reduced. (i) If in any year the charge for the army and navy, or for the Imperial Civil Service, is less than fifteen times the amount of the Irish con- tribution, then the Irish charge will be reduced proportionately. 265 (2) If the cost of the constabulary or police fall below /"i, 000, 000 a year, then the difference will be saved by the Irish Exchequer. The estimated revenue from Irish Customs and Excise Customs, duties, amounts to ;^6,i8o,ooo annually. From this is to be deducted, by the English Treasury, a sum not exceeding four per cent, for cost of collection, leaving a net amount of /5, 933, 000. The debtor and creditor account, as between England and Ireland, will then stand thus : Expenditure. £ For Imperial purposes... 3, 602, 000 Constabulary, etc. ...1,000,000 Collections of Customs and Excise, maximum 4 per cent. ... ... 247,000 /4, 849, 000 Receipts. £ Customs and Excise, ..6, 180, 000 /6, 1 80,000 Leaving a balance of ;^i,33i,ooo to be handed over by England to the Irish Exchequer. The Irish Government will take over all loans due to the British Treasury and advanced for Irish purposes, and shall pay the British Treasury an annual sum equivalent to three per cent, interest on the amount with repayment in thirty years. The total amount outstanding is some six millions, and the receipts and dis- bursements of the Irish Government under this head will about balance. The balance of the Irish Church surplus fund — about /2o,ooo a year — is to be handed over to the Irish Government. The following will show the further receipts and expenditure of the Irish Government, as estimated by Mr. Gladstone on the basis of existing expenditure and taxation, and may be put in the form of a balance-sheet : — Expenditure. Irish Civil charges ...2,510,000 Colledion of revenue, etc. ... ... 587,000 Balance, surplus ... 404,000 ;^3,5oi,ooo Revenue. Repaid by England. ..1,331, 000 Stamps ... ... 600,000 Income Tax, at 8d. ... 550,000 Other sources of revenue — Post Office, etc. ...1,020,000 ;^3,5oi,ooo 266 This gives a surplus of ^404,000 to start with. But, in addition, great savings of expenditure can be, and ought to be, made in the Irish Civil charges and collection of revenue. Per head of the population, they are now double what they are in England, and at least ;^3oo,ooo or ;^40o,ooo should be saved. In addition, after a time, the cost of the police ought to fall at least ;^2oo,ooo or ;^30o,ooo below the million allotted to that purpose. Thus, with reasonable economy, the surplus at the disposal of the Irish Government ought to amount to some ;^i,ooo,ooo a year — a sum which will enable it readily to borrow money for public wants and for public improvements.* A Statesman's Far-seeing Policy. The above will show how carefully the financial question was laid open by the skilled hand of the greatest financier of the day, and how strictly Imperial rights were preserved to the Crown and the Imperial Executive. It was evident that Mr. Gladstone's clear mind saw further even than the important question of pacifying Ireland ; he perceived also the future possiblility of some great Imperial Scheme of Federation which should be aided, and not retarded, by the granting of a Parliament to Ireland. The True Unionism. The more the Bill is examined, the more candid men must be astounded by the skill of the great statesman in throwing such broad safeguards around Imperial interests, and in making such extensive reservations, and yet at meeting the sentiment and sense of justice expressed by the Irish people. Mr. Gladstone disclaimed from the out- set any wish to separate Ireland from the British Empire, and expressed his belief that the bill would do more than the Act of Union to maintain the Empire in its funda- Mr, Gladstone's Irish Bills, pp. 13, i«. 267 mental and essential entirety. And I am persuaded that the bill was based on justice and righteousness, was calculated to tranquilise the people of Ireland, and would have secured a truer and more permanent Union than can ever be obtained by a forced Parliamentary amalgamation, which is abhorred and rejected by the people of Ireland. The truest Unionism is not the antiquated and compulsory binding of an unwilling people to a stronger neighbour, but the voluntary agreement of the peoples of the 'contiguous countries, and the consolidation of an empire by the common consent of its various parts, and they are the wisest Unionists who aim at a Union of hearts and interests, and not of force and injustice. Thp: Pace too Swift. Broad and great as the measure was, it did not find acceptance with the nation. Many of the trusted lieuten- ants of the great Parliamentary captain fell away from him. The pace was too swift for minds not alert to the question, or for those whose political intuitions and surroundings did not enable them to quickly seize and interpret the primary and central demands, aspirations, and traditions of the Irish. The classes so long in the ascendancy protested against the bill. Many good people, who held the franchise as a sacred trust, were not sufficiently acquainted with the history of Ireland and its needs to vote intelligently, and they stayed away from the polls. The masses were largely ignorant on the subject, and were apathetic. The elections were lost chiefly by abstentions. Heavy bodies move slowly at first, but afterwards the momentum becomes irresistible. So it has ever been with the democracy. But the great bulk of the Liberal Party, ever the effective 468 agent in all the great reforms of the past, were true to their principles and true to their leader. They could not overlook the fact that the towering genius, the wide experience, and the high character of Mr. Gladstone made him the safest guide on a great constitutional question like this. Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Hartington, and the veteran John Bright, were all esteemed by the party as men of worth and character; but to the old leader — so often victorious — the Liberal Party cried " excellent as these men are, thou excellest them all." Influence of Mr. Gladstone on Irish Agitation. The inherent justice of the case is coming more fully into view. No smaller measure will do. A solution of the difficulty, however skilfully drawn up, which does not meet the aspirations of nationality, and therefore is not acceptable to Ireland, is only a remedy of quackery. The only effective remedy must go to the root of the disease. The responsive nature of the Irish people has bounded with gratitude to the man who has sought to free the nation from its sense of injustice by giving it the Parlia- ment of which it was unjustly deprived. Whoever passes a Home Rule Bill now, whether a coalition of a Chamberlain and Churchill Party, or a Tory Party clinging to office, the Irish people will see that Mr. Gladstone alone has made their freedom possible at the present time. The Pharos of old had King Ptolemy's name inscribed on the plastered surface, but deep down in the granite rock the builder Sostrasus of Cnidus carved his own name, and when the plaster was chipped off by the influence of wind and waves the name of the man of genius stood revealed. So will it be in the case of Irish self-government. Mr. Gladstone has forced the pace and 269 determined the running (whoever reaches the goal first) and his name and work are restraining the Irish people amidst the tyrannies of coercion more than all the laws of Mr. Balfour. The Voice of the Constituencies. The high moral instincts and deep religious con- scientiousness of the people of Wales guided them aright at the polling booths ; Scotland, thoughtful and freedom- loving, gave her adhesion to Mr. Gladstone's policy ; and now the question has to be fought out in the English constituences. The North of England voted steadily in favour of Irish Emancipation, and there are not wanting signs that the electoral divisions of the South of England are becoming enlightened and decided in their adoption of Home Rule principles. What the ultimate issue of the contest is to be, none who are acquainted with the might of Liberalism and the steady growth of freedom, can doubt. Already signs of brightness are increasing. The National Federation is sanguine, and the voices of the towns are encouraging to the great leader of the Liberal Party. The increased intelligence of the people on the subject is beginning to tell a tale of good ; and the question of self-government is only a matter of time. The future is on the side of freedom. Prejudice is giving way before the deepening of charity and the spreading of light. Ignorance is fast waning. Night's candles are burnt out, And jocund day stands tiptoe On the misty mountain top. A Prophet's Purposes do not die with him. Mr. Gladstone is cheered by seeing the patience and hopefulness of the Irish Party, and the resoluteness and 270 buoyancy of his own immediate followers. Dissentient Liberals, aiding their traditional foes — the Tories — may delay the settlement of the great question — aye — may delay it until the great leader has gone to his rest, but as the spirit and purpose of the prophet of Horeb did not die when the chariot of fire whirled him from human view, so Mr. Gladstone's departure will not wreck the great work he has entrusted to the Liberal party. Others will take as a sacred trust from his hands the great work of securing justice and self-government to the Irish nation. On this point Sir Wm. Harcourt and Mr. John Morley have spoken clearly. But as yet, the remarkable vigour of Mr. Gladstone bids those who trust and revere him hope with unabated ardour. The SL Stephen's Review presented in one of its notorious cartoons the feature of a dead lion with Mr. Gladstone's face, overtopped by a living dog having the frontispiece of Lord Randolph Churchill, with the Biblical motto " a living dog is better than a dead lion." But the lion is not dead, and a living lion is ever able to hold firmly a lesser quadruped. The issue will be clear ; for as a thinker, a tactician, and a debater, Mr. Gladstone ever stands, even in his advanced years, head and shoulders above his contemporaries. And if Dissentient Liberals refuse to weld the party again into a homogeneous whole that shall carry reforms with speed and ease, those who have remained faithful to their leader must make up for the absence of old comrades by the enrolment of new recruits. No Vacancy in the Leadership. In any case Mr. Gladstone should ever be made to feel that he is not deserted or deposed. Mr. John Morley's determined announcement at Leeds that "there 271 is no vacancy in the leadership of the Liberal Party " sent a thrill of exultation and satisfaction through all ranks. The political rivals for the leadership of the Party have "made their throw for the Sixes," and have failed. They cannot uproot the oak-like grip which Mr. Gladstone has taken of his party and country. Their rival plans are full of fatal defects, and in addition the Irish Nationalists say " we will not have them." This in itself is an insuperable objection to any permanent settlement of the question, either by mere local government or the establishment of provincial councils. The schemes suggested as alter- natives are weak and futile. There is nothing for it but loyalty to the national conscience and sense of justice. There is much to be done. The difficulties are great. We cannot in a moment undo the wrongs of Centuries. Animosity may live for years in some Irish hearts. Resentment may still burn in the breasts of those who have passed through suffering and privation, and have seen their dear ones driven out of life by iniquitous laws. The children, now men, who were cast out on the road side by infamous evictions will doubtless have difficulty in refusing any longer to allow themselves to remain the repositories of hate and mad vengeance. Many may never be made friendly. But Englishmen may still hope, even for these, as they see the great change which has come over Irish opinion during the last few years. England needs not to be afraid to Act Justly. The electors may do much so that the Irish children of the present and of the future shall not, when they become men, be able to point to an unjust domination, or an impious landlordism to palliate, if not justify, wrong- doing. England that shewed her sense of justice in 27^ the freedom of West Indian slaves and in the Genevan Arbitration, and that has again entered upon a path of mercy and justice needs not to be afraid of doing right. Unreason and passion, revenge and malice, cannot live for ever. They can be overcome if the work of righteous government be not forsaken. The nation that in the Land Acts set its hand to the plough must not turn back because of a few small impedi- ments in the way. The straight furrow of justice and the amelioration of a woe-stricken people must be turned up. The National policy in Ireland and elsewhere must be in accordance with advanced civilization, and a manly, robust Christianity. The true resources of civilization must be regarded as moral and elevating ones, and not merely physical and restraining. And then, when the privilege which has usurped power, the tyranny which has dominated freedom, and the alienation which has obstructed the path of peace are removed by just legislation, a bright and happier era will be realized by England and Ireland. The shafts of brightness are growing more and more into radiant beams of glory, and I am assured that the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in the future will not be one of force, and law, but of love, and sympathy, and trust which shall give to the world a splendid example of the power, and glory of freedom and mutual confidence. ^ii^^i^p Oldbury Place, I G H T H A M , Sevenoaks, September yd, 1888. Dear Mr. Lloyd, When some months ago you asked my permission for the reprinting, in the admirable work which you are bringing out on the Government of Ireland, of my letters to the Times in December and January last on the subject of the dispute between Lord Clanricarde and his tenants, I had no intention of republishing them myself. Quite lately, however, the position of things is altered. The renewal of evictions on a great scale by Lord Clanricarde, and the very similar case of Lord Massereene and his tenants, have made it necessary that I should myself submit the whole facts of these cases to the public in a more permanent form. I propose to do this by telling the story of these cases in a succinct manner, incor- porating such parts of my letters to the Times as I think lend themselves best to this treatment. Under these cases I think you will agree with me that it would be better that my letters should appear in this form rather than in an appendix to your work. At the same time it will, of course, be open to you to make what use you think fit of the facts and argu- ments contained in my letters. I must be allowed to add that I have read with the greatest interest and advantage the three parts of your work already published. They cannot fail to produce an impression on all who read them ; and I hope they will be read by many who have not yet seen their way to support that policy for Ireland, which we believe is the only one capable of securing to it a good government, through laws relating exclusively to its own affairs, framed by its own repre- sentatives, and administered by officials responsible to them. Believe me. Yours very truly, G. J. S haw-Le fevre. PART IV. TORY OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE, AND LORD SALISBURY'S ALTERNATIVES. Mr. Gladstone's measures having been rejected by Parliament and by the verdict of the constituencies, the question which immediately faced English statesmen was — What is now to be done for Ireland ? That the old order of things could not be continued was plain to every thoughtful mind. Statesmen of every shade of politics acknowledged that the system of government which had prevailed in Ireland was incapable of dealing with her present needs. Mr. Gladstone clearly indicated the road by which he believed the harmony and prosperity of the country could be reached. His opponents declared that this road led only to anarchy and separation, and was crowded with difficulties insurmountable, except to those who were prepared to reconquer Ireland by armed force. The theory that some nations could not be trusted to govern themselves was boldly announced by Lord Salisbury, and the Hottentots were adduced as evidence of this. The classing of Irishmen with Hottentots awoke much indignation. Mr. Gladstone asserted that the only 274 alternative to Home Rule was the rigid enforcement of the worn-out methods of Coercion. This was denied by Tories and Dissentient Liberals, some of them declaring that they would not hold their seats for the purpose of applying Coercion to Ireland. When afterwards charged with having broken faith with the constituencies there was but one member in the House bold enough to assert that he had been elected on the question of Coercion. This was the Tory member for East Bradford — the Parliamentary Secretary of the Church Defence Association — Mr. H. Byron Reed. Those who denied that Coercion was the only alternative to Home Rule were soon called upon to prove their position by the adoption of some alternative that should show itself approved by its humane and just provisions. Twenty years of firm government would, it was asserted by the new Premier — Lord Salisbury — make the Irish willing to accept the boons of the United Parlia- ment. The desertion of eminent men from the Unionist party has since shown the failure of its leaders to produce the boasted alternative. Those who rejected Mr. Gladstone's measures had to justify their action by the production of legislation that should bear upon its surface that impress of civilisation and enlightenment which should prove its adaptation to present requirements. When Lord Chesterfield was asked by a lady — a French sceptic — why the English Parliament tolerated the Christian religion, he is said to have replied : "Because, Madam, they have not discovered anything better to put into its place." The country asked the Unionists leaders for the better plans for governing Ireland, now that Mr. Gladstone's schemes were rejected by them. This was a reasonable demand. The objections to the Home Rule Bill were many. It was said that the character of the proposals was unexpected; that the two orders of representatives would make the Parliament cumbrous and unworkable ; that the Irish members should not be excluded from Westminster, and yet should not do their own business in Ireland and then come over and interfere with matters pertaining to Scotland and England. Many other objections were stated, but most of them may be classified under three heads— Political, Religious, and those based on Ex[)cdiency. An unwonted affection was shown for Irish representatives. Men who, following Lord Salisbury, declared that one Tory member was worth all the Irish representatives, now found that they could not part with them from West- minster on any grounds. Unionists announced their confidence in a great principle of Liberalism — no taxation without representation. The bill was too radical for some, and too conservative for others. It was too conservative because it admitted the two orders of representatives, and it was too radical because it did not give to the Peerage sufficient recognition. In vain Mr. Gladstone pointed out that all he desired was a recognition of the principles and essential parts of the bill, and that these objections were only objections to details which could be amended in Committee. Political Objections. The two Parliaments, it was said, would be likely to clash with each other, and in consequence of divisions, the Empire would be weakened. Then, it would be dis- advantageous to England in other senses to have a rival authority in Dublin. In re'ply to this, it is not enough to say that this was an argument founded on expediency, and 276 that no question of expediency can ever justify a moral wrong, or give virtue to a public injustice. The true answer may be found in the fact that Mr. Gladstone's Parliament for Ireland was to be a statutory one, having the limits of its power clearly defined, and throwing round Imperial questions and certain selected subjects the aegis of its protection. It was not to be co-ordinate in power with the Parliament at Westminster, but subordinate to it, inasmuch as it was created by statute and limited by statute made at Westminster. It could further be restrained by the action of the Lord Lieutenant, when any of its acts infringed on Imperial rights, or transgressed the liberties allowed it. Mr. Parnell, in his place in Parliament, said " We have recognised that the Legislature which the Prime Minister proposes to constitute is a subordinate Parliament, and that it is not the same as Grattan's Parliament, which was coequal with the Imperial Parlia- ment." It was also stated that the granting of it would silence Irish agitation, and be regarded as a final settlement of the vexed question of government. Ireland and Scotland Compared. In the course of the controversy it was said Ireland had no need of such a Parliament, even though it was to be sub- ordinate ! Why should the Irish have more self-government than the Scotch people ? Several speakers in the House of Commons and on public platforms pointed to the union between England and Scotland, and the good results which followed the amalgamation of the legislatures of these countries, and asked — " Why is Ireland not as happy and contented as the country beyond the Tweed ?" The answer is a plain and easy one. The Scotch people generally acquiesced in the Union, notwithstanding that there were ^7? gome who lamented the loss which would be felt at Edinburgh by the removal of legislators and gentry. The Union was secured openly by mutual arrangement and consent. In the United Parliament Scottish interests have, on the whole, been fairly considered, and Scottish prejudices and aspirations have been respected and honoured with attention. As much as possible Scottish demands have been recognised, and positions in Scotland and in the management of Scottish affairs at Westminster have been given to Scotchmen. The Crown and Parlia- ment have appeased Scotland by annual attentions, and by maintaining royal residences there. The religion of Scotland was not assailed. English Episcopacy was not forced upon the Presbyterian descendants of Knox and Melville and the stern children of the Covenant. The education of the youth of Scotland was carried out in harmony with the spirit and intentions of the great Scotch leadersof the past by the foremost Scotchmenof the present. Hence, though at times dissatisfaction has been expressed at trivial grievances and at real ones, at the tardiness with which measures affecting the local interests of Scotland were attended to, and at the annual exodus of the leaders of public life and the nobility of Scotland from Edinburgh to London, the dissatisfaction has been allayed by prudent concessions and attentions before it could develop into an attempt to separate the legislatures. But the Union with Ireland was not secured by mutual consent. It was not effected justly and freely. It deprived her of her native laws. It kept her children for years in ignorance, weighted by the burden of civil and religious disabilities. It main- tained for more than half a century an establishment of religion to which the majority of the country were opposed. It treated the people of Ireland as inferior beings to the ^78 . inhabitants of Great Britain. It refused to listen to the voice of Irish representatives. It gave the posts of government in Ireland to the disciples of a favoured sect. It placed English officials at the head of Irish government as Chief Secretaries and Lord Lieutenants. It laid Irish patriots under the ban of disfavour and neglect. It honoured servile and selfish men who traitorously betrayed their country, while it despised and denounced men who gave their lives and energies to the alleviation of the miseries of the land. In short it was a Union which centralised government, did not federate the peoples, buttressed a dominant church of the minority, and attempted to degrade the self-respect of the Irish patriot. Ulster's Superiority. It was further objected that Ulster excelled other parts of the country and should be chiefly considered. Ulster was called the Loyal territory. It had for years received favoured treatment, as compared with the rest of Ireland. In many ways it had been pampered and petted. Every Irish question was considered before it was dealt with in the light of the enquiry — "Does Ulster approve of this ? " It was principally inhabited by Protestants, and its chief town, Belfast, had been created on English models ; so that an Englishman on looking at its wide streets and stately buildings felt as though he was in one of the towns of his own loved isle. But it is a mistake to think that Ulster is superior to every other division of the country. Notwithstanding its special treatment, and the favourable land system which prevailed, Ulster does not compare well with some of the other provinces as will be seen in the following tables. 2^9 Mr. T. M. Healy quotes the returns of the Income Tax Assessment Office, presented to Parhament in 1882. A special pamphlet on this matter has also been issued by the Irish Parliamentary Party. From these sources we learn the followino: facts : — '^' Income-tax per head of population. Income-tax assessment in 1879-80. Population in 1881. Leinster . /lo 6 9 . ■ •£ 13,272,202 . . 1,282,881 Munster 607. .. 7,980,276 . . 1,323,910 Ulster 5 14 5 . .. 9,052,289 . . 1,789,542 Connaught . 3 13 7 ■ 2,995.43^ . 813,506 The comparison between Belfast and Dublin is equally unfavourable :-- Income-tax J^'T'-'^f Population ..Ur^^^^A assessment ."^ oo charged... .^^ ^g^^.^^^ m 1881. Dublin .. ;^io2,6o9 .. /5, 368, 758 .. 273,064 Belfast .. 40,736 .. 2,200,842 .. 207,671 The contrast between whyt the Orangemen call *' the progressive commercial capital of Ireland" and decaying Dublin, they explain by saying that Dublin's income chiefly comes from the Imperial Civil Service Establish- ments, which are supposed to enrich that city. Take, therefore, an Ulster and a Munster city of equal popula- tions, where no such considerations can arise : — Income-tax Income-tax Population charged. assessment 1879-80. in 1881. Londonderry.. /3,98i .. ^223, 775 .. 28,947 Waterford .. 6.253 •• 336,272 .. 28,952 Schedule D of the Income Tax Assessments shows the payments made on profits in professions and trades. * "Healy— A Word for Ireland," Pages 155-8. 28o It should naturally demonstrate Ulster's manufacturing superiority ; but here are the figures : — Leinster .. Schedule D assessment. ;^5,29i,46i Assessment per inhabitant. .. /4 2 6 Ulster . . 2,527,344 191 Munster .. 1,811,343 174 Connaught 249,088 061 The test of valuation and contribution to local rates, as shewn by return No. 164, presented to Parliament in 1884, are also remarkable : — Valuation of Valuation per rateable property. inhabitant. Leinster .. .. ;^4,7ii,i93 .. ;^3 13 5 Munster .. .. 3,365,182 .. 2 10 10 Ulster .. .. 4,348,713 .. 2 9 il Connaught .. 1,431,019 .. i 15 2 If in consequence of these figures it is contended that "Protestant" Ulster is prejudiced by being included with ** Catholic " Ulster, the answer is that, tested county by county with the rest of Ireland, these returns prove, that either as to income-tax assessment or valuation ratings, the four most Protestant counties in Ulster are distanced by fourteen Catholic ones in the south. The estimated value of live stock, and average size and valuation of the holdings in the four provinces, afford another test of wealth {^Thorn's Almanac, 1886) : — V .lue of cattle, Sleep and pigs. -Average size of holdings (acres). Average valua- . tion of holdings. Munster ^20,048, 949 .. 42 • /25 Leinster 16,938,867 36 . 31 Ulster 15,667,364 29 17 Connaught . . 10,857,097 23 11 The comparative poverty of the different provinces may be judged also by a return (C. 4059, 1884) of the rent extinguished under the Arrears Act, 1882 : — 2S] No. of holdings affected. Tiitals arrears wiped off. Yearly rental of holdings affected. Connaught . . 52,883 . . /634,33i •• ;^3o8,456 Ulster . 41,134 . . 561.391 . . 357.398 Munster . 18,994 ., 341,198 . . 282,563 Leinster 12,879 223,902 •• 163,533 Thus it is apparent that the farmers of Ulster, who enjoyed the security of tenant-right generations before it was extended to the rest of Ireland, were obliged to avail themselves of the protection of the Arrears Act to nearly as great an extent as those of impoverished Connaught ; whereas in the "League-ridden" provinces of Munster and Leinster, with their ''dishonest" and "agitating" peasantry, not half as many farmers were behind in their payments to the landlords, or alleged that they were unable to pay their rent. If prosperity is shown by higher emigration, then Ulster is prosperous, for there was absolutely and relatively a greater drain from the North than elsewhere during the last decade : — Decrease, 1871-81. Decrease per cent. Ulster .. .. 93,686 .. 5-38 Munster . . . . 69,575 . . 5*26 Leinster . . . . 59.998 • . 4'68 Connaught . . . . 29,279 . . 3*59 As to illiteracy, the Northern province shows no pre- eminence, although Protestant education has never been proscribed, whereas the Catholics have been shamefully treated in educational matters : — Percentage able to read and write. Leinster . . . . . . 58-5 Ulster .. .. .. 53-4 Munster . . . . . . 53-2 Connaught .. .. .. 41-5 281 Injudicious champions sometimes claim a specially God-fearing quality for the North ; but, so far as the statistics of drunkenness and illegitimacy go, the figures are less unfavourable to the "priest-ridden" South and West Ulster certainly can boast the greatest freedom from evictions, and consequent agrarian crime ; but its sturdy farmers would hardly be flattered by being told that they would bear the razing of their roof-trees with more meek- ness than other men ; and it is but forty years since the agent of Lord Londonderry declared, that the oppressions common in the South would provoke outrages that would " make Down another Tipperary." But Ulster, while it possesses a majority of Protestants has also a large resident Catholic population.* It may be well to add here, from the Parliamentary Return already quoted, the exact figures as regards Protestants and Catholics in the Ulster constituencies. The constituencies are divided in the following tabular statement into two groups ; in the first of which, as will be seen, the Protestants are 74*25 per cent., and in the second of which, that is to say, on three-fourths of Ulster's surface — the Catholics are 63'77 P^^ cent., or nearly two-thirds : — Antrim Down, N. E. &W. .. Armagh, N. & M. .. I. Catholics. 113. 146 37.206 37.935 Protestants. 337.719 137,044 68,099 188,287 542,862 Pamphlet on Ulster, — Published by the National League. 283 II. Catholics. Protest.ints Donegal 157,608 48.427 Fermanagh . . 47.359 37.520 Cavan 104,685 24,791 Monaghan . . 75.714 27,034 Londonderry 73.274 91.717 Tyrone 109,793 87,926 Armagh, S. . . 34.277 16,921 Down, S. . . 32,458 26,832 Newry 10,111 5.479 645,285 366,651 If Belfast were excluded, the Catholics would be in a decided majority in Ulster. It will be seen from the above that in thrre parts of Ulster the majority of Catholics to Protestants is as two to one. While in the other part, the north-east quarter, including Belfast, mainly the Protestants are three to one. It is significant to note that notwithstanding the slight preponderance of Protestant inhabitants and electors in Ulster that the province has not rejected Mr. Gladstone's scheme, inasmuch as an actual majority of the representatives have been returned to suppoit him in carrying out his purposes. In the Times of June 7th, 1884, it was said: — '* The truth is that Ulster is by no means the homogene- ous Orange and Protestant community which it suits the Orangemen to represent it. In some counties the Catholics are in a large majority, and it must be acknowledged, we fear, that the Nationalists have a much stronger hold on many parts of Ulster than it is at all satisfactory to contemplate." Even Derry, the very centre of Irish Protestantism, has raised its voice and expressed approval of Home l§4 Rule. There is a greater contrast in the present methods of dealing with England and Ireland than the Irish are ever likely to have in governing the peoples of the various provinces by a Home Rule Parliament. Many Protestants in Ulster have begun to see this, and are voting and acting accordingly. Too Much Concession. Another objection was that Mr. Gladstone's bill conceded too much, and that neither the justice nor the necessities of the case demanded such large concessions. This is a stale objection in English politics. It is one that has been freely used in relation to the English Democracy. It is the chief article in the stock-in-trade of Tory opponents to popular measures. The House of Lords exists for the purpose of giving effect to this objection, and in the exercise of their rights the Peers limit and cut down, in every possible way, the instalments of justice paid to the working classes of the three kingdoms. The bound Gulliver must never be treated to a hearty meal, and wholesome draughts to quench his thirst. He must be kept tied down, and be fed with thimbles. Yet these objectors to Mr. Gladstone's scheme also say that Ireland will never be satisfied with the Home Rule Parliament of Mr. Gladstone. Will the Irish people be satisfied with a smaller gift then ? When Lord John Russell suggested a smaller measure, somewhat similar to the one proposed by Mr. Chamberlain, he was met with the same objection — ** You are conceding too much." Earl Russell said in 1872, "It appears to me that if Ireland were to be allowed to elect a representative assembly for each of its four provinces of Leinster, 285 Ulster, Munster, and Connaught, and if Scotland in a similar manner were to be divided into Lowlands and Highlands, having for each province a representative assembly, the local wants of Ireland and Scotland might be better provided for than they are at present. The Imperial Parliament might still retain its hold over this legislation, and refuse, if it so chose, to give a third reading to any bill assented to on its first and second readings, and on the report by the local assembly." Mr. Chamberlain would go further than this to-day, but even this was too far for some politicians. They cried *' restore the Heptarchy indeed ! " They poured ridicule upon the idea. They said the proposal would mean a repeal of the Union and disaster. Irishmen not to be Trusted. Then again it was stated that the Irish were not fit to be trusted with self-government. This appears to be the view of Lord Salisbury, but it was not his opinion a few years ago. Tennyson in his '* Northern Farmer" has hit off this argument in a way which covers it with derision and contempt. Tis'n them as 'as munny as breaks into 'ouses an' steals, Them as' as coats to their backs an' taakes their regular meals ; Noa, but it's them as niver knaws where a meal's to be 'ad. Taake my word for it, Sammy, the poor in a loomp is bad." Old Tory Cries. Unfortunately this seems the opinion of the Tories respecting the Catholic peasantry of Ireland, and the Protestant supporters of Home Rule. It is surprising that the stagy cries of old opponents of reform are being reproduced. One might fancy that Mr. Edison's phono- 28fa graph had been known for half a century, and that the utterances of modern politicians are only the revived cries of Lord Eldon and the Duke of Wellington, spoken in the days when the English working-man was at the mercy of a dominant class composed of landlords and aristocrats. The author of the life of Sir John Perrott said : — "To say the truth, the people of that country (Ireland) love to be justly dealt with by their governors, however they deal with each other, and will do more at the command of their governors, whom they repute and have found to be just, than by the strict execution of the laws or constraint of any force or power." One nobleman — the Duke of Buckingham — said of the Reform Bill of 1832 that it was to be compared to a " spell," and in relation to it the words of Shakespeare might be applied, for it would be found to — Untie the winds and let them fight Against the churches— to let the yeasty waves Confound and swallow navigation up ; To let the castles topple on our heads, And palaces and pyramids to stoop Their heads to the foundations. Another noble lord declared that '' The proper name for Reform was Republicanism. The demon of Repub- licanism in all its hide was before them in that Bill. He trusted that it would find its final repose in that House, that it would be buried in a ' Red Sea ' of rest, no more to fright the isle from its propriety." The middle class was declared unfit to be trusted with the franchise ; Noncon- formists were branded as unfit to be freed from civil and religious disabilities ; the householders of the counties were thought unfit to march to the ballot-box to record their convictions and desires ; the Jews were thought unfit 287 10 be trusted with Parliamentary position. The men who assert that the Irish are unfit to be trusted with the management of their own business are the lineal descend- ants of the loud- spoken gentry who in the past declared that privileges and power ought not to be extended to the masses because they had not the same character and intelligence as the squires and clergy of the parochial districts of the country. It cannot be that the Irish are wanting in the genius of government and progress. Thrust out from their own land by iniquitous laws, and prevented from using their intellect in the government of their own land, they have gone to other climes and have resolutely marched to the highest places in the national life of their adopted countries. They have manifested energy, intellect and capacity for administrative work, as witness the positions achieved by Sir Gavan Duffy in Australia, Darcy McGee in Canada, and the gifted Meagher in the United States of America. Marshall McMahon, of France, was an Irishman, and the most brilliant and successful of British diplomatists to-day — who has proved his power in the Governships of Canada and India, and in diplomatic posts of Russia and Turkey — is Lord Dufferin, an Irishman. England's Interference with other Nations. Men have been wrong in insinuating that the Irish people are weighted down by a double portion of original sin. They have been criminal in asserting that the Irish are defective in character, and would use a government in Dublin to achieve the ends of rebels in other lands. Union- ists have objected to Irish agitation because it is sustained by funds sent by the Irishmen of America. But English- men — Tories and Liberals — have freely sent funds and men to foreign lands to help those who, in widening the bounds of freedom, have fought against enthroned governments. From the days when Lord Byron, by his writings and example, roused the youthful nobility of England to flock in large numbers to the aid of the Greeks in their struggles for liberty, to the time when Englishmen under Garibaldi aided the patriots of Italy to deal deadly blows at the despotism of Bomba and the temporal power of the Pope, England has sent men and money to foster foreign agitations, and to further the self- government of aspiring nationalists. Who sympathised with Koscuisko and the Poles ? Who sustained the heart and strengthened the arm of Kossuth and the patriots of Hungary? Who hooted and assailed the despotic Austrian General in the streets of London, and who afforded an asylum of rest and a welcome to the men who fled for escape from the tyranny of the Bourbons ? Englishmen ! Yet these men are now complaining because patriots, driven from their country into America, send help and advice to those who loyally stand by the side of the peasantry of Ireland at the present time. Do we claim the right to do what no other people may do ? Are we giving voice and meaning to the old adage that one man may steal a horse while another must not look over the hedge ? What has been the cry of British Statesmen in the past ; a cry echoed and re-echoed by the people of England ? This, that every nation has a right to be governed in accordance with her interests and desires, and is the best judge of what is necessary and expedient. Ireland and Southern States. Lord Hartington has attempted to institute a parallel between Ireland and the Southern States of America. The 2^9 parallel limps. It is not on all fours. The Southern States never were a distinct nationality ; Ireland was, and still is, a distinct people. The Confederacy and the Irish nation are widely apart in history and character. The former endeavoured to secure a separate existence in the interests of slave holders for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. Ireland aimed at a separate legislature only, not a separate national existence. It demanded it in the interests of those who have been kept as slaves in the houses their fathers built, and on the lands their fathers drained and improved. National feeling cannot be extinguished by brutal methods of government, or by the neglect of long- standing grievances, or by inattention to the urgent needs of a country. The iron hand of the Russian autocrat, and the stern repressive laws of the Teuton, have been unable to drive out of the Slavonic races their national sympathies and aspirations. When a statesman deplored, in the hearing of Garabaldi, the failure of government in Ireland, the General is reported to have said *' Try freedom." It was a pertinent and instructive piece of advice, and as pungent as the criticism of Punch, which represented the Russian Emperor as saying to an English monarch, with the maps of Europe before him and his fingers placed on Poland and Ireland, " It seems we are both wrong." Yet England has called out for the nations of the East to keep their streets clean, while she has neglected the scouring of her own doorstep. Lord Salisbury's Opinion. In 1865 Lord Salisbury said: — "Before you can decide what is the remedy for Irish distress you must ascertain what is its cause. Except the right hon. baronet 2^0 the Chief Secretafy, we all admit that Ireland is distressed. From what does that distress arise ? What is the reason that a people with so bountiful a soil, with such enormous resources, lag so far behind the English in the race ? Some say that it is to be found in the character of the Celtic race ; but I look to France and I see a Celtic race there going forward in the path of prosperity with most rapid strides — I believe at the present moment more rapidly than England herself. Some people say it is to be found in the Roman Catholic religion ; but I look to Belgium and I find there a people second to none in Europe, except the English, for industry, singularly pros- perous, considering the small space of country that they occupy, having improved to the utmost the natural resources of that country, but distinguished among all the peoples of Europe for the earnestness and intensity of their Roman Catholic belief. Therefore, I cannot say that the cause of the Irish distress is to be found in the Roman Catholic religion. An hon. friend near me says that it arises from the Irish people listening to demagogues. I have as much dislike to demagogues as he has, but when I look to the Northern States of America I see there a people who listen to demagogues, but who undoubtedly have not been wanting in material prosperity. It cannot be demagogues, Romanism, or the Celtic race. What, then, is it ? / am afraid that the one thing that has been peculiar to Ireland has been the Government of England. ^^"^ Purposes of Government. How can this be reconciled with the Hottentot theory. Kossuth, the Hungarian patriot, said " Govern- ment is an organism, not a mechanism." That is, that it "Hansard," February 24th, 1865. 29r is a living growth and is indigenous to the soil; it is not to be planted in lands where it cannot thrive, it must rise out of the character and traditions of the people. The history of Ireland stands as a witness to this. John Stuart Mill defines the purposes of govern- ment as order and progress, and Coleridge says that they are summed up in the words " Permanence and Pro- gression." But Ireland has only progressed, if progress it can be called, towards greater poverty and misery, because the methods of government there have not served the purposes of government. Locomotion by gravitation is surer than any other kind, but it is unprofitable and deplorable. The downward tendency must be arrested or ruin is near. To see a nation sink lower, year by year, while its neighbours rise to higher positions in wealth, population and happiness, should arouse the sorrow of every patriot. Englishmen have not shown themselves fit to be trusted in the government of Ireland in the past, or why the poverty, decline and discontent of that nation ? Is it not a stigma upon English governors that, after centuries of government in Ireland, the most enlightened and progressive nation has not made the people of that country fit to be trusted. But a stronger question remains. Will a continuance of this government ever make them fit to be trusted ? The Tory Cabinet of Lord Salisbury evidently have doubts on the subject, and have not much confidence in their remedial policy, for they have passed a Crimes Act with a clause ensuring perpetuity. Home Rule a Pretext for Separation. A further objection is one which has obtained much currency and has been considered of standard value, viz., 292 that the establishment of a Home Rule Parliament is only a pretext for separation. But the argument is not valid. The coin is only base metal to be nailed to the counter. The ditty says — John took his hammer And said with a frown That coin is spurious ; Nail it down. The constituences are saying this at the bye- elections. It has been openly stated that separation is what is being aimed at. Mr. Gladstone has been charged with being the Arch-separatist of the times, gulling his followers by his verbosity, and blindly leading a sightless party toward the gulf of Imperial dissolution. The Irish leaders, as well as Mr. Gladstone, have strongly denied this charge. Responsible statesmen, referring again to the statutory character of the proposed Dublin Parliament, have declared that in granting Home Rule England and Scotland will not concede the right of the Imperial Parliament — if necessary in the interests of the Empire — to interfere with the Parliament on College Green. England has never conceded this right in the case of the Colonies, and if there has not been any interference, it is because the clashing of interest has not been con- sidered sufficiently serious to justify Imperial action. Mr. John Dillon, M.P., asks what are the grounds of this unreasonable fear.?'^* He cries "Good heavens, what has England come to ?" He ridiculed the fear that 27,000,000 of Englishmen, with arms and fleets at their backs, should be no match for 4,000,000 of Irishmen, if the latter demanded separation. He contended "that it would be better for England in the eyes of the civilized * Speech at Cambridge. 293 world to try the experiment of Home Rule than to go on governino;- as she was now doing. She would then be able to say '* we have given you full justice and liberty. If you choose to separate, we will fight you squarely and put you down ! England would then have the sympathy of the civilized world and could justify her action." There is force in this. A democratic country like England ought not to grind down a kindred people near her own shores. A nation renowned for prowess and courage ought not to stand terrified at the thought of giving free government to a people at her doors. With ironclads and armies, and with the still stronger forces which a conviction of right gives to a nation, what would there be to fear from the Irish people ? Mr. T. D. Sullivan, at Bradford,^' referred to this question of separation, and declared : — " That the Home Rule Bill, instead of being a separatist measure, had a tendency to fuse the two nations in friendship and love together, and to make between the two peoples a real and lasting union which did not now exist, and had not existed for generations. He contended that the possibility of separation became more chimerical and remote every day. Under the Home Rule system the Irish people would have neither army nor navy, but the Imperial forces would remain as they are. The last thing they would do would be to organize an army and navy to compete with those of England. Of the Irish people, he said, there were less than 5,000,000, and the Unionists claimed a large propor- tion. Supposing then that the disloyalist population, as they were called, numbered 3,000,000, the Unionists asked the English nation numbering 30,000,000 to be afraid of the 3,000,000 who were without arms, money, or resources * Speech in St, George's Hall. 294 of any kind. Dean Swift said long ago that * eleven men well armed would surely subdue one man in his shirt.' Yet these 'Unionists' held that eleven Englishmen well armed should be afraid of one Irishman in his shirt." Mr. William O'Brien said^' that '* there were some people in his country who used the word ' separation ' to frighten the English. Most of the English people believed the Irish people were not such fools as to want separation. England was Ireland's best customer, and the English people wanted to see 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 of people in Ireland instead of 5,000,000. Archbishop Walsh declared that with a liberal measure of autonomy to Ireland, there was no country he would prefer to live under so much as England. That a faithful alliance between a freed Ireland and a friendly England, under one Crown and one Imperial Government, would be preferable to that of any alliance under heaven. And this is the language of the leaders of the Liberal Party and the Nationalists. Even Mr. Michael Davitt, whose opinions are among the most republican and advanced of any of the Irish leaders, and who has suffered greatly as the result of English misgovernment, has stated that though in principle he has been a Separatist yet in policy he is not, for he sees no prospect of Ireland securing separation, and believes that it would be for the advantage of the country to be true to the English alliance, if only Ireland were justly treated and made her own laws for her internal govern- ment. To attempt separation would be the last desperate resource of a nation maddened by injustice. Centuries of wrong may have made men in Ireland wish for total * Speech near Boyle. 295 separation from England, but every year of good govern- ment and prosperity will lessen the feeling and desire in the heart of the most inveterate hater of England, and will make the people cherish the English alliance, and preserve it amidst all the threats or blandishments of foreign powers. Are the Irish Ungrateful or Incompetent ? What are the chief charges made against the Irish and asserted to be the ground of the last two objections ? Charges of ingratitude and incompetence are too vague and unreal to be seriously answered. Not only have Irishmen prospered in other lands, but many of the greatest warriors and legislators of our land have been men through whose veins the blood of the Celt has run. From Wellington to Wolseley the army has had as its brightest ornaments the sons of Irishmen, while on the Bench and at the Bar the most eloquent and learned of the profession have been men of the same nationality as O'Connell and Sir Charles Russell. The splendid response of the Irish to the overtures of the Liberal leader, the burial of the hatchet of warfare by the most desperate and violent of the Irish nation, and the glow of gratitude which suffuses Irish hearts to-day, all evoked by the generous and sympathetic wizardry of one great statesman leading a just democracy bent upon reparation and restitu- tion, are a sufficient answer to the charge of ingratitude. Boycotting. But the charges chiefly made are those of exclusive dealing or boycotting, of intimidation, of being steered by foreign policy and sustained by foreign gold, and of being associated with outrage and moonlight murders. 296 These have been made in public prints and on public platforms. Exclusive dealing, called boycotting after Captain Boycott, one of the first to be treated with a taste of this policy, was popularised by a speech of Mr. Parnell's. It has been the policy of the Irish leader to draw the people away from harsh measures of cruelty and reprisal to methods more constitutional and human. Deprecating outrage and crime, he showed the people what he deemed a more excellent way of dealing with the enemies of the country, and those who weakly and foolishly yielded to them, and thus made it harder for patriots to secure just concessions. '* Shun them," said he, referring to those who were unfaithful to their neigh- bours. It was regarded at the time by Mr. Parnell and others of the party as the only way in which the tenants could protect themselves from treachery and cupidity, and the rapacious maw of the landlord class. Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., describes boycotting in the following lines: — No ! We shall leave untilled — unsown — The lands, however fair, From which an honest man was thrown Upon the roadside bare, As though a curse were on the spot That saw such hateful deeds ; We'll leave the empty house to rot, The ground to choke with weeds. However much the policy may be condemned, it has prevented farms from being taken, and has had a whole- some effect in. controlling men whose greed and selfishness would have made them disregard the needs and sufferings of their neighbours, in a wild attempt to benefit them- selves. 297 But boycotting is no new thing. It is practised in one form or another throughout the country. Girls at school send tale-bearers to Coventry, and even so saintly a man as the Rev. William Arthur, Ex- President of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, declared in the open Confer- ence that he could not conscientiously write an article on Methodist Union to the Methodist Times because that paper supported Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Policy. Boycotting has been in operation for many years, and is frequently practised. It is one of the sharpest weapons in the armoury of the Primrose League, and is wielded with terrible effect by noble Primrose Dames in the small towns and villages of England. It has been clutched and used by the dignitaries of the Church and magnates of the agricultural shires, and it is freely applied by men in the strongholds of Orangedom. Boycotting in England. Mr. Herbert Gladstone, in West Leeds, declared that in regard to intimidation, to combination, and to boy- cotting, the Unionist and the landlord party sinned more heavily than did the Nationalist Party. He said : — ** The most shameful instances of boycotting are recorded against them not only in Ireland but in England. He had heard of the case of a schoolmaster in the South of England who had over thirty pupils withdrawn by their Liberal- Unionist and Conservative parents, because he had ventured to take a leading part in a bye-election. He had heard of scores of tradesmen in the villages and counties being ruined by the withdrawal of custom from similar causes." And this is the testimony which comes from all the rural districts in the land. Shopkeepers afraid to express their views because of their Conservative customers. 298 Farmers and labourers driven to prevarication and decep- tion by the canvass of landlords and their wives who belong to the Primrose Habitation. Men boycotted by squires and parsons because of their religion, their politics, or their independence of character. It may be argued that " two blacks do not make one white." I admit it, and I only ask for the acknowledgment that boycotting is as black when done by a titled lady as by a struggling peasant. That which is called a vice in one case cannot be a virtue in the other, unless indeed the conditions are altogether different. What is the difference in the cases ? In Ireland boycotting is carried on in the interests of the poorest, whom the law does not sufficiently protect from injustice, and whom the wealthier classes have treated with scorn and immoral pressure, because it is the only weapon available to the downtrodden to prevent men from conspiring with the landlord to rob him of his living. But in England it has been used by the wealthy against the poor, by people who need not use it as a weapon, seeing that there are plenty of influences always available for the maintenance of a dominant church and gilded class. These things in England, I only adduce to give emphasis to a gospel statement, that only he who is without fault should throw the first stone, and therefore the parade of Irish boycotting as a national crime comes with bad grace from those who are supporters of the Primrose League. Are the Leaders to be Charged with the Crimes OF Misguided Followers. That there has been much intimidation, boy- cotting, and outrage in some parts of Ireland, no Irish statesman or Liberal politician will deny. But are 299 all the excesses of phrenzied partisans to be charged at the doors of public leaders ? Rascaldom ever pours out its scum, when patriotism is fighting a successful battle. And in proportion as a cause has the promise of victory, so violent and selfish men identify themselves with it, but he would be an unwise critic who charged all the crimes of evil men to the credit of patriotic leaders. In the French-Canadian War and the American War of Independence the English, French and American forces were supported by allies from the Indian tribes, who scalped the dying and inflicted tortures on prisoners. But no sane historian will lay these crimes at the doors of the brave General Wolfe, or the upright patriot Washington. Can it be said that all the Hungarian patriots were men pure-minded and wise ? Can it be declared with truth that Garibaldi's motley crowd of patriots were men in whose hearts the bright and pure light of abstract patriotism had destroyed all fiercer and wilder passions ? Are the political parties of England only composed of academical, studious, law abiding citizens ? Boycotting in a proper state of society, where constitu- tional methods are available, would be a crime, but boycotting instead of inspiring outrage was meant to prevent it, and was only adopted in the dearth of other means of saving the peasantry. Even Samson could not choose his weapon in his conflict with the enemies of his land. The jawbone was a poor weapon, but it was better than none, and was made efl"ective because of the strength and character of the man who used it. When it was thrown away, it might have been used by another man to murder a friend, but Samson could not have been blamed because a murderous man used the weapon he had shown to be effective. It is sufficient to show that the National 300 League and its leaders have denounced crime, have prohibited outrage, and have endeavoured to lead the people from the wild and wicked methods of force into paths- more in consonance with present day light and leading. Less Outrage where the National League Prevails. It is surely worthy of note that the country where moonlight-raiding, and outrage are most prevalent is the one where the National League has been restrained by the action of the prelacy, and where the people are thrown on their own unaided resources. But serious crime in Ireland is trivial as compared with England, and much of that to which publicity is given in English papers has been manufactured by ingenious suppliers of public news. Outrages solemnly entered in police reports and credited to Ireland are passed over in England as boyish freaks. Who puts down a broken window as an outrage, or a gate thrown off its hinges as a reason for more stringent police supervision in England ? Yet the reports of Irish out- rages, ordered by Parliament and duly supplied from police reports, have these things seriously stated as outrages. In consequence, Ireland has been looked upon as a land of outrage, and many persons are gullible enough to believe anything bad of the Irish, and to interpret any statement to their discredit. It is said of a candidate who was defeated at Youghal, that shortly after his defeat he met with a serious accident in the hunting field. On coming to England he accidently came into contact with a witty friend who jocularly intro- duced him, bandaged and bruised as he was, to a gentle- man near as the " beaten candidate from Youghal." The gentleman at once conceived the idea that the physical 301 injuries so apparent were the result of the beating which had been inflicted upon him at Youghal, and he cried, " Good heavens — what savages ! " That law and its administration have been brought into contempt, and that criminals have been sympathised with is well known ; but the law which is unjust and partial, and is administered with alternate severity and weakness, merits contempt. To free it from its stigma is the best way of making it respected and effective. Even the sacred books are sometimes read in the light of modern history, and the deeds of men at the present are compared with the acts of Bible patriots. Sir Francis Doyle tells a capital story of Sir Robert Peel. He was, when Irish Secretary, examining a national school in Ireland, and putting questions on the Old Testament. *' Tell me," he said, " what was the reason why Moses left the land of Egypt ? " The older boys passed it, but a little boy on the back seats held out his hand, with " I know, yer honour!" " Come to the front and tell us all about it," said Sir Robert Peel. The boy obeyed, and, when he got to the front, he looked Sir Robert full in the face, and explained the matter thus : ** Please, yer honour, he shot a Peeler ! " Paddy had merely Hibernicised the land of Egypt, and had classed Moses with the outlaws who had escaped to America. It must have been amusing as well as instructive to Sir Robert Peel to hear the policeman called after him and identified with the slain Egyptian. Religious Objections. The religious objections to Home Rule are founded upon the supposition that to give the people of Ireland 302 political power will place them in the hands of the priest- hood, and that, therefore, they will become the mere tools of Ultramontanism. No cry was louder in Tory assemblies, or was more cheered when uttered by Unionist speakers, than that " Home Rule meant Rome Rule." That there are to be found Ultramontanists in national circles may be admitted. To some, doubtless the Pope of Rome is the only lawful ruler, and the Vatican is the only true seat of government. But that these will ever be able to shape and direct the policy of the nation is as preposterous as to suppose that the Archbishop of Canterbury can adopt the policy of the prelate whom he once denominated the *' martyred Laud." The action of the Nationalist leaders, and the policy of the party, have taken all the strength out of this objection. Mr. T. M. Healy makes light of the charge that if Home Rule were granted the Catholics would oppress the Protestants. Daniel O'Connell, while yet the Protestant Parlia- ment survived, thus spoke at a meeting of Catholics held in Dublin in 1799, to protest against the Union: — "It is my sentiment, and I am satisfied that it is the sentiment not only of every gentleman who now hears me, but of the Catholic people of Ireland, that if our opposition to this inglorious, insulting, and hated measure of Union were to draw down upon us the revival of the Penal Laws, we would boldly meet a proscription and oppression which would be the testimony of our virtue, and sooner throw ourselves once more on the mercy of our Protestant brethren, than give our consent to the political murder of our country. Yes, I know — I do know — that, although exclusive advantages may be ambiguously held forth to the Irish Catholic to seduce him from the sacred duty which $0$ he owes his coantry — I know that the Catholics of Ireland still remember that they have a country, and that they will never accept of any advantages as a sect, which would debase and destroy them as a people." *" After the passing of the Emancipation Act of 1829, O'Connell declared in the same spirit, that he would con- sent to the re-enactment of the Penal Laws against his co-religionists, provided he could get back the Protestant Parliament of Ireland. The breadth and loftiness of such declarations contrast strangely with the petty apprehen- sions of the persecutors. O'Connell's solicitude for the welfare and dignity of a/l Ireland, as compared with the pseudo-Radical cry for a cordon sanitaire round the Belfast district, to separate it from the rest of the country, recalls the story of the women who pleaded before Solomon, and the answer the true mother gave to the judgment which would have severed her child in two." **But the Catholics forsooth would oppress the Protes- tants ! Where is the evidence for this ? Living at a time when every paltry outrage is magnified by telegraph for the English market, has there been any attempt made even by the purveyors of London sensation, to show that the half million Protestants outside Ulster have anywhere been constrained or assailed on account of their religion } Is there a board of guardians in the most Catholic districts that does not pay a Protestant chaplain a salary to minister to the spiritual wants of the handful of Protestant paupers in their workhouses — sometimes hardly numbering half a dozen, unmindful of the example given in places like Donegal where, in spite of constant protests in Parlia- ment, and official reproofs from the Local Government * Mr. T. M. Healy— " A Word for Ireland," pages 153-4- 3^4 Board, not only will no priest be paid to take spiritual charge of the Catholics, who form the vast majority of the paupers, but the " loyalists " refuse to give three or four pounds a year to a Catholic catechist to teach the children the Christian doctrine. (See Hansard, passim, 1883 to 1886). In Belfast or in Derry there is no Catholic in the Corporation, or employed by it, although the Catholics of Belfast number 60,000, and they are the majority of the population in Derry. Wherever religious oppression is prac- tised in Ireland, there the Catholics are the minority, and the religious bogey will be buried the moment the land- lords have no longer any interest in keeping the people divided." Dr. Wylie's Views. Dr. Wylie, the author of the History of Protestantism, writes on this subject in a pamphlet called ''Which Sover- eign, Queen Victoria or the Pope ? " This book has been sent gratuitously to ministers of religion. In its pages the learned Doctor argues that English policy is in the wrong, inasmuch as it has given citizenship and political power to Catholics. Pointing out that the Revolution provided for a Protestant Throne and a Protestant Legislature, he says : '* The second part of the Revolution Settlement was a Protestant Legislature." 9. The men of the Revolution said : " That the subjects of Britain shall be governed by British law — law made on the soil of Britain ; law inspired by the genius of British liberty, and conservative of those rights and liberties which had been won in the long struggle oftwo centuries which had just come to an end." The men of the Romish communion are in no proper sense citizens of this country. They are subjects of a foreign prince ; to whom, without con- 305 cealment, their allegiance is given, and by whom their conscience is absolutely ruled. Every bishop takes a feudal oath to obey the Pope in all things, and fight against his enemies ; and that obligation runs down through the priest to the humblest member of their community, linking them into a great feudal con- federacy, whose throne is in the Vatican, and whose country is " the Church." There is no sounder, and certainly no more important principle in national jurisprudence than this — that only the citizens of a country are entitled to take part in framing the laws by which it is to be governed. Self-preservation is the first law of States as of individuals : and what could be a more glaring violation of that law than to commit the government of a country into the hands of those who are aliens to it, and, it may be, its bitterest enemies ? Such a thing would be political suicide. 10. Guided by these considerations — the maxims of sound jurisprudence, enforced by recent and dire experience — the men of the Revolution said we must restrict the task of legislating for the country to the citizens of the country : that is, to Protestants. We extend the protection of our law to all who live on our soil. We shall guard the persons and the property, the liberty and the lives of Romanists, as sacredly as we do the lives and property of Protes- tants ; but to admit the former to the making of our laws is, in the first place, not one of their natural rights : and, in the second place, they have shut themselves out of this privilege by the position in which they have chosen to place themselves. The making of laws is a right which no one can claim, 3o6 unless he is a citizen and a subject — and to admit those who are neither to this power would be simply to place the neck of the true citizen under a foreign authority : it would be to introduce tryanny into the State ; and so gradually to demoralize, and in the end destroy it. One maybe pardoned if he should ask is this religious mania, or has much learning driven the Doctor mad. That these words are not the words of soberness may be averred, though one cannot but believe that to the author they are true. But is this worship of dogma and church and a privileged electorate in harmony with the teaching of Him who uttered the Beatitudes and said " Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you." Dr. Wylie seems afraid lest Catholicism should do with Protestantism what he freely advocates Protestants to do with Catholics. Can bigotry and love of sectarianism blind any more than to make a man oblivious of the equal claims of those who perform the duties and maintain the responsibilities of citizenship equally with himself } To tax Catholics and demand public services from them and then to deny to them political rights because they differently interpret God's word from their fellow-electors, would be to turn the clock back and make England less advanced and free than any nation in Europe, and it is an infringement on that right of private judgment which is regarded as a precious heirloom of the Reformers. Catholics may be trusted as soldiers, sailors, and merchants to deal honestly in com- mercial life, but must not be trusted as voters ! As guides they may be trusted, as bakers and butchers they may be relied on to supply wholesome food to Protestants, who may thus trust them with their lives, but must not trust them with their liberties ! 30? We may consider not only the public teaching of Home Rulers, but also the practice of Catholics and the opinions of Protestants who live in districts where Catholicism is dominant. Daniel O'Connell said :— ** As much theology as you please from Rome, but no politics. We are Roman Catholics, but not servants of Rome." The Catholics of Ireland have never persecuted the Protestants. Mr. Lecky says : — '* The Irish have not generally been an intolerant or persecuting people. During the atrocious persecutions of Mary, the English Protestants were totally unmolested in Ireland. The massacre of Protestants in 1642 was so little due to religious causes that the only Englishman of eminence who was treated by the rebels with reverence and care was Bishop Bedell, who was one of the most energetic Protes- tants of his age, and the first Irish bishop who endeavoured to proselytise among the Catholics." Lord Spencer, who during his Lord-Lieutenancy in Ireland, had many opportunities of studying the relations of Catholics and Protestants, has stated that he does not apprehend any attempt on the part of the Catholics to oppress the Protestants. If the People are Led by the Priests, who ARE TO Blame ? If in many instances the People of Ireland have accepted the guidance of the priests, who are to blame so much as Orangemen, English electors, and lethargic, or unsympathetic Protestant ministers ? The people kept ignorant by law, and impoverished by law, were obliged to appeal to the clergy for mediation and aid in all their struggles. It is to the credit, and not discredit, of the Catholic clergy that they have not left the people to 3o8 struggle unaided. While the gentry of Ireland, the natural leaders of the people, failed O'Connell and Butt in the time of need, the priests stood by them and used their influence in securing for the people greater privileges. Had it not been for them, in most country districts, remote from railway communication and the centres of population, the peasantry would have been absolutely at the mercy of landlords and agents, inflamed by greed and passion. What the motives of the clergy were it is not for me to say. No speaker or writer can tread on more dangerous ground than when he attempts to impugn the motives of public teachers and leaders of political and religious thought and life. Dr. Macaulay says : " The oppression of the poor Irish, both by the Imperial Government and by the English possessors of the island, was as sore as was ever borne by any conquered country. In their adversity they found in the Roman Catholic Priests their nearest advisers and comforters, and it is not surprising that the faith of Romanism has thus become associated with the national spirit. The rulers of the Romish Church are clever in taking advantage of this feeling, and our rulers in the State are led to suppose that Romanism is the one essen- tial element in the " national " policy. But some of the chief leaders in the Irish National Party have been Protestants."* Professor Drummond's Visit to Ireland. Professor Drummond, the able author of "Natural Law in the Spiritual Realm," has paid a visit to Ireland, and has given to his countrymen the benefits of his obser- vation. Speaking at a meeting in the Ayr town in =*= "Macaulay's Ireland in 1872," page 86. support of the candidature of Captain Sinclair, the Liberal candidate, Professor Drummond, who was received with loud cheers, said—'* I take the heartiness of that reception as a tribute to this cause and not to myself, because I am entirely unknown — (cries of *' No, no") — upon a political platform. This is the first time I ever stood on a political platform. It is the first time in my life I ever attended a political meeting — at least with one or two exceptions — during the present campaign, and I am not going to trouble you with a political speech. You say a man who has never been at a political meeting has no business to trouble an audience, but although I have no claim to talk to you about a political question of which I am very ignorant, I have some claim to back my friend, Mr. Sinclair, in the noble fight he has begun here to-night, and in which I hope he will be successful (applause). I have given the subject of Home Rule careful considera- tion for many weeks past, and I would just like to tell a number of men who I am sure are at heart with us, but who are not going in for Home Rule, that if they think a little more about the question they will find themselves gradually able to go the whole length with us, and voting for Mr. Gladstone in this contest (applause). I went to Ireland about two months ago dead against Home Rule, and I was determined not to be converted to Home Rule. (Laughter). I studied the country, its history politically and socially, and I found myself gradually shut up more and more to the fact that there was no alternative. The thing that staggers one at the firstis the largeness of the question, and the second the splendid generosity of the means to be employed (applause). The mind cannot grasp its influence at once, but when he sees the thing as a whole, the men who have framed that measure have known the end from the beginning, have looked at it in its length and breadth (applause). We only see the little details, but it is when you put all things together and look upon them on the whole, you see the splendid harmony of this measure (applause). And when one comes to look into the hearts of the people one sees the generosity of the spirit which inspired this measure, and respects the men who framed it and under- stands their eagerness to have it carried out (Cheers). I don't think we have the least idea of the urgency of this question, much as we know about it. We do not realise that Ireland at this moment is in a state of rebellion. It is a rebellion fortunately without bloodshed, but it is a genuine rebellion. I saw to-day a sight in Glasgow, a sight I have never seen in this country before, and which I never hope to see again. I saw a gentleman driven through the streets in a carriage with mounted policemen guarding him on both sides, in front, and behind. That gentleman was Lord Hartington (hisses and cheers). I must say I blushed for my fellow-subjects in Ireland when I saw that sight — one of my fellow-countrymen going through our city with the police guarding him on all sides. That helps me to see the urgency of this question. I was told by an inspector of constabulary in Calton that he had under him at the present moment 350 policemen and detectives upon protection duty alone. Protection means standing between our fellow-subjects and assassination, mutilation, and robbery — 350 policemen standing between these men and death. Give the screw one more turn, and what would happen to those men who have been watched night and day. It only requires a spark to make that revolution which is at present passive — and you know why it is passive — to make the whole country explode. It is confessed in Ireland that the British Government is not 311 the governing power in Ireland. That is confessec^j. every Government official. The reins are held entirely l the Nationalist party. When one sees that, the only thing to do is to give them what they want, or apply coercion in a form that no country would tolerate. It is to save the Irish people from bloodshed, to allay the passions of that great nation that we want to give them this generous and large policy, which they are generous enough to respond to. I saw the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland driving to Cork some little time ago, I saw the people turn out almost to a man, and I saw the splendid enthusiasm with which they greeted him (applause). Lord and Lady Aberdeen have done more for Ireland — interpreting the spirit of this measure— than all the Acts that have been passed during this century. For the Irish people feel they are not connected with England by the iron hand but by the heart, and it is the spirit of this act which is beginning to tell upon the country, and which is leading men to a higher influence, and which shows them that we want to do what we can to bring in some measure of Home Rule immedi- ately without tampering with the largeness and genuine liberality of the spirit in which we are giving (applause). We must give it at once, and give it in its fulness (applause). I would like to say before sitting down — (cheers) — that there was one strong difficulty in my mind about Home Rule before I came converted to it. I refer to the fear that the granting of Home Rule to Ireland would discourage the Protestant religion, especially in Ulster. Throughout the country that was a genuine fear in many minds. The key to the heart of a Scotch con- stituency is through that deepest part of it, its religious nature, and I am quite sure a great many people have considerable fears and scruples about granting this to pi Ireland in case the Roman Catholics should come to stamp out the Protestant religion. That is an entirely groundless fear — (cheers) — and for very many reasons. For one thing, the facts we have been told about it are grossly exaggerated. We have been told that the Presby- terians are up in arms against this bill. That was not true. There are at present three Presbyterian ministers in Cork, the heart of the Roman Catholic country, and two of them are warm Home Rulers. One of these men is the oldest Presbyterian minister in Ireland, and has been thirty-eight years in the South of Ireland. It happens that I can produce a sentence or two written by this gentleman, whose name is Matthew Kerr. He says:^* I claim to have some right to speak upon this question. I have not taken up this position to-day or yesterday. All my ministerial life has been spent in the west and south. I can fairly say I have come into closer contact with the Roman Catholic people in Ireland than perhaps any minister of our church. And after this experience, spreading over a period of thirty-eight years, I declare with all my heart that I am ready to entrust my civil and religious liberty to the Irish people, with the fullest con- viction that the trust will be safe in their keeping' (cheers). I may add a second argument in regard to that. So far from the Roman Catholic hierarchy being anxious for Home Rule, as many of you know, they have gone into it at the last moment with a very sad heart, because it was the teaching of history that whenever a people got political freedom the Roman Catholic Church went to the wall. So much has that fear been felt that Cardinal Cullen issued a tractate addressed to Roman Catholics, urging them to vote against this movement because their Church was in danger through it. This is the greatest blow the Roman Catholic Church has ever had offered it in Ireland for centuries, the reason being, as I have stated, that it is the teaching of history that whenever a nation got political freedom the Roman Catholic Church began to wane. Let them look at Italy ; the influence of the Church there is waning. Let them look at Belgium. These are facts, and if I were a Roman Catholic I would be very much afraid. It is not a priest question- The priests at this moment are not leading the people, but the people are leading the priests, and the priests have to give in to them. I do not say this because I am a Protestant. I don't want to vex any Roman Catholic present. I bring up these facts to refute the false charge that this bill is going to damage the spirit of Christianity in the country. It will make a thousand new openings. Mr. Gladstone has spoken about this measure as being not a method or a bill, but a prin- ciple. I would speak of it in even stronger language — it is a treaty of peace (applause). We could afford to do without Ireland ; it could not afford to do without us. That is the answer to the cry of separation. We want to exchange this artificial union for a real welding of the nation's hearts together (applause). I don't think for a moment that this bill will settle all the woes and difficul- ties in Ireland or redress all the wrongs of her people. It will be a long day before that is done, and it will take many a long year to do it. It is not a political solution. It is not a social nor a religious solution, but it is the first step to a political solution. There cannot be any false step, because there is no alternative. Our friends are asking on a hundred platforms what Mr. Gladstone would give in place of Home Rule. The question really is what our friends have to offer in its place ? I do not think any one present will have the least hesitation in putting him- 314 self into the hands of that great man who had led this party so long (loud applause). I may be pardoned in Captain Sinclair's presence in saying that if you, by your votes, send him into Parliament, you will send in a man of whom you will be proud (loud cheers)."* Dr. Maginn's Letter to Lord Stanley. Dr. Maginn, Bishop of Derry, in 1847 wrote to the Lord Stanley of his day, in answer to the argument that the law was sacred and ought not to be infringed : — f Permit me, my Lord, to suppose a case. It is hardly a possible case, to be sure, for your native country would not endure it for one day. Still, let me suppose that the landlords in England were, with a few honourable exceptions, selfish, grasping, cruel, tyrannical — that they had made for themselves a code of laws — a code that made them irresponsible, in their own minds, to God or man. That by these laws they made England desolate, scattered the English people, and made them wanderers over the earth ; left one-third of your ocean isle uncultivated, the other two-thirds comparatively unproductive. Let me suppose again that by these laws they made the English nation a beggar in rags at every gate in Christendom — that with them they were enable to exterminate hundreds of thousands of the English people from the homesteads of their fathers, levelling their cabins to the earth and casting them out on a merciless world to die in ditches to make room for the ox, the ass, the goat, and the sheep, thereby preferring the most stupid of the brute creation to him whom the God of heaven made little less than the angels. Let me suppose again that these laws, having full sway for centuries in England, made more widows and orphans, produced more hardships, heart-burning, agonies of soul and writhings of body, caused more tears to be shed and more premature deaths — a greater destruction in fine of human life than the eleven persecutions decreed by the Pagan Emperors of Rome. I ask you, my Lord, in what terms would you speak of those laws ? Would the parsons of England be Christian ministers if they gave their support to a code * Newspaper Report. + Quoted in Freeman's Journal. 5*5 ■which worked such ruin ? Would they not be worse than the apostate priests of the cruel Jezabel, if folding their arms in silence, they looked with cold indifference on their hearers crushed to powder beneath the wheels of this Moloch ? But what would they be— they, the ministers of the God of Mercy ; what name would be too bad for them if, instead of siding with their suffering people, they raised their voices to applaud the cause and cheer on the abettors of this universal ruin ? We know how those who love their people feel ; we know how a Moses, a Jeremiah, a David felt. We know how a Matthias felt when his beloved Judea was beneath the hoof of the truculent Antiochus. We know how the Redeemer felt when he looked on the crowd hungering in the wilderness, and we also know the cry from under the altar of God — " How long, O Lord, how long? " All this ve know, and if the Irish priesthood have anything to answer for to God, it is the tameness and the silence and the patient submission with which most of them looked upon the wrongs, the ruin of their country ; or for the gentle whispers they used when their voices should have been as loud as the roar of the deep or as the crash of the thunderstorm arousing, awakening the world to humanity, outraged in the persons of their flocks, and thereby shaming their persecutors into mercy. I am inclined to the opinion, that Mr, Drummond's words, in relation to the priests and the people, have much truth in them, but men like Dr. Maginn may be above the suspicion of meanness and mere ecclesiastical expedi- ency. There are numbers of patriotic priests in Ireland who have been reared among the suffering peasantry, and have shared in their hardships. These men are sons of tenants, and have received a meagre education in village schools. After qualifying as teachers, they have passed into the priesthood through the college at Maynooth. They have much sympathy with Irish aspirations, and little regard for Ultramontanist policy. If this were not so, surely history points out this lesson, that when the claims of the church interfere with individual liberties and rights, 3'6 and arrogantly invade the domain of civil and political duty, the shock of conflict between the laity and the clergy is not far oif, and the latter are they who must succumb. If this has been so in the mirk of the past, without news- papers, education, postal system, and railways, what will it be to-day, with the light of progress and the publicity secured by modern improvements. Religious bitterness on the part of Catholics in Ireland does not need to be feared in the light of her history. Less of it can be found than in any civilized land. Protestant Volunteers in 1782 favoured the emancipation of Catholics, fifty years before the British Parliament granted it. The movements of freedom in Ireland have been led by Catholics and Protestants, working amicably together. The insurrection of united Irishmen in 1798, and the movement under Daniel O'Connell, were largely aided by Protestants. Messrs. Butt, Shaw, and Parnell have been Protestants. Mr. Parnell was elected as mem- ber for Cork, though opposed by a Catholic backed up by bishops and priests. When Mr. Parnell's testimonial was objected to by the Vatican, it immediately bounded up to a large sum of money, the people thereby showing that in political matters they recognised Mr. Parnell, and not the Pope, as their leader. It is well known and vouched for by Protestant members in the House of Commons, that in Catholic constituencies a Protestant often finds greater favour as Parliamentary candidate than a Catholic, and is usually chosen in pre- ference when other claims are equal. An Englishman, Mr. Whitworth, of Drogheda, said in referring to a false rumour of an intended massacre of Protestants, that he would rather entrust the safety of himself and his family to the Catholics at Drogheda, than to the Orange- 31? men of the north. Many others are of the same opinion. I have met some Protestants living in districts almost exclusively Catholic, who have spoken in glowing terms of their tolerance, friendship, and fidelity. They have had no difficulty with their Catholic neighbours, and there is a considerable minority of these Protestants who are enthusi- astic supporters of a Home Rule policy. The Protestant Home Rule Association is not the only evidence of this. There is a mass of personal testimony to be obtained, in an in- structive pamplet issued by Mr. A. Webb, of Dublin. In towns where Catholics have control, Protestants are freely elected to municipal position. They are made mayors, high sheriffs, corporation officers. But not only in Belfast and Derry, in other Protestant towns also Catholics are kept out of public offices, and, although they compose a large proportion of the population and ratepayers, they are practically without representation, and are at the mercy of bigoted and illiberal Orangemen. EXCLUSIVENESS OF PROTESTANTS. Mr. Edward Harvey, in a letter which appeared in a northern paper, says : — Dear Sir, — Yesterday Mr. John Allingham, an Ulster Protes- tant, was, by a unanimous vote of the Corporation, re-elected Mayor of the Catholic City of Waterford, he having already served eleven months of his first year of mayoralty. In the three more southern and Catholic provinces of Ireland it was, until a few years ago, customary for towns, about nine-tenths of whose inhabitants (as in the case of Waterford) are Catholics, to elect every second or third year a Protestant Tory as Mayor, or, in the case of Dublin, as Lord Mayor. This was, as I think you will admit, a somewhat remarkable instance of the absence of religious and political intolerance amongst a people who are not uncommonly spoken of by their enemies as would-be-persecutors. It is, perhaps, still more remarkable in the face of the fact that Irish Protestants 3i8 have never shown the same degree of toleration towards their Catholic neighbours. Thus, in the ultra Tory and Protestant town of Belfast, which had in 1881 some 60,000 Catholic inhabitants out of a total of 208,000, there is not, and never, to the best of my knowledge, has been a single Catholic member of the Corporation, not to speak of a Mayor. Not only is this so, but, in the employ- ment of Belfast Corporation, unless things have altered lately, there is not a single Catholic, with the exception of a cattle inspector, who is not appointed by the Corporation, but by Government. This remarkable instance of religious intolerance contrasts strongly with the case of Dublin Corporation, which, although mainly Catholic (as is Dublin City), employs many Protestant officials, and has had numerous Protestant (and Tory) Lord Mayors. The case of Londonderry is, in some respects, even more re- markable than that of Belfast. In 1881 the population of Derry consisted of 16,000 Catholics and 12,400 Protestants; total, 28,400. Yet to the best of my knowledge, there are not more than two or three, if so many, Catholic members of Derry Corporation, and such a thing as a Catholic Mayor of Derry has not been heard of since the reign of James II., the last Catholic King of Ireland. The reason why a minority of Protestants is enabled to elect a large majority of the Corporation in Derry is that there, as in all other Irish towns and cities, the high Irish Municipal Franchise limited to men only, of a /lo valuation, equal to £iy rental in Ireland, or say to a /■20 or £25 rental in England, excludes the great bulk of the Catholic house holders, who are as a body, much poorer than the Protestants. Contrast this with the state of affairs in British towns, where every householder, male or female, who has resided a year in one house, is entitled to the Municipal Franchise. Contrast also, the toleration shown by Irish Catholics to their Protestant fellow-countrymen with the attitude of British Protes- tants towards British Catholics. How many British Catholic Mayors, or Provosts, or M.P.'s, are, or ever have been, elected for hundreds of years past ? I know of only one British Catholic M.P. in the present House of Commons, and I suppose the Catholic Mayors and Provosts in Great Britain do not number more than two or three, if, indeed, there are any such in existence. 3^Q Views of Irish Leaders. John Mitchell wrote in a New York Paper as follows, in reply to a statement of Cardinal Cullen's that *'the nationality of Ireland means simply the Catholic Church," ** 'the nationality of Ireland simply the Catholic Church!' We know not what Judge Keogh may say to this statement, but we never heard of the fact before. There has been a kind of idea prevailing, that Grattan, and Lord Edward Fitzgerald, that Tone and the Emmets, and Davis and O'Brien, were advocates of Irish nationality, though they had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It has even been thought that the Presbyterian clergyman, who was hanged as a united Irishman in 1798 was a better Irishman than Dr. Troy, this cardinal's predecessor." Thomas Francis Meagher was cheered to the echo, when he gave public utteranceto the following sentiments: — ** A spirit of brotherhood is abroad, old antipathies are losing ground, traditional distinctions of sect and party are now being effaced. Irrespective of descent or creed, we begin at last to appreciate the abilities and virtues of all our fellow-countrymen. We now look into history with the generous pride of the nationalist, not with the cramped prejudice of the partisan. We do homage to Irish valour, whether it conquers on the walls of Derry, or capitulates with honour before the ramparts of Limerick. We award the laurel to Irish genius, whether it has lit its flame from within the walls of Old Trinity, or drawn its inspiration from the sanctuary of St. Omer's. * We must tolerate each other,' said Henry Grattan, he whose eloquence was the very music of freedom, *we must tolerate each other, or we must tolerate the common enemy.' After years of social disorder, years of detestable 320 recrimination between factions and provinces and creeds, we are on the march to freedom. Let us sustain a firm, gallant, and courteous bearing, let us avoid all offence to those who pass us by ; and by rude affronts let us not drive still further from our ranks those who at present decline to join. An honourable forbearance towards those who censure us, a generous respect toward those who differ from us, will do much to diminish the diffiQulties that inpede our progress. Let us cherish, and upon every occasion mani- fest an anxiety for the preservation of the rights of all our fellow-countrymen — their rights as citizens, their muni- cipal rights, the privileges which their rank in society has given them, the position which their wealth has purchased, or their education has conferred ; and we will in time, and before long, efface the impression that we seek for a repeal with a view to crush those rights, to injure property, or erect a church ascendancy." Meagher's great teacher — Daniel O'Connell — had previously given utterance to similar sentiments. He said : " The real obstacle to the repeal of the Union is appre- hension that it would be followed by religious intolerance and sectarian animosity. Men of Ireland, your duty is to conduct yourselves so as to obliberate every such apprehension. Exert yourselves unremittingly to exhibit kindliness, affection, conciliation, cordiality, towards persons of all sects, and of every persuasion. Let us leave the settlement of our religious differences to grace , to piety, to the mercies of God, to the merits of our ador- able Redeemer. Irishmen, the more charity you display, the more christian virtues you practise, the more shall you advance the temporal interests and the civil liberties of your native land. Patriotism and religion run in the same channel." 32i Thomas Davis, the representative ttiati of the Nationalist movement, impressed his individuality upon the party, and is lovingly remembered to-day by the men whose heads have grown grey in the service of Ireland. In ballads, historical and political, he endeavoured to stir up the courage and energies of the people of Ireland. One of the most popular of his songs contains the senti- ments of Grattan, Meagher, and O'Connell : — Rusty the swords our fathers unsheathed; William and James are turned to clay ; Long did we till the wrath they bequeathed, Red was the crop and bitter the pay ! Freedom fled us ! Knaves misled us ! Under the feet of the foemen we lay ; Riches and strength We'll win them at length : For Orange and Green will carry the day ! Landlords befooled us, England ruled us, Hounding our passions to make us their prey : But in their spite The Irish unite. And Orange and Green will carry the day. Fruitful our soil where honest men starve ; Empty the mart and shipless the bay ; Out of our want the oligarchs carve, Foreigners fatten on our decay ! Disunited, Therefore blighted. Ruined and rent by the Englishman's sway ; Party and creed For once have agreed — ' Orange and Green will carry the day ! Boyne's old water, Red with slaughter, Now is as pure as an infant at play ; So in our souls Its history rolls, And Orange and Green will carry the day. 322 The Papal Rescript and the Nationalist Reply. If anything more than argument is needed to prove the groundlessness of the fears entertained by timid Pro- testants, the reception of the Papal Rescript is instructive. The document supposed to condemn the methods of the National Party, sent by the Pope to be read in the churches of Ireland, was received with either coldness or resentment. It found no favour with anyone, except per- haps a few wealthy Catholics in England, and some wild Orangemen of Ulster, who for once in their history saw some good in the great ecclesiastic, whose home is amid the seven hills. Whether theRescript had been inspired byEnglish Catholics, acting as a go-between for the Tory Government, is not a matter of much moment, but the huge greeting given to it by Orangemen suggested that in the advocacy of a political policy they, for the moment, were willing to have a truce with Ultramontane authorities at Rome. Archishop Walsh came forward to show the harmlessness of the Rescript, and aided by other dignatories of the church, he endeavoured to reassure indignant nationalists. Priests and Bishops erected lightning conductors to lead off the fiery current of Papal wrath, and the no less forky and flashing element of patriotic indignation. Messrs. Dillon, O'Brien, and Davitt, all of them faithful Catholics, honoured by their clergy, spake out boldly and let the day- light in upon the minds of Italian ecclesiastics, as well as those of religious bigots who had parroted the cry — " Home Rule means Rome Rule." These popular leaders of Ireland, with vehemence and determination reiteratea the old cry — ** no politics from Rome," and the people, massed in large public assemblies showed their approval, not of the cold Rescript, but of the warm, glowing patriotism of the men who had caught the spirit of the Howards of 323 the time of the Spanish Armada. Mr. William O'Brien crushingly pointed out to Cardinal Simeoni and the Pope, that in condemning boycotting the church of Rome was uttering a condemnation on its own actions. He showed how that the Papal powers in the Vatican had boycotted the Government of Italy, because Victor Emanuel had " land grabbed " the territory of the former Papal States. Mr. John Dillon, at Kilrush, said : — " On this question of yielding obedience to the Court of Rome on temporal matters we are not without a great and important precedent. In the days of O'Connell the Court of Rome and the Pope of that day thought proper to interfere in Irish affairs on a very important matter indeed. The English Government of that day desired to obtain the power of preventing any man who was obnoxious to them being created a bishop of the Catholic Church in Ireland. The Court of Rome of that day issued a document pre- cisely similar to the document we now have before us, in which they recommended the Irish people to accept Catholic Emancipation on those terms, and to allow the British Government to have a veto on the appointments. What did O'Connell do ? — and we have never been told that O'Connell was a bad Catholic — O'Connell declared that it was the doctrine of Catholics that while in spiritual matters and on questions of conscience and religious duty we were bound to accept the solemn teaching of the Church of Rome, in temporal matters and questions of public policy we were not bound to accept it. O'Connell declared — ' I for my part am a good Catholic, but I never will submit to the doctrine that the Pope or the Court of Rome has power to rule me on temporal affairs.' It does seem to me a curious thing that one of the great grounds on which we decline — and I think justly decline — to be 324 ruled from Westminster is that we object, as every people in the world who have ever tasted of liberty, or who have any self-respect, object to be ruled by men in temporal concerns who do not understand the circumstances under which they live. And are we to be told that while we struggle and make sacrifices, and have maintained for years the desperate strife against a foreign rule at Westminster, that we are to submit to or accept the foreign rule of a number of Italians in Rome, no matter how holy they may be ? It is a monstrous doctrine ; it is a doctrine which, I venture to say, the authorities in Rome will never attempt to maintain, and which, if they did attempt to maintain to-morrow, the Irish race would stand up like one man and refuse to submit to. No, the Irish people have shown, as I contend, in the face of almost unparalleled difficulties and sufferings and dangers, that the sacred cause of liberty is as dear to them at least as to any other race of men who inhabit this earth. They have shown that they will submit to no foreign domination on the soil of Ireland. And while we have shown in the past, and shall show in the future, a devotion to the head of the Church, in whose doctrines we have been reared and our fathers before us, which will compare favourably with the devotion of any of the Great Powers of Europe, or of our friends the English Catholics, we will show also, I trust and believe, that we know what liberty means, and we know how to draw the distinction between devoted obedience to the Church in spiritual matters and absolute independence of everybody except the Irish people in temporal matters." The Nationalists held a meeting of Catholic members in Dublin, and issued a counter-manifesto to that of the Pope ; in which, after combatting and condemning the statements of the Rescript, they said in conclusion : — 325 6. That, while unreservedly acknowledging the spiritual juris- diction of the Holy See, we, as guardians of those civil liberties which our Catholic forefathers have resolutely defended, feel bound solemnly to re-assert that Irish Catholics can recognise no right in the Holy See to interfere with the Irish people in the management of their political affairs. A meeting in support of the action of the Irish Parliamentary Party in reference to the Rescript was held in Phoenix Park, Dublin. There was a very large attendance of people. On the platform there were present : — Messrs. T. Sexton, M.P., Lord Mayor of Dub- lin ; T. Harrington, M.P., J. Dillon, M.P., Wm. O'Brien, M.P., J. P. Clancy, M.P., J. E. Redmond, M.P., D. Sheehy, M.P.. Crilly, M.P., Cox, M.P., M. J. Kenny, M.P., D. Kenny, M.P., and others.— The Lord Mayor, in opening tlie proceedings, said the duty cast upon them was delicate, as well as honourable, and he felt it his duty to remind them that while they were entitled to speak clearly and act firmly in the assertion of their political rights, it was their duty also not to forget for a single moment the profound veneration which, as Catholics, they owed to the Holy See. Irish Catholics were connected, for different pur- poses, and in different ways, with two powers. By their free consent they were linked in their spiritual affairs with the Holy See, and against their will, for the purpose of secular laws, to the Parliament of England. Their religion was independent of England, and their politics were independent of Rome, and they would as soon think of taking their politics from the Palace by the Tiber, as their religion from the Parliament of England. The following resolution was moved : — "That the citizens of Dublin, in public meeting assembled, cordially endorse and adopt in their entirety the resolutions of the Irish Catholic members of Parliament with reference to the late circular of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and respectfully decline to recognise any right in the Holy See to interfere with the Irish people in the management of Irish political affairs." 326 — Mr. Dillon, in supporting the motion, contended that the Rescript had been conceived in ignorance, and without full knowledge of the circumstances, and the sooner it was withdrawn the better, — Mr. O'Brien said they had enemies enough without receiving blows from hands from which they least deserved it. It was cruel, unnatural, and heart-breaking to Irish Catholics to think that the name of Rome could be flung in their teeth by Mr. Balfour, when- ever he struck down an Irish representative, and it was maddening to think that every Irish rack-renter who cleared a country side could flourish the Papal circular in their faces as if it was a sherifl''s writ. While all the cen- sures of Rome was reserved for the unhappy Irish people fighting for their lives, there was not one word of censure for the deeds and crimes of landlordism. In all the ages of suffering of their people they neve? had been called upon to give a higher proof of their faith, or to do a nobler service to Catholicity, than they did that day in declaring that the sacred name of Rome must be no longer dragged through the mire of Dublin Castle. The eff"ect of the circular was purely political, and it had en- couraged Mr. Balfour and his hireling magistrates, to hound down men like Mr. Dillon. Mr. J. E. Redmond said, that if they had to acquiesce in this Roman interfer- ence the English people would be absolute fools to give them Home Rule, for it would be a mockery, a delusion, and a danger. The resolution was passed with acclamation. Surely this ought to carry conviction to the minds of Protestants that the Nationalists do not intend to allow the Church to dominate the State in Ireland. As a Protestant minister, I can scarcely be sus- pected of sympathy with the Roman Catholic Church 3^7 as an Ecclesiastical system. Taught from my boy- hood to look with suspicion upon Jesuitism, I must stand excused if I am unable to approve the deeds of the Catholic Church. Among the earliest books given me to read were '* Foxe's Book of Martyrs " and a history of Protestantism, and if anything more had been needed to convince me of the iniquity of many Papal Pronounce- ments, it was supplied in Mr. Gladstone's trenchant criticism of the Vatican Decrees. For very many of the priests and laity of the Catholic Church I have strong respect and admiration. Their lives and work teach many lessons to Protestant Ministers. Who are more frequently found ministering to the sick, and exercising care for the poor ? As men, as patriots, and as Christian philanthropists, they may be honoured. Their devotion to their flock, and their courage in maintaining their principles put many Methodist ministers" to the blush. Their creed I reject. Their positions as ecclesiastics of an autocratic church system I have no sympathy with. But to fear that Catholics will betray their country's interests, and that the National Leaders — like the pusillanimous coward King John— will lay their symbol of authority at the feet of the Pope, is a groundless fear. ^ The day has gone when men may be denounced in doing good actions because they cannot conscientiously use the Shibboleth of Leo XIV., of Archbishop Benson, or the President of the Methodist Conference. It is equally gone when men may surrender their political con- victions and subjugate their country to the arbitrary edicts of a dominant ecclesiastic, however powerful or holy he may be. I am convinced that the experiences of the people amid the wooded hills of Germany will be realised 328 in Ireland, and that freedom in political life will tend to greater fellowship between men holding different tenets and creeds. Dr. Spence. Watson mentions Heidelberg in proof of a similar statement made in the Newcastle Leader. He says: — ** And the religious animosity which now divides Ireland into two hostile camps will die in Ireland, as it has died elsewhere, before the influence of common needs, common hopes, common objects, in everyday life. This will not be the work of a day nor a generation. Evil ways are not easily destroyed. Mistakes there may be, difficul- ties there will be, but difficulties as great have been over- come in other lands. Few places leave the leisurely visi- tor a more charming recollection than the little town of Heidelburg. Lying between the Odenwald, through which the lovely Bergstrasse makes its way, and the more distant Schwarzwald, the Neckar winding among the richly-wooded hills and through the town to the fertile plain where the Rhine receives it, and far away the blue Alsatian mountains closing in the view, it is difficult to imagine a more peaceful scene. The vast ruin of the castle, interesting beyond all others for its history, its architectural variety and beauty, and the glory of its posi- tion, rises proudly above the town, ^nd everywhere the woods and meadows vie in quiet loveliness. Yet few places have been so filled with the demon of religious discord. Thrice was it burned and ten times besieged. The town itself has been bombarded five times, twice laid in ashes, and thrice taken by storm and given up to the cruellest pillage. The town where Jerome of Prague, the favourite companion and friend of John Huss, fixed his famous theses to the door of St. Peter's Church, it was Conspicuous above all in religious strife. Its sufferings 329 were from religious war. Even up to i 693 the cruelties practised upon the Protestants of the town by the French Troops were almost without parallel. And yet the last time I visited it, the great church in which many Electors and Counts of the Palatinate lie buried was divided down the middle by a wooden partition, and the Protestants worship quietly and peacefully at one side of the white- washed deal boards, and the Catholics at the other. ' And I smiled, to think that God's greatness flows around our incompletness, Round our restlessness His rest.' " Besides the above, the experiences of France, Italy, Hungary, as well as Belgium, show that people who love liberty, and after long struggles achieve it, will not lightly surrender it at the dictates of a spiritual leader. The more that freedom is cherished, and the aspirations and pride of nationality are sustained in the hearts of patriots, the more they are determined to look upon an ecclesiastic, in politics, as having ng authority derived from his minis- terial position, and only to be honoured, as other men are, for his worth and work. To political leaders, and not ecclesiastical ones, they look for direction in national matters. And those who object to the interference of cardinals and bishops in political matters, to be consistent, should lift up their voice in loud condemnation of that blot on the system of government, viz., the presence of a number of bishops in the House of Lords, who have been obstructors of humane and progressive legislation, and who have never been elected by the constituencies. Great Interests at Stake. But to my mind, in this controversy, great moral and spiritual interests are at stake, far greater 330 than the predominance of either Catholicism or Protestantism. I can never be an apologist for Roman Catholicism, its alliance with despots, its ancient intolerance, and its restrictions of progress. It is in religious matters what Conservatism is in political ones. It is in itself, as an institution, the truest ally of Toryism. It thrives on tradition and custom and dogma, and I repeat, that while honouring Roman Catholics, and believing, as I do, implicitly in their conscientiousness and honesty as priests and laymen, I can never be an apologist for the ecclesiastical system they sustain. Neither can I be a blind advocate of Protestantism. Cruel deeds stain its history. In many instances it has caught the spirit of the old dispensation, and returned evil for evil, cruelty for cruelty. If it has not had its inquisitions, it has often pillioried and condemned men for their theological opinions, and, metaphorically speaking, it has crucified them before Church assemblies for their explanations and inter- pretations of Holy Writ. I can never excuse the intolerance, bigotry, and pharasaism of many churches calling themselves Protestant. I protest against them, be they Presbyterian, Methodist, or Ecclesiastical. If the Protestant Church is to succeed, either in Ireland or England, it can only do so by its superior manifestations of charity and devotion, and its clearer and fuller exposi- tion of truth, to those of rival systems of religion. It must prove itself to be a Diviner faith than Catholicism by the increased generosity and sacrifice of its votaries. Elijah's test is the practical one to-day. " The God that answereth by fire, let Him be God," he cried in the hearing of Israel, and the people rolled back the reply " It is well spoken." So, the religion that does the best for the world, that ministers most fully to human sufi'ering, and relieves 33' human need ; that satisfies the aspirations and convic- tions of men most truly, and makes life a free and earnest and noble thing; that gives the highest aid in struggles, and comfort in sorrow ; that throws the truest gleams athwart the darkness of life, lights up most clearly the mysterious passage of death, and does the most to make the future a real and inspiring power of self-sacrifice and service and purity in the present, is the one which is most worthy of the highest regard. And if Protestants, forgetful of their origin and principles, fail, and fall into the rear in this great work, and Catholics come forward and lead men out of misery, and slavery, and poverty, I, as a minister and a Protestant by training and conviction, will say " God speed the earnest Christly Catholic workers." Something Greater than Church Systems. For there is something greater than our Church systems ; something nobler and grander than our creeds, or sects, or Churches. Jesus Christ proclaimed himself to be greater than the Temple ; and the Christlike spirit and work are greater than ecclesiastical observances and beliefs, either Catholic or Protestant. Truth is wider than its expression. Divine life is more copious and clear than it can be found represented in any human receptacle. Princi- ples are more powerful and pure than their expression in any dogma or any institution. God, the Almighty and Eternal Father, cannot be shut up in any one church any more than all the sunlight can be boxed up in anyone dwelling; and justice, truth, love — the bases of the Gospel — are broader than any of the faulty structures of Church systems built upon them. 33'^ A Sunday in Dublin. In 1887 I spent a Sunday in Dublin, and visited three places of worship. In the morning I worshipped in the Wesley Church, St. Stephen's Green. Instead of the usual sermon, a noted and honoured minister spent an hour in expounding the usages and rules of Methodism. John Wesley was lauded. In the afternoon, I went with devout worshippers to the Roman Catholic Cathedral, in Marlborough Street. A sermon was preached on " The respect and homage paid to the Virgin Mother of Christ, by the Fathers of the church." In the evening, I listened to a powerful and eloquent sermon on ** The rights of private judgment," in the Protestant church, in Marl- borough Street. Each sermon was excellent, but all were disappointing. I felt assured that what the people needed was not the proclamation of tenets peculiar to church systems, but the announcement of a gospel of love and forbearance, and kindness. Ireland can be saved, not by a church system, but by the living Christ, and what she needs in her religious life is the utterance of those great religious facts found in the nature and government of the Almighty — and expressed with beauty and pathos, and power in the sublime and self-sacrificing life of Jesus of Nazareth. Conquered, but not Subdued. The policy of England toward Ireland has prevented and not aided this. Her patronage of one church, and the fawning servility of that church to the State, have hindered the true inculcation of Christian principles, and have prevented the people from coming more closely together in philanthropic and remedial work. The policy in the past has been out of harmony with the moral 333 government of God, and the genius and teaching of the gospel. And Ireland has resented this, though she has been compelled to bow to it. There is a picture of two boys — one of them strong and burly, and the other delicate and weak. The strong boy holds the other pinioned against the wall, wqth a bony fist clenched close to his face. But the weaker one is looking defiantly at his captor, and the expression of his face speaks volumes as to what he would do in return had he the strength. Underneath the picture are the words, ** conquered, but not subdued." There was room in the street for them both to walk, had they not interfered with each other. This is what we, as Englishmen, have done in Ireland. The heart of Ireland has never been con- quered, though she has been pinioned and manacled. The Church of the Protestant minority has helped to hold the Catholics pinned to the wall, and now she fears retalia- tion. But there is room for them both, and patriotism and true Christian principle are strong enough to keep them from conflict. The cry of many good men has been that the ten commandments are still in force, and must not be broken by Irishmen. I agree with this, and I say they must not be broken by Englishmen either. Mr. A. J. Balfour says that the followers of Mr. Gladstone in this Home Rule movement have " made short work of the eighth commandment, not to talk of the ninth commandment. I do not see why they should haggle over the sixth commandment." But is there not an eleventh commandment, intended to be be binding not only upon Liberals and Nationalists, but upon Mr. Balfour and his followers ? Has not the law of love been made the determining force of the Christian dispensation.^ 334 Must not all the ten commandments therefore be inter- preted in, the light of that commandment which embodies in it the Spirit, not only of the Decalogue, but also of Him who has made known the Father to the hearts and minds of men, and has taught them that they are equal citizens of life ? Political Principles at Stake. There are, moreover, great political principles involved in this movement. Are the people to be trusted ? Is the majority to rule ? Is the theory of government to be "the greatest good of the greatest number"? Is the government of the country to be conducted on the most economical and acceptable lines ? These are the principles for which the leaders of Liberalism in the past have contended, and men are dastards to-day to call themselves Liberals and yet to forsake the principles of Liberalism, unless they show reason for retaining the old name in association with a new creed, or unless they can show that the principles have failed in their application, or are not adapted to our modern life. The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain says in a book called " Why I am a Liberal ! " ** True Liberalism seeks constantly the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and will attain its end through the wise co-operation of a self-governed commonwealth." Precisely ! that is what the Home Rule followers of Mr. Gladstone say, and to which they try to give effect. The arguments in favour of Home Rule are grounded on history. Experience shows that self-government has been no toy in the hands of patriots and people, but a power by which they have secured progress. Liberalism loves to appeal to history, for it is the record of her 335 triumphs. When Liberals have failed to uphold their principles, and have accepted Tory devices, histor}' records their condemnation and failure. Home Rule is also founded on the present needs of the people. Other methods have failed, and the people ask that this one shall be tried. It is further grounded on the fundamental instincts of humanity, man's love of freedom, and his impatience of despotic restraint. Lord Hampden, who, as Speaker in the House of Commons, was often brought into conflict with Nationalist debaters, says : — * It is true that I am a warm supporter of Mr. Gladstone's Irish policy of extending self-government to Ireland upon a broad basis, in accordance with the desire of an overwhelming majority of the Irish people — that is, by the establishment of a single Legislative Assembly for the control of affairs strictly Irish ; and, had I been called upon to vote in the late division on the Government of Ireland Bill, I should, without hesitation, have voted for the second reading. But the Bill requires amendment in several particulars ; and no man, I apprehend, is more alive to this necessity than Mr. Glad- stone himself, who has repeatedly appealed, but in vain, to the constructive statesmanship of the House of Commons to assist him in amending the Bill in Committee. I cannot within the compass of a letter give in full the reasons which have led me to the conclusion that the time has come to make peace with Ireland upon terms which, while giving her the Union she desires, will strengthen the Empire. But among those reasons the following have had much weight with me : — " I. — The Union, as now established, has been only main- tained through Coercion Acts repeatedly passed by Parliament against the will of the Irish people ; and without Coercion such a Union cannot hereafter be maintained. * Letter to Daily News, June loth, 1886, 336 2. — The action of Mr. O'Connell and his followers, of Mr. Smith O'Brien, of Mr. Butt, and, lastly, of Mr. Parnell, are proofs, if any were wanting, of Irish disaffection as represented in our House of Commons. 3. — Under the operation of Household Suffrage, and a redistribution of political power recently conceded, that dis- affection is manifested in larger measure in the present Parliament. In former Parliaments the contingent of Irish disaffection numbered about 40 members. It now numbers 86 members, and would probably increase should coercive laws be again applied. 4. — It has been difficult, as I can testify, to carry on the business of the House of Commons in the face of 40 disaffected members ; it will be still more difficult to do so in the face of the larger contingent of 86 disaffected members. It can be done, no doubt ; for the House of Commons is, humanly speaking, omnipotent. But this end can only be attained by the exercise of coercive laws not only outside the House against the people of Ireland, but also inside the House against their members. 5. — If the Irish asked for concessions either unreasonable or dangerous, of course they should be resisted. But there is nothing unreasonable in their demand for self-government, while any apprehended dangers may be guarded against. My voice, therefore, is for making peace with them, taking such securities as may be necessary for the integrity of the Empire. The Government of Ireland Bill, although lost, is a message of peace to Ireland, and may lead to a more hearty Union than that against which the Irish have constantly protested throughout the present century." Mr. Disraeli's Views. Earl Granville, in a speech delivered in London, referred to a statement of Mr. Disraeli's as follows: — "Now I want to know if any of you have forgotten what was the description of an Irish policy given by Mr. Disraeli. In 1844 he thus described the Irish question. He said there 337 was a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien Church, and the weakest Executive Government in the world. He said if gentlemen were to read of such a state of things what would they say ? They would say revolu- tion was the only remedy ; but the Irish cannot have a revolution, because Ireland is connected with another and a stronger country. Then he asked, what is the conse- quence if the connection with England is the cause of this state of things, if the connection of England prevents a revolution, if a revolution is the only remedy, then England finds itself in the odious position of being the cause of Ireland's misery. He then asked what in these circum- stances ought a Minister to do. He ought to try to effect by policy what a revolution would do by force, and he added that his belief was that if his recommendations were followed the next fifty years would see Ireland prosperous and with a contented peasantry. Now it is said that this opinion was given in 1 844, a very long time ago ; but in 1 87 1, after twenty-seven years of accumulated addition of political experience, Mr. Disraeli republished this speech, and in a note he said, * In my historical conscience I believe this sentiment was right.' Now, I venture to think that this description is a necessary description of Mr. Gladstone's policy and of the policy in which we believe. It is a very remarkable coincidence that two men of such different character, minds, and training as Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone, each of them the undoubted head of his party, concurred in their views as to the manner of dealing with this great Irish question. Mr. Disraeli was prevented by party obligations from attempting to carry out his views, but we have now Mr. Gladstone, in undiminished vigour, prepared to do so; and we hope that either by one party or the other this question may be settled." 338 Mr. John Bright, in a speech to a deputation of Cork Farmer's Club in 1866, said : — '* If you had a Parlia- ment on College Green, clearly the tenantry of Ireland, with the present feeling in Ireland, would be able to force that Parliament to any measure of justice they named ; but as you have to deal with a great Parliament sitting in London, all the clamour you make, or the demands you may urge from this side of the Channel, come with a very feeble effect, especially as it can only be represented by about one hundred members ; and of these it unfortun- ately happens that a considerable number are not willing to support the demands that are made. You have to wrest your rights from a Parliament sitting in London, to which you send 103 members ; perhaps half are not in favour of your rights, and therefore the fifty who are so are lost in the six hundred they find there, and the effort on the part of your members to do anything is one of the most dis- heartening things that any representative of the people can have to do It is one of the most difficult things in the world for fifty men acting among six hundred men, some hundreds of miles from those whom they represent, to work up any questions which may be against the prejudiced sympathies of the six hundred among whom they are acting." Home Rule Sprung upon the Country. Perhaps the argument which found most favour with Dissentient Liberals was one based upon political expedi- ency. It was stated that the measure was inopportune, and that Mr. Gladstone had sprung his policy upon the country. Mr. T. P. O'Connor says in answer to this objec- tion : — *" The charge is entirely untrue. He exhausted * " Parnell Movement," Page 283. 339 every means to keep the question within the control of a united Liberal Party, and to prevent its reference to the tumultuous and passionate tribunal of the ballot-boxes. In those clauses which provoked criticism he promised amendment, and the whole Bill he undertook to postpone till an autumn sitting, after the House had afhrmed the principle of Home Rule by passing the second reading. It was those who defeated the second reading of the Bill, and so provoked the General Election, that must bear the responsibility of all that has since happened. If the second reading had been carried, the interval would have been spent in the calm consideration of the various points of difference among those who honestly accepted the principle of an Irish Legislative Assembly, and in all probability a compromise would have been arrived at. There had not arisen at this period any of that fierce bitterness which at present rages between the two sections of the Liberal Party, and so the points of difference could have been debated in calmness, and settled by mutual concession." Every great question comes suddenly to those who do not acquaint themselves with the inner workings of life. By the spread of moral conviction, and the enlargement of opportunities, the greatest achievements of freedom have been secured. But only those in whose hearts the con- viction has obtained root, and made them ready to seize the latent opportunities, are prepared for the proper time. Great principles and policies root themselves firmly in the national mind before they appear to the public gaze. The Protes- tant Reformation was sprung upon Germany and the World, but men now see that all the work of Martin Luther would have failed had it not been that the prin- ciples 6f Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome of Prague, and tlie 340 Lollards, had prepared the world in secret for the coming strife, and that Luther did but express what thousands of others had long felt. The principles of Fox, Grattan, and O'Connell had been working for years in preparing the people of England for a Home Rule Measure. But none of them had done more than the writings and utterances of John Bright. It is strange, that having led them to the borders of the land, indicated he should now refuse to pass in with them to its cherished possessions. Tories and Unionists Considering Home Rule. Mr. Gladstone was not alone in turning his attention to the policy of allowing the Irish people to settle questions affecting the internal government of the island. All English statesmen had begun to see that this was a question which must soon be met. Mr. Chamberlain expressed his opinions openly and in private, and had serious conferences with Mr. Parnell. The Tory party were looking in the direction of Home Rule ; and Lord Carnarvon,the Tory Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, also met Mr. Parnell and conferred with him on the Irish demands, expressing sympathy with the national aspirations. The attitude of Lord Randolph Churchill, the leader of the Tory Democratic party, we have already noticed. But Mr. Gladstone saw that the time had come for more than an academic discussion of the question, and that the make- shift policy of office-seekers must be superseded by a definite act of statesmanship. He saw also that to further delay the matter would be to make the settlement more difficult, and that the necessities of the people demanded a broad measure of land reform, supported and administered by a popular Government which the nation would approve. Hence, he formulated his measures. ^4* That it was not a plot deeply designed by one man is clear from the fact that Mr. Gladstone, in a letter to Lord Hartington, remonstrated with that nobleman for the views he expressed on Irish questions while the matter was still one to be finally considered by the Liberal leaders. Sir Wm. Harcourt, Mr. John Morley, and others have shown that they knew in what direction Mr. Gladstone's statesmanship was tending ; and the hesitation of Mr. Chamberlain to join the Cabinet is another proof that he regarded Mr. Gladstone's views as in some sense antago- nistic to his own. The lines of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill must therefore have been sufficiently known to the Liberal lieutenants to disprove the charge that it was a mine quickly laid and suddenly exploded. On the borders of Wales there is a willow tree aged and decayed, but rooted in its decomposed heart there stands a rose-bush, covered in summer with beautiful roses. In the government of Ireland, so long unprosper- ous, Mr. Gladstone endeavoured to drop the seeds of Liberalism, viz., ** trust in the people," and ** government of the people by the people, for the people," which should call forth the best energies of Irishmen, and make them blossom into a fruitful and law-abiding Democracy. Self-Government Successful. Mr. Gladstone's scheme was not without precedents. It was not a quixotic and novel experiment. It had been tried and had succeeded in the Colonies, and the number of Home Rule Parliaments included in the British Empire was a standing proof of the wisdom of the plan suggested by the Liberal leader. The self-government of the Colonies teaches a lesson which ought not to be dis- regarded. In Canada, by placing the government of the country as much as possible in the hands of the colonists, the country's connexion with Britain was retained, while in the United States of America, arbitrary government from London brought on the riots of Boston, and the American War of Independence. Lord Durham went out to Canada, practically, as a dictator, but on viewing the question more closely, he threw away his preconceived ideas and inaugurated a plan of legislative independence. Odium was poured upon him by the nobility. He was hated and abused by the privileged, wealthy, and official classes, and Mr. Justin McCarthy says : " he made a country and he marred a career." Though he returned to England discredited and disgraced, and though the government refused to extend to him the usual honours paid to Governors of the Colonies returning home, the populace turned out in their thousands to cheer and applaud this bold and radical reformer of Canadian Government. The Times, even then true to its modern characteristics, called him ** The Lord High Seditioner," but the people of Canada called him the Saviour of their Country, and the salvation of that country places his reputation to-day above the reach of scurrility and abuse. History does justice to men who are leaders in progressive movements, and are in advance of the people of their times. In Canada, boycotting, intimidation, rebellion, and rank treason were charged against the people, in the letters of the Colonial authorities to the Government in London. But when the power was entrusted to them, these things ceased. It has been so in other lands. The concession of autonomy pacified Hun- gary, and made the connection between that country and Austria more real and harmonious than it could have been U3 had the fatal policy of refusing legislative self-government been continued. Even under the despotic rule of the Czar of Russia, the people of Finland have been made contented and prosperous in the same way, while Norway and Sweden under one Sovereign, and separate govern- ments are dwelling together in unity and peace. The Canadian System of Home Rule. Mr. John Morley, in a speech at Newcastle, gave a brief explanation of the Canadian system of government as follows: — "The Chairman referred to the Canadian settlement. Now I am one of those who think that if you are in conference there is some delicacy in treating in public matters which are there dealt with more or less privately. It is a matter of taste and good feeling, but that is the way in which my taste and my good feeling point. There is no reason, however, why I should not respond to the Chairman's appeal, and say a word or two about what is called the Canadian solution — and I am only going to point out this to you, that if anybody thinks that what is called the Canadian settlement is less favourable to freedom in an Irish legislative body, than the system pro- posed to be established under our Bill, he is very much mis- taken. I am not for a moment saying that I wish to commit myself to that scheme, but I am only anxious, that you who are my constituents should be well informed as to the par- ticulars of the matter. Now, you know what the govern- ment of Canada is. There is a Dominion Parliament, to which representatives are sent from all the separate provinces. The idea to which the Chairman referred, is that the legislature of Ireland should rank with, and be like the Provincial Legislature, which is subordinate to this Dominion Parliament. You have the Dominion Parlia- tnent on the one hand, and you have the Provincial Legislature on the other, and the idea is that Ireland should stand to our Parliament in Westminster in the same relation in which the Legislatures of the provinces like Ontario, for instance, stands to the Dominion Parliament Ottawa. Now, I am not going to detain you very long, but I want to point out to you these particulars. In the first place, I want to compare the powers of a provincial legislature in Canada, with the power proposed to be con- ferred by our Bill upon the Parliament of Ireland. In the first place, a provincial legislature can modify its own con- stitution. Our Bill would not have allowed the legislature of Ireland to modify its own constitution ; therefore, in that respect, our Bill was more restrictive than the con- stitution of Canada. The second point is, that a provincial legislature in Canada can endow religious bodies. Our Bill would not have allowed an Irish Legislature to endow a religious body. A third point is, that a complete power as regards the establishment and abolition of rights and properties and privileges of corporations exists in the provincial legislatures. Our Bill denied the power to the Irish Legislature. You see in these three points our Bill was less liberal than the scheme which the Chairman has referred to as being a better and safer alternative. It is quite true that the Dominion Parliament — the superior Parliament— in Canada appoints judges to superior county and district courts, and that in our Bill we did confer this power upon the Irish Government. But then the Dominion, I must point out, is obliged to choose the judges whom it does appoint from the Bars of the provinces concerned, and it does what we would not pro- pose to do — it pays the salaries of the judges so appointed. Well, these are three minute details, perhaps not well fitted for discussion in a great meeting of this kind, but what I want you to believe is, that the more this question is looked into the more it will be seen that the control of the Irish over their own affairs would not be less under the Canadian scheme, but would be more than it was under our scheme. I will only add this — the power of the Dominion Government is comparatively small, and is rarely exercised. The Dominion Government, as I under- stand, interferes in provinces like Ontario hardly more, if any more, than the British Parliament would have inter- fered in Ireland. The great difference is to be found in this, that the British Parliament, though constitutionally limited under our Bill, would have been strengthened not merely by the prestige, and by its theoretically unlimited constitutional authority, but by the full command and presence of Imperial power and Imperial resources. The Dominion Government in Canada has no equivalent of that kind. If schemes of this sort are brought before you— I don't know how that may be — I will beg you to look very carefully into them, and not to believe, if they are favoured even by Parliament, that that will necessarily mean a less liberal concession of self-government to Ireland, than the concession which Mr. Gladstone was anxious and willing to make. When the time comes — and I think it will come very soon — when the time comes for dealing earnestly, seriously, and in detail with the problem of framing a better government for Ireland, it will be found that our plan, which the country rejected last July — though you in Newcastle did not reject it — that plan, though open to change and to improvement in many details, yet went no further than any plan would have to go which professes to make self-government in Ireland a reality, but not a sham. I can only say that I for one will never be a party to a sham settlement."^' * Newspaper Report. 346 How Ireland is \ow Governed. Dean Swift has said " Government without the con- sent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." But the present Government of Ireland is not only in opposi- tion to the wishes of the people, but is also out of harmony with our prestige as a nation, and it is useless trying to secure adhesion to the law under such a system. Charles James Fox saw this when he said "The only way to govern Ireland is to please the people of Ireland." The Govern- ment of Ireland to all intents and purposes is autocratic. The Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary are at the head of a Council of fifty-two members, and hold their meetings in privacy. A permanent staff of Tory officials secure information for the Council, and give advice to it on matters of administration. Everything is under the control of this dominant Executive. Mr. Harvey, of Dublin, places the matter plainly before the electors : — ' The Lord Lieutenant, and the almost exclusively Protestant and exclusively anti-Nationalist, Irish Privy Council, through the Commander of the Forces, regulate the movements of the troops in Ireland. Through an Inspector-General, they direct the army of 1 2,000 armed police. Through a " Local Government Board " of three persons, they control the Poor-law Guardians. Through a "Board of Public Works " of three persons, they control the man- agement of public works and public loans. Through a ' ' Prisons Board " of four persons, they control the prisons. Through a " Board of National Education," they, to a considerable extent, control Irish Education. Through a paid "resident magistracy," they control the justices of the peace, the magistracy upon which in most other English-speaking countries is thrown the sole adminis- tration of the local laws. These justices of the peace are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, of course with the Lord Lieutenant's approval, upon the recommendation of the — always anti-Nationalist U1 noblemen — Lords Lieutenant of counties. The Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, through "boards," control Drainage, Fisheries, Surveys, Petty Sessions Clerks, Lunatic Asylums, Dublin Hospitals, Endowed Schools, Charitable Donations, Public Records, Loan Funds, General Registry, Statistics, &c., &c. It may be imagined what an army of officials is necessary for such a system of control. It is officered in its higher ranks largely by army officers, by Englishmen and Scotchmen — mostly Protest- ants — and by a few Irishmen, shading down into a rank and file of Irish Catholics in those grades where it is to be presumed the Gov- ernment does not think it necessary that great dependence need be placed. All the really important offices are held by Protestants — • the Lord Lieutentant, his Private Secretary and Assistant-Secretary, the Chief Secretary (who is also President of the Local Government Board), the Under-Secretary, the Commander of the Forces, the Vice-President and Secretary of the Local Goverment Board, the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Works, the Secretary of the Post Office, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department, the Inspector-General and Deputy Inspector-General, who command the constabulary. I think I am correct in stating that all these gentlemen are also Englishmen or Scotchmen. Englishmen or Scotchmen may partially realize how this condition of affairs affects Irish Catholics, by fancying to themselves Protestant England or Scotland ruled by such Catholic Irishmen as Messrs. Sexton, Healy, and Biggar, assisted by a largely Irish Catholic staff of officials, and responsible only to a Parliament sitting in Dublin, five-sixths of whose members should be Irish Catholics, most of them supremely ignorant on all questions relating to England or Scotland. The Municipal Franchise in Ireland is restricted and imperfect. The police is independent of the local authori- ties, and is drilled and armed like an army. The majority of the officials of Ireland are Protestants and Tories, and a few posts have been given to Catholics known to be anti-Nationalist. Though Ireland is acknowledged to be poor, yet Local Acts of Parliament involve the districts in huge sums of money. A railway bill, for the construotidn 348 of a line 7^ miles in length, cost 8 per cent, of the total cost, viz., ;^4,322, to get it through Parliament. Home Rule would remedy this, and would secure greater freedom to the Parliament at Westminster, as it would thereby be freed from a mass of private bill legislation for drainage, railways, waterworks, &c. ; and men acting with a due weight of responsibility would give greater attention to the interests of the country. Causes of Mr. Gladstone's Defeat. Mr. Gladstone's majority was broken down not by a direct and fair issue, but by disguising and hiding the real issues and bringing forward other questions, like the proverbial red herring trailed across the scent to lead the hounds astray. Misrepresentation was freely indulged in. In spite of the statements clearly made by Irish leaders and Mr. Gladstone, the Tories declared again and again that these men aimed at separation. The old cry that Mr. Gladstone was a Jesuit in disguise was freely revived. False promises were made with great fervour. Unionists Protest Against Coercion. Mr. T. P. O'Connor quotes some of the election addresses of Unionist candidates : — "You will doubtless remember," said Mr. Barnes, the Liberal Unionist member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, in his election address, "that both in my addresses and speeches at the last two elections I stated that I was in favour of Home Rule being granted in Ireland in the shape of such a measure of local self- government as could be extended to England, Scotland, and Wales, at the same time maintaining the supremacy of the Imperial Parlia- ment and the integrity of the United Kingdom. From that principle I have never receded," "It is mere sophistry,". said Sir Henry Havelock Allan, another Liberal Unionist, " to assert that the only two alternatives are an absolute and abject surrender to the tyranny 349 of the National League on the one hand, or else unmitigated coercion on the other. The legislative wisdom of Parliament is amply able to devise, and I am sure after the last election will devise, a scheme by which, while full scope is given to the legitimate aspirations of the Irish people, as to the local management of their own local affairs, this boon shall be conceded in a shape not dangerous to the unity of the Empire or the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." Having detailed a different scheme of Home Rule from Mr. Glad- stone's, including retention of Irish members, and the appointment of judges by the imperial authority with two legislative bodies, Sir Henry said : "I think it highly probable that the lines I have indicated represent the precise shape in which Mr. Gladstone's plans will be presented to Parliament in October next. Should that prove to be the case, I need not say what sincere and hearty pleasure it would give me to follow my revered and honoured leader once more at the head of a united Liberal Party." "To Coercion I object," exclaimed Colonel Nicholas Wood, Tory member for the Houghton- le-Spring Division of Durham ; "and my firm and hearty support will be given to a considerable extension and improvement of local government alike to the people of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, delegated by and under the supreme control of an Imperial Parliament, in which they are fully represented." "I indignantly repudiate the imputation," said Sir Roper Lethbridge, the Tory member for North Kensington, " that the only alternative policy is one of Coercion. On the contrary, all parties in the United King- dom, with the exception of the extremists led by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell, are now fairly agreed on the general lines of a policy that shall satisfy all the legitimate aspirations of Irishmen for local self-government, that shall secure the return of law and order in Ireland, that shall treat Ulster as fairly as the other provinces, and that shall at the same time maintain unimpaired the unity of the empire and the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." " It is suggested," said Mr. Boord, Tory member for Greenwich, " that Coercion is the only alternative to Mr. Gladstone's scheme, and that it is the policy of Lord Salisbury. The suggestion is false. Coercion, if it means anything in this connection, implies the forcible curtailment of the rights and liberties of the Irish people. Lord Salisbury, on the contrary, recommends a firm and constitutional 350 government, such as Ireland has been unused to of late, which, by the suppression of crime, would secure the exercise of their rights and the enjoyment of their liberties to all alike." Mr. Evelyn, Tory member for Deptford, said: "That he could not agree with Mr, Gladstone's statement that there was no alternative between Home Rule and Coercion. While he was opposed to Home Rule as revealed in the new Bill, he was also averse to special measures of coercive legislation, unless such were imperatively necessary. He feared if by special legislation they endeavoured to put down the Land League, they would embark on a dangerous enterprise, and secret societies might revive." Again Mr. Erelyn said: "I have been asked whether. I would vote for Coercion in Ireland. I have always considered, long before I ever thought of being a candidate for Deptford, that the Crimes Act, which was introduced by Mr. Gladstone and a Whig Government in 1882, was a most abominable and unconstitutional measure." The Land Bill frightened many who saw only the figures quoted by Unionists, and who did not examine the matter for themselves. Gross misstatements were made, and speakers did not hesitate to declare that Mr. Glad- stone's Land Bill would cost the people of England sums ranging from ^200,000,000 to ;^4oo,ooo,ooo. The idea was preposterous, but was swallowed by gullible electors. Mr. Gladstone Abused. The policy of abusing the plaintifi's attorney, because the defendant had no case, was indulged in without stint. Mr. Gladstone was villified as though he were an escaped convict from Pentonville, the sum total of all the vices in creation, an arch-traitor steeped to the lips in treasons, stratagems and spoils. The virulence of the attacks made by Tories, and hurled also with little judgment or charity by Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain, surprised many people. Many of the attacks made by Tory speakers exceeded the bounds of fair and honest criticisrfi, 351 and savoured of the neighbourhood of Billingsgate. Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain were indignant at the conduct of the Liberal leader, but presumed that it was owing to the bad company he kept. They forgot that at one time they also held fellowship with the same men. When the servant of Dr. Lindsay Alexander wanted to see his master receive an University honour, he was prevented from entering the hall by the door keepers. So he went to the ceiling and looked at the ceremony through the ventilation hole. In speaking of the matter to his master afterwards, he said : " It was a braw sight ; but eh, Doctor, ye were in a place where there was awful bad air ! " He had viewed the scene from a poor place. So it is with the late Liberal leaders. They have retired too far from their earlier principles and methods, and hold themselves aloof from the company of old associates, and the vitiated political atmosphere they breathe is the consequence of their altered position. A correspondent of one of the Liverpool papers pointed out that even Sunday Schools were used by the Tories for political party purposes. He gave a sample of a tract issued, entitled ** The Two Prime Ministers." It was headed by a verse of Scripture, ** By me kings reign and princes decree judgment." It proceeded to describe the late Lord Beaconsfield as a statesman who looked for the foundation of national and social life in religion — a religion based upon the Bible, which taught God's special providence in respect to the to the nations of the earth. And then went on to say that Mr. Gladstone, on the other hand, had foresworn patriotism, has bidden good-bye to principle, and had adjured faith in his country's destiny ; that he had become cosmopolitan, less perhaps from the love of other countries than hatred to his own ; that he had done more to under- 352 mine the two great characteristics of the British people, their strong sense of justice and duty, than any statesman who has preceded him. It then proceeded to try to iden- tify Mr. Gladstone with the Phoenix Park murders, as the betrayer of General Gordon, and as shedding ** crocodile tears " over Bulgarian atrocities. The correspondent was greatly shocked, that such scandalous rubbish should be circulated by Sunday schools. At the demonstration of Tories and Unionists at the seat of Lord Londonderry, the Tory Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the following ditty was sung : — The G. O. M. When the Grand Old Man goes to his doom He will ride in a fiery chariot, And sit in state On a red-hot plate 'Twixt Satan and Judas Iscariot. Says the Devil, " My place is quite full, as you see, But I'll try and do all that I can. So I'll let Ananias and Judas go free. And take in the Grand Old Man." But the Devil soon found the whole thing a sell. For old Gladdy corrupted all people in Hell. Gone, Gone. Gone from the sweets of office. Gone from the head of affairs ; Gone in the head, they tell us ; Gone — and nobody cares. Gone, not to join the angels, Gone to reflect on the past, Gone into Opposition ; Gladstone's gone at last. Gone, let us hope for ever ; Gone, whither none can tell ; Gone, let us hope to Heaven, There are devils enough in Hell. Says Satan, "The place is as full as can be, But I like to make room if I can." So he let Ananias and Judas go free, And took in the Grand Old Man. 353 The Charge that Mr. Gladstone is Intolerant. Again it was said that Mr. Gladstone had not taken his Cabinet into his confidence, but had ruled the party with the hand of an autocrat, and that he was self-willed, and intolerant to his followers. It was declared that he was opposed to compromise, and would make no con- cession to gain back dissentient followers. Sir G. Trevelyan, however, in a speech at North Paddington disproved this by saying : — " Mr. Gladstone has made a definite offer to confer with his brother liberals for the the purpose of arranging the Irish Policy of the Liberal Party." In another notable speech he also indignantly protested against the action of Liberal leaders, who urged electors to vote for Tory candidates, and he said " I am a true Liberal." Mr. Gladstone's modifications of his Home Rule Measure to secure the return of malcontent liberals are matters of history, and they disillusion the candid mind on the question of his treatment of the Party. The olive branch has been held out repeatedly. Mr. Gladstone's Concessions. At Singleton Abbey in South Wales, he declared that the exclusion of the Irish members was not an essential part of the Home Rule Scheme, and he then stated what he regarded as vital in any scheme to be proposed by him- self or the Liberal Party. As the exclusion of the Irish members was one of the chief points of objections made by Lord Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, and Sir G. Trevelyan, it was reasonably expected that these statesmen would respond to the overture of reconciliation. Mr. Gladstone said in his speech : — Now, I am going to call your attention particularly to this question of the retention or the exclusion of Irish members from 354 Westminster in connection with the establishment of a Parliament, or local legislative body in Dublin, for the management of exclu- sively Irish affairs ; and I think it may do well to remind you of what has actually taken place on the subject, from which you will see how entirely free we are to deal with the whole of this question as policy and good sense may dictate. When the Irish Government Bill was introduced I was closely pressed to declare what were the essential conditions of that Bill. What were the essential objects in the project is of importance that it might be understood in future what portions of the Bill were open to discussion, and what was already closed to discussion. And on the 14th April, 1886, I laid down five points as essential points. One point was that imperial unity should be pre- served, of course through the supremacy of Parliament. The second point was, that all the kingdom should be kept upon the basis of essential political equality. The third was, that there should be an equitable distribution of imperial burdens — I will not say anything now upon that, because I conceive there is no doubt about it. Fourthly, that there should be safeguards for minorities. Well, that had reference to the jealousies which prevailed in Ulster, and we declared that if there was a well-considered desire made known to us on the part of the bulk of the Protestant population in that portion of Ulster capable of being dealt with separately, we were perfectly agreed to consider any plan for that purpose. And, fifthly, the last essential was, that the measure we proposed should be in the nature of what is called a final arrangement — a real settle- ment. We never can speak of absolute finality, but still, that it should be in the nature of one of those real settlements which we expect not to be followed at any indefinite time by a re-agitation of the subject. Now, these were the five essential points of the measure, and you will observe that at that date the inclusion or exclusion of Irish members at Westminster was not among our essential points. Irish Representation at Westminster. It was left to be dealt with freely, as expediency and convic- tion of the country might determine. I then go on to observe what took place. Our proposal was that, for a time at any rate, it 355 would be better that the Irish members should not appear at West- minster. But a gentleman of great weight in our debates — Mr. Whitbread — suggested that, although he believed that the Irish would be, and must be, for a time unhappily absorbed in what I may call setting Ireland right — in dealing with the perplexed prob- lem which the state of Ireland, after all our miscarriages and all our mismanagement, presents — yet, after a time, and when that work was accomplished, probably there would be a desire for a state of things in which there ought to be some kind of Irish repre- sentation at Westminster. That was stated by Mr. Whitbread on the 14th April, the same day on which I laid down these as essential points. I don't reject that opinion at all. On the contrary, when Mr. Whitbread had given his view, I stated that there was great force in what he had said. But I was not able to bind myself, far less my colleagues. You will easily understand that the leader of a Govern- ment cannot, upon questions rising in debate, then and there, without taking the deliberate opinion of his colleagues, undertake to say what their judgment would be. That would be to reduce them to servitude. I could not bind myself, or the Government, but, unquestionably, I would not close the door against the proposition. Therefore, you see that, at that time, we were perfectly open to con- sider the plan for the inclusion, if it should be found expedient, of the Irish members at Westminster. What is Essential. That, gentlemen, is what has taken place. Now let me say that, in my opinion, for the right management of this question, the one thing that is, beyond all others, necessary, is that we should clearly in our own mind regulate our conduct according to what points we clearly see are essential, and what points are secondary. Now of the five points I have mentioned three of them are practically not in controversy. The only two that remain are — on the side of Great Britain, the unity of the empire and the supremacy of Parlia- ment ; on the side of Ireland, that the measure of Home Rule, that is, the management of strictly Irish affairs by strict Irish authority, shall be real and effective, and shall be accepted as real and effective by the Irish nation. In my opinion, these are the essential points, and everything else is open for consideration. We thought 356 so last year ; still more I think so now, and therefore there should be no alarm upon the supposition — the futile and idle supposition — that we have some foregone conviction on the subject of the repre- sentation of Irish affairs by Irish members in the Westminster Parliament. This question of the retention or exclusion of Irish members is a question of great importance and great difficulty, but it is a British much more than an Irish question. The Irish have made no essential point of it from the beginning. The Irish wish to be as free as possible, that they may give their attention to the settlement of the many Irish problems they have before them, con- nected with the different branches of the work of government." Mr. Gladstone's spirit of conciliation will be seen in the fact that he declares himself ready to accept and support any scheme of Home Rule which would be effective — " subject of course," he says, " to the supre- macy of Parliament and the unity of the Empire, but accepted freely by the people of Ireland." Of such a scheme he further says : '* it will be accepted and more, it will be promoted by me to the best of my ability, even although it may not settle, at the time, the question of Irish representation at Westminster, and even though it may involve some plan in the adjustment of some matter which may not commend itself to me as absolutely the best upon which to proceed." Mr. Parnell and Irish Representation at Westminster. His disinterestedness and honesty in the matter had been pi oven previously when he sought, through Mr. Balfour, to agree with Lord Salisbury, and support that nobleman in a Tory measure of Home Rule that would be acceptable to the Irish nation. The inclusion of Irish mem- bers so as to retain the Imperial character of the Legisla- ture at Westminster has since secured the approval of Mr. Parnell, who in a letter to a prominent colonial gentleman, 357 declares his belief that such a representation might be effected without injustice. The competence of the Imperial Parliament to legislate, if necessary, for Ireland as well as the rest of the Empire would thus be safeguarded. But even these concessions have failed to satisfy Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain, though they induced Sir G. Trevelyan to finally take his stand by the side of his revered and aged chief. Mr. Parnell's letter is as follows :— 23rd June, 1888. Dear Sir, — I am much obliged to you for your letter of the 19th inst., which confirms the very interesting account given meat Avon- dale last January, as to his interviews and conversations with you on the subject of Home Rule for Ireland. I may say at once, and frankly, that I think you have correctly judged the exclusions of the Irish members from Westminster to have been a defect in the Home Rule measure of 1886; and further, that this proposed exclusion may have given some colour to the accusations so freely made against the Bill — that it had a Separatist tendency. I say this while strongly asserting and believing that the measure itself was accepted by the Irish people without any afterthought of the kind, and with an earnest desire to work it out with the same spirit in which it was offered — a spirit of cordial goodwill and trust, a desire to let bygones be bygones, and a determination to accept it as a final and satisfactory settlement of the long-standing dispute and trouble between Great Britain and Ireland. I am very glad to find that you consider the measure of Home Rule to be granted to Ireland should be thoroughgoing, and should give her complete control over her own affairs without reservation, and I cordially agree with your opinion that there should be effective safeguards for the maintenance of Imperial unity. Your conclusion as to the only alternative for Home Rule is also entirely my own, for I have long felt that the con- tinuance of the present semi-constitutional system is quite impractic- able. But, to return to the question of retention of the Irish members at Westminster, my own views upon the points, and probabilities of the future, and the bearing of this subject upon the question of Imperial Federation, my own feeling of the 358 measure is that if Mr. Gladstone includes in his next Home Rule measure provisions of such retention we should cheerfully concur in them, and accept them with goodwill and good faith, with the intention of taking our share in the Imperial partnership. I believe also that in the event stated this will be the case, and that the Irish people will cheerfully accept the duties and responsibilities assigned to them, and will justly value the position given to them in the Imperial system. I am convinced that it would be the highest statesmanship on Mr. Gladstone's part to devise a feasible plan for the continued presence of the Irish members here, and from my observation of public events and of opinion since 1885, I am sure that Mr. Gladstone is fully alive to the importance of the matter, and there can be no doubt that the next measure of autonomy for Ireland will contain the provision which you rightly deem of such moment. It does not come so much within my province to express a full opinion upon the larger question of Imperial Federation, but I agree with you that the continued Irish representation at Westminster will immensely facilitate such a step, while the contrary provision in the Bill of 1886 would have been a bar. Undoubtedly this is a matter which should be dealt with in accordance largely with the opinion of the Colonies themselves, and if they should desire to share in the cost of Imperial matters, as undoubtedly they now do in the responsibility, and should express a wish for representa- tion at Westminster, I certainly think that it should be accorded to them, and that public opinion in these islands would unanimously concur in the necessary constitutional modifications. I am, dear sir, yours truly, (Signed) Charles Stewart Parnell. The Land Bill and Mr. Gladstone's Defeat. One prominent objection to the Land Bill was also removed by Mr. Gladstone. It was stated by the Liberal Dissentients that the Imperial credit was risked by the plan of giving landlords power to sell their estate, but Mr. Gladstone now stated, that while he did not believe that by his scheme the Imperial Exchequer would be charged 359 with moneys needed for the purchase of estates, yet as the electors had rejected it, he saw that it was possible and practicable to propose a plan of land reform without introducing in it any question of Imperial credit. He said — '*0f all the points which caused our defeat in the last general election, and certainly of all the points which con- stituted as far as I know the difficulty amongst our best friends, the most important and the most dangerous was this — that we had to propose to make a very large use of Imperial credit for the purpose of buying out the Irish landlords. I think, gentlemen, you will not differ from me much in the great importance which I assign to the subject as an element in the decision of the last general election. Well, let me say this as regards the use of Imperial credit on that occasion. I have the firmest conviction that we never proposed to risk a sixpence. But that does not decide the case. The use of Imperial credit upon a large scale is a very large and important question in itself, and besides that it is not to be denied, in my opinion, that the mind of the country was greatly stirred upon that subject, and that the Liberal mind of the country was very adverse for the most part to the proposal. But, gentlemen, my duty is to consider is that proposal essential to any sound plan of policy to Ireland ? I at once tell you this, and make a confession, that in our proposal on behalf of the Irish landlords in the last session of Parliament we went to the furthest point on their behalf that we could strain ourselves to go, and we did that upon two grounds — partly because we knew they had been the petted children of England, which now, as it were, was turning round upon them in some degree, and partly because we wished to give to our opponents every inducement for a great and speedy settlernent of a national question. I cherish the 36o opinion —it is almost a belief — in my own mind that it will be perfectly possible to devise a plan for the safe purchase of estates in Ireland, by which the landlord would receive a perfect security in respect of the price of his property, whatever the just price may be, without trenching on Imperial credit. I am not now speaking of minor questions or minor sums, I am speaking of the basis of the general plan ; and as regards the basis of the general plan, I can conceive it possible to arrange a plan which will provide for the purchase and sale of estates in Ireland without the general use of Imperial credit. But any such plan known to me absolutely and essentially requires as a vital condition the institution of a real Irish Government, able to speak and to act for Ireland, and without that I do not see how to stir a step towards the adoption of such a plan." Goethe, the great German genius, said of the Englisk people — " Their Parliamentary parties are great opposing forces which paralyze one another, and where the superior insight of an individual can hardly break through." Never has this been more clearly manifest than in the Home Rule controversy. Mr. Gladstone has been hedged in and obstructed by every weakling who has succeeded in beguiling a constituency, and he has been retarded by the great leaders who have left him in the hour of conflict. But while this is the danger of our constitutional system, it is also its safety, and it prevents autocrats from coercing the people of England. Unfortunately, however, it is not strong enough to prevent unjust and coercive measures from being harshly and brutally applied to Ireland. Conceived in bitterness, they are administered without sympathy. Mr. Bright's reference to Mr. Glad- stone during the Reform Agitation has a preseiat 36i significance when so many smaller creatures lift their heels in the constituencies and Parliament to kick at the defeated leader. Mr. Bright says : — *' Who is there in the House of Commons who equals him in knowledge of all political questions ? Who equals him in earnestness ? Who equals him in eloquence ? Who equals him in courage and fidelity to his convictions ? If these gentlemen who say they will not follow him have any one who is his equal let them show him. If they can point out any statesman who can add dignity and grandeur to the stature of Mr. Gladstone let them produce him. It is a deplorable thing that last year a small section of forty men or thereabouts of professing Liberals destroyed the honest and acceptable bill of the late Government, and with it also destroyed the Government that proposed it. About an equal number have this year to a great extent destroyed the power of the Opposition, and may assist an anti-reforming Government to pass a ver}'' bad measure on the greatest question of our time, and having done all the mischief which they could, they began to write silly letters to their constituents. What can be done in parliamentary parties if every man is to pursue his own little game ? A costermonger and donkey would take a week to travel from here to London, and yet by running thwart the London and North-Western line they might bring to total destruction a great express train. And so very small men who during their whole politi- cal lives have not advanced the question of reform by one hair's-breadth, or by one moment of time, can, in a critical hour like this, throw themselves athwart the objects of a great party and mar, it may be, a great measure that sought to eifect the interests of the country beneficially for all time," 362 How Liberal-Unionists have been Received BY the Constituencies. The way in which the Liberal-Unionist candidates have been received ought to be significant. Constituency after constituency has rejected them. One solitary victory at Doncaster, where all the territorial influence of the Fitzwilliams only secured the seat to one of the family against a stranger by a few votes, broke the long line of defeats. Lord Randolph Churchill, notwithstanding his friendship with Mr. Chamberlain, contempuously referred to the Liberal-Unionists as a crutch, and was stung in return by the rejoinder that crutches are only used by cripples. But the crutch has failed in many a constitu- ency. Mr. Goschen tried to run the gaunlet at Edinburgh and Liverpool, and then was received sadly wounded and wearied into the safe Tory refuge of St. George's, Hanover Square. " Sweet are the uses of adversity," — and instruc- tive and interesting have been the bye-elections. The centres of population in England and Scotland have reversed the decisions of the general election. Burnley, Glasgow, Northwich, Spalding, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Ayr, and Southampton came to the rescue of the Liberal party, until the Ultra-Tory organ — the SL fames' Gazette — recom- mended that Liberal-Unionists should be treated with indifl'erence because they were discredited and paralysed. Liberal Re-Union. There is little hope of re-union until the Irish question is settled. That there will be continued coming together in the constituencies is clear, for in spite of Mr. Chamber- lain and Mr. Jesse Collins, supported by the new associa- tions, the adherents of Dissentient Liberalism are becoming fewer. Liberals cannot remain long in antagonism to the 363 self-government of Ireland. The old conservative spirit of distrust in the people can never long hold those who at heart are Liberals, and cannot keep them back from ultimately trusting the Irish people. Radicalism as a veneer, a mere surface polish, will soon wear away, and those who are Tories at heart will appear in their true colour; but where sound Radical principle is ingrained in a man's mind, the temporary tarnish of Toryism will vanish, as the foulest breath cannot dim or stain the polished mirror beyond a passing moment. To keep down national aspirations, to check free speech, to gag the voice of the newspapers, to erect Star Chambers and extort con- victions by threats, and to treat political prisoners as common felons, is not the expression of Liberal principle. The cleavage in the ranks of Liberal-Unionists will doubt- less become greater as their day of political doom draws nearer, and each part will go into its own place in political life, and become merged into the party with which it is most in sympathy. , Round-Table Conference. An attempt was made in 1887 to re-unite the Liberal leaders. A round-table conference was held, and Sir Wm. Harcourt, Mr. John Morley, and Lord Herschell — representing the views of Mr. Gladstone— met Mr. Chamberlain and Sir G. Trevelyan who dissented, in friendly consultation. Mr. Chamberlain Blamed for Failure of Conference. Sir G. Trevelyan has publicly blamed Mr. Chamber- lain, his ally, for the failure of the Conference. While a basis of settlement was being laid down and the meetings 5^4 were still going on, Mr. Chamberlain wrote an ill-advised letter to the Baptist newspaper. The reasonable hope of reconciliation was blighted, and the negotiations were effectually stopped by this injudicious or malicious action of Mr. Chamberlain. To refer to a party led by a time- honoured chief as "the enemy drawn up with their fingers on the triggers of their rifles," would not be helpful to any friendly negotiation, and ought not to have been uttered in time of truce. To speak afterwards of the followers of Mr. Gladstone as "a discredited faction supporting a dying cause," showed how much Mr. Chamberlain had given up and was ready to give up again, before allowing the Liberal party to obtain power. More than this, his ready acceptance of Coercion when proposed by a Tory Govern- ment, after threatening the wreck of a previous Liberal Government on a similar question, and after doing so much to bring about the separation of Mr. Forster from the Liberal Cabinet on that subject, showed how far in the dust the idol of the Democracy had fallen. The question was naturally asked what has changed Mr. Chamberlain ? Some replied that it was because he had lost the political guidance of Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. John Morley, with whom he had been on terms of much intimacy. The Irish members were ready to reply — " disappointed ambition," and they pointed to communications made to them by Mr. Chamberlain to justify the answer. Did Mr. Chamberlain think that Mr. Gladstone's age should have compelled him to step aside and leave the power in younger hands, or did he misapply Liberal principles in a time of great national and party crisis ? Is it failure at a period of great national exigency or a spirit of resentment because Mr. Gladstone refused to approve a certain unauthorised programme, that has led 365 Mr. Chamberlain into his present course, was freely asked by those who had honoured and followed him ? In either case Mr. Chamberlain has shown his unfitness to be the leader of a great party. Henry VIII. deposed the Pope from the headship of the English Church that he might arrogate to himself the position. Was it Mr. Chamberlain's aim to depose Mr. Gladstone in the leadership of the party ? Mr. Labouchere was not slow in replying ** Yes! " and he complained that the Joseph of the present, like the one of old, had had dreams of the sun and moon, and the sheaves paying homage to his brightness and worth. Be that as it may. The acts of statesmen are the only test of their principles and motives, and it will be better to suppose that a man so gifted and pronounced has erred, than that he has deliberately violated the laws of honour and generosity and dis- interested patriotism. While Mr. Chamberlain must submit to candid criti- cism, he is also entitled to a fair, honest, and charitable interpretation of his public acts. Every statesman and politician deserves it equally — including Mr. Gladstone and Sir G. Trevelyan. It is, however, sad to Liberals to see that it stands to the eternal discredit of Mr. Chamber- lain that while refusing to listen to the voice of the elections of Ireland, and while objecting to apply in a time of need the great Liberal principle of trust in the people, he has swallowed wholesale the most obnoxious Tory bolus of Coercion, with which the administration of Ireland has ever been cursed. The men with whom he held sweet counsel in the past have been denounced by him as associates of murderers and rebels, and into every speech denunciation of Parnellism has crept, like King Charles' head in the memorial of the poor demented uncle 366 of David Copperfield. Mr. Chamberlain has been regarded as the chief opponent of re-union, and yet he has com- plained of the conduct of Mr. Gladstone and has lamented the condition of the Liberal party. Sterne starved his mother, but bewailed a dead ass. Mr. Chamberlain, un- bending and unforgiving, refusing to come to terms with the majority of the Liberal party, and yet mourning its divisions and weakness, is a strange spectacle. Whether there will be a Coalition Government, headed by Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr. Chamber- lain, to take up the question of Home Rule, is a possibility of the future. It is, however, certain that friendly com- munications have passed between them. In speaking of Mr. Chamberlain, in a speech at Tunbridge, Lord R. Churchill said, referring to the allotment policy of the former, "that he was obliged to take facts as he found them. They had found out there was much in Mr. Chamberlain's policy which need not sharply divide them from him, while Mr. Chamberlain had found out he was entirely in the wrong in the estimate which he had formed as to the class prejudices, and as to the reactionary tendency of the modern Tory party. These were political prospects which cheered him." Mr. Chamberlain has also referred approvingly of Lord Randolph Churchill. Sir George Trevelyan's opinion of his former ally has been publicly and deliberately stated. He said, referring to Mr Chamberlain's letter on the Round- Table Conference :— " It is not in Mr. Chamberlain's nature to make an admission, or a withdrawal, without doing something for the purpose of paying out the person to whom he is apologising. ... In dealing with him one has to watch evesry loophole My impression from the whole business is that I am fortunate in having 36? come out of close and confidential personal relations with Mr. Chamberlain without his being able to bring against me any more serious charge than this which he has trumped up in his letter." Mr. Parnell has also referred in severest terms to Mr. Chamberlain's conduct in relation to the Irish party and to his conduct while a member of the Liberal Cabinet, and his views coincide with those of Sir G. Trevelyan. But his strongest charge is that Mr. Chamberlain deliber- ately betrayed Cabinet secrets. To this charge Mr. Chamberlain has signally failed to present disproof. Mr. Davitt on the Work of an Irish Parliament. Mr. Michael Davitt has pointed out what would be the work of an Irish Parliament, viz. : ** To make new laws and order respected and obeyed, to obtain a per- manent settlement between the Irish State and the Irish landlords, and to draw from the fiscal resources of Ireland the compensation required for the transfer of land from the present owners to the State ; the resuscitation of manufacturing industries without any interference with the similarity of tariffs, customs and taxes between Ireland and Great Britain ; the remodelling of a system of popular mstruction, so that more skilful farmers, labourers, and artisans might be secured ; and a great national regenera- tion, by which the workhouse system might be supplanted by one which, while succouring the poor, would not degrade them." Mr. Parnell's Bills. Mr. Parnell's Relief Bill was intended to pave the way for a more equitable arrangement between landlord and tenant. It proposed to reduce the number of years 368 for which Judicial rents were fixed, and thus to allow for the rise or fall of agricultural produce. Mr. Parnell pointed out that *'fair rents, by change of circumstances, became unfair rents." He provided for including certain leaseholders in the benefits of the Land Act of 1881. He aimed at giving to the Land Courts power to deal with arrears of rent, not only by arranging for the payment of instalments, but also by reducing the amount in cases where justice demanded it. He saw that the arrears were hanging like millstones around the necks of thrifty and hard-working tenants. The Government, however, de- feated both the itieasures Mr. Parnell introduced. They could not see that as a spoonful of treacle is more attractive to bees than a barrel full of vinegar, so this small respite would do more to allay the strong feeling of Irish tenants than the most stringent coercive measures. Lord Salisbury and the British Taxpayer. Lord Salisbury's opinion was as follows : ** If it should come out that the Land Courts have made blunders, and that there is that impossibility of paying rent, I think it is not the landlords who should bear the loss. I think this would be one of the cases for the application of the principle of purchase by the State, and that the State and not the landlords must suffer for the errors that have been made. Mr. T. P. O'Connor, commenting on this state- ment, says, ** Somebody must be robbed for the landlord, if not his tenant, why then the English taxpayer." Lord Salisbury has outstripped Mr. Gladstone in suggesting that the people of England shall be fleeced to pay the Irish landlords. Tories and Home Rule. Rumours have been in the air that the Tories were 369 once more going to *' dish " their opponents by bringing in a Home Rule Bill. This has elicited much surprise, and has been regarded as a sop to Ceberus, or as Maccabe would call it, "Tin fifin' to catch the 'igher orders." It was thought to be an attempt to form a constitution which could be worked in the interests of the classes, and should stave off any great measure of freedom, by giving the semblance of liberty and self-government without its reality and worth. But if the Tories do this it will only be because the march of events compels them, as it did in the case of Catholic Emancipation, Free Trade, and the Extension of the Franchise. The Government evidently felt that something should be done. The unprecedented fall of prices had driven many of the agriculturists to the verge of despair. Rents fixed by the Land Courts in 1882-3 were much higher than in 1885-6, and if they were legitimate and just when produce brought good prices, they became manifestly unjust in depressed times. Then those who hurried first into the Land Courts, were, in many cases, the tenants who had suffered most deeply from hard landlords, and now again, by the great fall of prices, their sufferings were renewjijd. People were evicted who did not pay the judicial rents of 1882-3, and were then re-admiited as caretakers, but though they were joint owners of the farms before the eviction, their appointment as caretakers did not restore it, so that, by a legal process, founded upon an unfair rent which the land could not pay, they were deprived of their share in the holding, without com- pensation. The Cowper Commission. A Commission was appointed under Lord Cowper to enquire into the operations of the Land Act of 188 1. It 370 was hoped and expected that it would report in such a way as to justify the action of the Government in resisting Mr. Parnell's Bill, but like Balaam, instead of cursing, it blessed the obnoxious party concerned, and recommended the inclusion of the leaseholder in the benefits of the Act, and the revision of judicial rents — ^just the provisions which Mr. Parnell had previously recommended. The Government could then only say in the language of Lord R. Churchill, that though Parliament appointed Com- missions, they were not pledged to act according to their suggestions. Mr. Chamberlain had, however, a patent method of remedying all the grievances of tenants. He recommended them to pass through the flowery way of bankruptcy, to a national paradise, where landlords should be provided for at the expense of the small shopkeepers, who had supplied food on credit to a starving peasantry. One proposal of Mr. Chamberlain's was specially obnoxious. The landlord was to have one year's rent secured as a first charge on the bankrupt tenant's estate, and the shopkeeper was to share only in the dividend subsequently left, when the landlord had been paid. Other proposals were also favourable to landlords, such as freedom from poor rates and county cess (county rates), where rents had not been obtained. Lord R. Churchill was in favour of including lease- holders, and was opposed to the bankruptcy clauses ; he was in favour of a revision of rents, and he ridiculed the proposal of erecting a new fabric of national prosperity on the basis of national insolvency. General Gordon's Views. General Gordon's views published in the Times of 1880, are instructive. He says : — 37' " I have come to the conclusion that — "I. A gulf of antipathy exists between the landlords and tenants of the North-West and "West and South-West of Ireland. It is a gulf which is not caused alone by the question of rent ; there is a complete lack of sympathy between these two classes. It is useless to inquire how such a state of things has come to pass. I call your attention to the pamphlets, letters, and speeches of the landlord class as a proof of how little sympathy or kindness there exists among them for the tenantry, and I am sure that the tenantry feel in the same way towards the landlords. " 2. No half-measured Acts which left the landlords with any say to the tenantry of these portions of Ireland will be any use. They would be rendered — as past Land Acts in Ireland have been — quite abortive, for the landlords will insert clauses to do away with their force. Any half measures will only place the Government face to face with the people of Ireland, as the champions of the landlord interest. The Government would he bound to enforce their decision, and with a result which none can foresee, but which would certainly be disastrous to the common weal." Tory attempts to deal with the Land Question. The Government's attempts to deal with the Land Question have been partial, incomplete, and unworkable. The Ashbourne Act aimed at making it easier to transfer holdings from landlords to tenants, but the process of doing so is slow and tedious, and there is no clause for compulsory sales where the necessities of the districts demand them. In addition, the Imperial Exchequer is involved in dangerous risks, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made rent-receiver, so that the State is brought into direct relationship with every occupier who takes advantage of the Act to purchase his holding. The Bill was honestly conceived and moulded, as far as possible to suit the circumstances of necessitous landlords as well 372 as necessitous tenants, but it is a feeble attempt to grapple with the huge land difficulty. Poor Imitations. An old Highland woman, who saw an Englishman attempting to play the bagpipes, is reported to have indignantly cried, " Dinna mak' a fule o' the thing." But this is just what the Tories have done in their attempts at settling the vexed question of Irish land reform. They have dawdled with the legislation dealing with arrears, while threats of eviction were dangled over the heads of thrifty tenants, like the sword of Damocles. Then finding that the landlords were dealing harshly with tenants, to hide their bungling attempts to formulate a policy, they violated the spirit of legality by restraining landlords and refusing them the necessary force to evict, unless their cases were unimpeachable in equity as well as law. Landlords acting within the law, which the Tories refused to alter at the petition of Mr. Parnell and the Irish Party, were refused the police and military forces needed for the carrying out of the law. When Mr. John Morley during his secretaryship was accused of this, the Tories raised their voices of denunciation. But when Sir M. H. Beach, General Butler, and Captain Plunkett were charged with having refused to supply force for carrying out legal but unjust evictions, the Tories were silent. They could not approve of the illegality of their own leaders, but they would not condemn, though their condemnation of the same action by a political opponent had been unsparing and unremitting. But these Tory officials were only expressing the same principle as that announced by the Irish leaders. Their sense of right and of humanity overcame their attachment to law, but it 373 would have been better had Sir M. H. Beach accepted Mr. Parnell's measures, and insisted on the alteration of the law, than allow evictions to be stopped by arbitrary Acts illegal and unconstitutional. In the lute, this rift made the tune of Tory government in Ireland discordant. Their intentions were humane and kind, but their actions were irregular and illegal. The landlords had a right in law to call for the loan of the eviction machinery, and the puppets of Irish government, to evict tenants for not paying impossible rents. Modern Balaams. Sir Red vers Buller was sent to Ireland as Under Secretary to take the place of Mr. R. Hamilton who was reported to be favourable to Home Rule. Again the Tories got into hot water. They were like the man who, while in a state of intoxication, determined to have a mustard bath. Unfortunately, when he wiped his one foot, he put it back into the water while he got the other dried, until he had to call in the aid of a friend to enable him to get both feet out of the water and wiped dry. General Buller's evidence before the Cowper Commission showed that the National League was trusted by the Irish people, because it had come between them and the inhuman conduct of the landlords. Indeed, with the solitary exception of Mr. A. J. Balfour, the Englishmen appointed by the Tory Government have done much to bless and not ban the cause of the Irish Nationalists. In spite, however, of the Cowper Commission and their own nominees, the Cabinet went on in their misguided course, and they seemed to emphasize the satire of Lord Byron, " Down with everything and up with rent." Verdicts drawn up in Dublin were pronounced by local magistrates ^74 on political offenders. Juries were packed in Sligo and elsewhere to the exclusion of all Roman Catholics, until even the Protestant Jurors of the neighbourhood protested against the treatment dealt out to their Catholic fellow- townsmen. Pledges made by Cabinet Ministers were flagrantly violated. The Local Government Bill for England was brought in and passed, but Ireland was excluded, though it was definitely promised by Liberal Unionists that any measure passed for England should also be extended to Ireland, and though Lord R. Churchill, as the mouthpiece of the Government, had made a similar declaration in his place in Parliament, on the authority of Lord Salisbury and the Tory Cabinet. The Tories return to Traditional Policy. In the session of 1887, the Tories threw off all their disguise and revealed themselves in their ancient character. The decencies of public promises were ruthlessly dis- carded, and the Government announced its intention to introduce another Coercion Act. The eighty-six preceding ones had failed, an eighty-seventh was to be tried. When the clauses of this Coercion Bill were printed, many of the Ministerial supporters stood aghast. The Liberal Unionists specially were dismayed at the thought of having to face the constituencies. But on the principle of "in for a shilling, in for a pound," they quakingly marched up to the division lobbies. The Bill was called the " Crimes Act," but the statistics of crime in the country were not such as to justify the introduction of the measure Crimes did not amount to one-half the number reached in 1880, and were only one-third of the number recorded in 1882. There was an increase between 1884 and 1886, but the increase was not startling, and did not amount to anything 375 like the increase of some previous years. In 1884 the number was 762, and in 1886, 1025, and this included petty larcenies and trivial assaults, such as are frequently found in English courts, and dismissed or visited either with a small fine or a few days' imprisonment. In addition, the first quarter of the year in 1887, viz., the months immediately preceding the introduction of the Crimes Act, had fewer crimes recorded in its statistics, than the average number per quarter during 1886. The evidences of the judges at the various assizes in the country may be noted here. Their utterances were made during the Summer Assizes of 1887, at the very time the Crimes Bill was being discussed in Parliament. Evidence of the Judges — Coercion WITHOUT Crime. Mr. Justice Holmes at Antrim said that there was nothing exceptional in any of the cases brought before him, and that the offences were only such as might be expected under any circumstances in a thickly populated community and a large town. Justice Andrews, at Armagh, said, '* It gives me great pleasure to congratulate you on the orderly and well- behaved condition of your important county." Baron Dowse, at Carlow, said that they ** had a right to be satisfied with the present condition of things." Justice Lawson, at Cavan, said that ** He was glad to observe their duties were of a very light description." The same kind of testimony was given at the assizes at Clare, Cork County and City, Donegal, Down, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kilkenny County, King's County, Leitrim, Limerick County and City, Londonderry, Long- 31^ ford, Louth, jNIayo, Meath, Monaghan, Roscommon^ Queen's County, Sligo, Tipperary — North and | South, Tyrone, Waterford County, Westmeath, Wexford, and Wicklow. At Drogheda, Kilkenny City, and Waterford City Assizes, the judges were presented with white gloves, because there were no criminal cases to go before them. In cases where there were crimes, they were for the most part ordinary offences — Justice Lawson, at Cavan, called them " unimportant offences." Justice Johnson, at Cork County, said, '*The number of cases to go before you is not large, having regard to this great county, nor in their character are they very important." Justice O'Brien said, at Cork City Assizes : " This city is practically and absolutely free from crime." Justice Murphy said, at Fermanagh: "Nothing can exceed the peace and quiet in this, as I trust I may call it, prosperous county ; the bills to go before you afe only two in number." Similar statements were made in the other places named. In two counties, however, the judges animadverted on the increase of crime, as follows : — In Galway, the Lord Chief Baron " regretted to say, the number of cases to go before them was considerable — far more than was usual in this county. There were twenty- three cases to be tried, including four cases carried forward from the last assizes." In Kerry county, Mr. Justice O'Brien said, ** I need not say to you that the prominence the County of Kerry has occupied of late years, in reference to crime, makes its condition an object of great anxiety and inquiry, and from means of information afforded to me, including, amongst other materials, the usual returns presented by the con- stabulary to the Judge of Assize, it appears that the actual amount of crime is much less than for the corresponding 377 period last year. The diminution is capable of being traced through almost all the classes of crime which are in their own nature necessarily connected with the state of the county ; in particular the offence which is commonly known as 'Moonlighting,' and which is -the cause of so much terror and alarm to the well-disposed in this county, for a considerable period of time, seems to have almost entirely disappeared."* Galway was, then, the only county where crime had increased, and this was only temporary, and in Kerry, where the country had been most disturbed, there was actually an improvement. If the statistics, though, be compared with the calendar of crimes in England, the Tory statement that the Bill was intended to suppress crime falls to the ground. The Bill against Combinations. Mr. Gladstone's opposition to the Bill was based on the objection that this was not a bill against crime, but against the combination of men for political objects. It was evidently intended to treat opponents as political criminals, and to deal with them severely, as though they had broken the penal laws. Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, admitted Mr. Gladstone's charge, by saying, " Our position is, that the Land War must cease. We have offered to the House of Parliament a measure, not without hesitation, in order to put a stop to certain com- binations." This was in strange contradiction to the statement of Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons, viz., " This was a Bill to put down crime It was not conflicts between landlord and tenant they desired to put down, it * "Coercion without Crime" — pamphlet by J. A. Fox. 378 was not combination they desired to crush." 'The real fact is, that it was intended first to crush political opponents, and then to sweep away the Plan of Campaign. The Plan of Campaign This necessitates the inquiry, "What was the 'Plan of Campaign'.?" It was the method supposed necessary in the interests of the tenant by the refusal of the Tory Government to approve of the measure of Mr. Parnell for staying evictions, and the refusal of the landlords to take that abatement of rents, which the fall of agricultural prices rendered necessary. The peasantry were at the mercy of the landlords, and proved the truth of the state- ment that *'the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Many landlords refused to yield to the mild pressure of Sir M. H. Beach. Men, like Lord Clanricarde, cushioned in London, insisted upon wringing money from im- poverished tenants, and urged their agents to evict those who did not or could not pay. One agent on the estate of Lord Clanricarde had refused to carry out the evictions, because he knew the impoverished circumstances of the tenants ; but soon another agent, with less humanity, was found to carry out the discreditable and inhuman work. The Legislature refused to step between tenants and the various estates and the landlords. They were to be left exposed to the danger of banishment from homes and premature death. Mr. John Dillon came to the rescue, and as he was wishful to prevent injustice, and yet avoid revolution, he suggested a plan by which, in cases where the landlords were relentless, the tenants might protect themselves. After saying that the Plan of Campaign had been much misunderstood in the country, Mr. T. P. O'Connor says — "Like Mr. Parnell's Bill, it has been denounced as a measure of pure confiscation, and has been represented as a scheme for the robbing of the landlord of all his rent. As a matter of fact, what took place under the ' Plan of Campaign ' was, that the landlord was asked to give a reduction as small, and in many cases smaller, than would be given by the Land Court. The tenants were gathered together, and asked, by begging or by borrowing, or by any means, to collect all their rent, minus the abatement which had been demanded ; if the landlord accepted the offer, the money was given to him immediately, and without any abatement whatever. In cases where the landlords refused, the money was employed for the protection of the tenants. This would have been an extreme expedient if the country were in an ordinary condition. But in Ireland, with all the resources of the Government at the back of the landlords, whether right or wrong, whether evicting for just or exorbitant rents, the tenants were perfectly justified in adopting such an extreme method of self-defence. In any case, the ' Plan of Campaign' has done good, and has been justified by the action of the Courts, which in more than one case made reductions larger than those which had been demanded under the ' Plan of Campaign.' "* As a matter of policy, this measure may have been ill advised, but as an expression of humanity it redounds to the credit of Mr. Dillon. It is said to have alienated the sympathy of English Liberals from the support of the Irish movement. Mr. Parnell disclaimed responsibility for its inception, but would not desert the men who had arranged it. Many acknowledge it to be an evil, but it was the lesser of two of them, and it saved tenants from expulsion from their homes and starvation. It has never been put into operation except as a last resort, and in cases where the rents have been manifestly unjust. Every other method has been tried to soften the obdurate landlord, before the ' Plan of Campaign' has been adopted. In many cases the landlords have been compelled to yield, * " Parnell Movement," p. 290. 38o and the roofs are still over the heads of hundreds of families, who, but for Mr. Dillon's scheme, would to-day be houseless wanderers ; so many more flung into the seething, living mass, struggling for the barest subsistence in the overcrowded alleys and courts in our large towns. It is impossible now to enter into details of these cases. The Clanricarde case is referred in the Appendix to this book, and it is dealt with more searchingly by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre in his letters to the Times. In his book on " Incidents of Coercion," he deals not only with this case, but the very similar one on the property of Lord Massarene. But they are only sample cases. The evictions at Loughrea are parallelled at Bodyke, Coolgreany, Glenbeigh, and a number of other places. Work for the Unemployed Soldiers. Although the tenants were joint owners under the dual system of ownership established by Mr. Gladstone's measures, they were plundered, without mercy, by legal processes, and flung ruthlessly out of their homes. And all this because the landlord had raised the tenants' rents, on their own improvements, and penalised them for their industry by a sum larger than they could pay in the fall of agricultural prices. England, at peace with the world, was called upon to supply soldiers to fight the Irish tenants, on the thresholds of their homes, and the men who had driven the Zulus from their kraals, were summoned to drive the Irish from their hovels. And, as if that were not sufficient to goad the Irish Party to desperation, an Assistant Secretary for Ireland was appointed, and one of the men most obnoxious to Nationalists was given the post — the late Colonel King-Harman, a rack-renter, and a renegade Home-Ruler. 38i The •' Plan of Campaign " was the last desperate resort of drowning men. It was illegal justice set up to meet legalised injustice and a Legislature's neglect. That it violated the Law of Contracts is true, but it was in harmony with the more sacred law of humanity. The question may be asked, " Are contracts ever to be broken ?'' Yes, when they violate the fundamental laws of brother- hood, and are an insult to conscience and God. Is it lawful, in the sight of Divine Justice, for the child of a peasant to starve, while the the child of a landlord spends the rent in riotous living ? It has been said that some of the tenants were able to pay, but refused ; and that others would have paid, but were afraid to do so. It may be true. But, if they had paid, their action would have been used as a weapon to compel others, who were in poorer circumstances, to pay and starve, and they would have been compelled to pay, not out of the profits of the land, but out of moneys obtained from other sources. The produce of the land did not produce sufficient to meet the exorbitant rents. John Hampden could have paid ship-money, and not have been compelled to do with one meal less, but he knew that the tax was an unjust one, and that others, poorer than himself, could not pay. His glory as a patriot was, that he identified himself with the citizens less favourably circumstanced, and he protested and objected to pay. He fought the battle through the law courts, as well as on Chalgrove Field. So with the wealthy members of the Society of Friends, who refused to pay Church dues ; and so with Wat Tyler, and many others, whose conflicts made the great epochs of English freedom. A bill of sale from the Almighty was said to be the only justification of slavery, and as the slaveholders could not 382 produce this, their trade in human flesh was prohibited by a nation, impelled by justice and humanity to succour the weak and enslaved. A deed of gift from the Almighty is the only grounds on which Irish landlordism can be sustained. That the " Plan of Campaign " differs somewhat from Trades Union agitation, may be seen from the fact, that the one affects unjust contracts in the future, and the other embraces the iniquitous contracts in the past : but they are alike in their aim at combining the strong and weak of one class to resist stronger individuals of another class, who were exacting in their claims, and unsympathetic in their dealings with men, whose individual helplessness had made them previously an easy prey. Characteristics of the Crimes Bill. The characteristics of the Crimes Bill are intolerable to those that have imbibed the Spirit of Freedom. When first introduced, it aimed at one of the fundamental bases of civilized justice. It provided for the removal of prisoners from Ireland to the Central Criminal Court in England, and thereby would have utterly destroyed the principle of trying accused persons by those belonging to their own nation. To bring Irishmen to be tried by Englishmen, was repugnant to the majority of English people, and the opposition was so great, that, much to the regret of the Government, they were compelled to drop the obnoxious clause. The power of resident magistrates was extended, and political prisoners were to be brought before them for summary jurisdiction. The magistrates, removable at pleasure by the authorities of Dublin Castle, were to be the judges of what constituted intimidation, conspiracy, or combination for the purpose of preventing the law from 383 taking effect. These magistrates were not usually lawyers, or men skilled in legal arrangements, but were under the guidance of the Crown Prosecutor, the coach sent down by the Executive at Dublin Castle. The greater the sub- serviency of the resident magistrate to the Crown Officials, the more he was qualified for his post. The liberties of the whole nation were, therefore, placed in the grasp of removable and inefficient magistrates, whose chief quali- fications often were that they were broken-down officers of the army or navy, or else were the impecunious relatives of noblemen, who, by securing their appointments, saved their own pockets, at the expense of Ireland's mis- government. Actions, which are not crimes in England, and were not crimes in Ireland before the passing of the Act, have been made crimes by the Tory Party, for the sake of crushing political opposition. The measure provided for the prosecution of the Press, the gagging of free speech, the imprisonment of those who sold proscribed news- papers, abolition of trial by jury, and for the re-imposition of private examinations, by which evidence should be extorted from unwilling witnesses, under the pain of fine or imprisonment : in short, the adoption of a method of inquiry similar to that which made the Star Chamber of the Stuarts so notorious and so offensive to the nostrils of Puritan and Covenanter — the fathers of our modern freedom. To secure support to a paternal government by the strangling of those rights and privileges which are dearest to English- men, and to include in the Bill the idea of perpetuity was a huge mistake. To found English government on batons and bayonets, recalled to many the phrase of Count Cavour, that, " You can do anything with bayonets except sit upon them." To give a nation "a. stone for bread" is 384 in itself one of the greatest crimes that can stain the conduct of any administration. The Crimes Bill. When the Bill was introduced, the following were among the most important of the clauses, and though the section dealing with a change of venue from Ireland to the Central Criminal Court in England was dropped, yet the fact that such a clause was proposed, shows to what extent the Government was prepared to over-ride the rights and sentiments of the Irish nation : — pRSLIMINARY INQUIRY. Clause I: (Section i). — Where the Attorney-General for Ireland believes that any offence, to which this section applies, has been committed in a proclaimed district, he may direct a resident magis- trate to hold an inquiry under this section, and thereupon such resident magistrate may, although no person may be charged before him with the commission of such crime, sit at a police-court or petty sessional court-house or police-station, and examine on oath, concerning such offence, any witness appearing before him, and may take the deposition of such witness, and, if be sees cause, may bind such witness by recognisance to appear and give evidence at the next petty sessions, or when called upon, within three months from the date of the recognisance. Clause I. (Section 3). — A witness, examined under this section, shall not be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer thereto may criminate or tend to criminate himself, but any statement made by any person in answer to a question put to him on any examination under this section shall not, except in case of an indictment or other criminal proceeding for perjury, be admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding civil or criminal. Clause I. (Section 5). — The offences to which this section applies are any felony or misdemeanour, and any offence punishable under this Act. 385 Summary Jurisdiction. Clause 2. — Any person who shall commit any of the following offences in a proclaimed district, may be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction, under this Act : — (i). Any person, who shall take part in any criminal con- spiracy to compel or induce any persons either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation, or to interfere with the administration of the law. (2). Any person, who shall wrongfully and without legal authority use violence or intimidation (a) to or towards any person or persons, with a view to cause any person or persons, either to do any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to do ; or (b) to or towards any person or persons in con- sequence either of his or their having done any act which he or they had a legal right to do, or of his or their having abstained from doing any act which he' or they had a legal right to abstain from doing. (3). {a) Any person who shall take part in any riot or unlawful assembly ; or {b) within twelve months after the ■ execution of any writ of possession of any 'house or land, shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land, or any part thereof; or (c) shall assault or wilfully and unlawfully resist or obstruct any sheriff, constable, bailiff, process-server, or other minister of the law, when in the execution of his duty, or shall assault him in consequence of such execution. (4) Any person who shall commit any offence punishable under the Whiteboy Acts as defined by this Act. (5) Any person who by words or acts shall incite, solicit, encourage, or persuade any other person to commit an}' of the offences hereinbefore mentioned. 386 Special Jury and Removal of Trial. Clause 3. — Where an indictment for a crime committed in a proclaimed district has been found against a defendant, or a defendant has been committed for trial for such crime, and the trial is to be by jury before a court in Ireland other than the court of quarter sessions, the High Court shall, on an application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General for Ireland or a defender, make an order as of course that the trial of the defendant or defendants, if more than one, shall be by a special jury. Clause 4 (Section i). — Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the place of trial of offences committed in Ireland for securing more fair and impartial trials, and for relieving jurors from danger to their lives, property, and business, be it enacted : Where an indictment for a crime committed in a proclaimed district has been against a defendant, or a defendant has been committed for trial for such crime, and the trial is to be at a court of assize for any county in a proclaimed district, or at any court of quarter sessions for any county or borough in a proclaimed district, the High Court, on an application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General for Ireland, and upon his certificate that he believes that a more fair and impartial trial can be had at a court of assize in some county to be named in the certificate, shall make an order as of course that a trial shall be had at a court of assize in the county named in the certificate. The defendant, 'or any defendant, if more than one, may in- a prescribed manner, and within a prescribed time, apply to the High Court to discharge or vary any such order for the removal of a trial, upon the ground that the trial may be more fairly and impartially had in a county other than the county named in the order of removal, and thereupon the High Court may order that the trial shall be had in that county in which it shall appear that the trial can be most fairly and impartially had. Clause 4 (Section 2). — When the crime committed as aforesaid within a proclaimed district with which the defendant is charged is (a) murder or manslaughter, (b) attempt to murder, (c) aggravated crime of violence against the person, (d) arson by statute or common law, (e) breaking into, firing at or into, or otherwise 387 assaulting or injuring a dwellinghouse, however such crime may be described in the indictment, the High Court shall, upon a certificate signed by both the Attorney-General for England and the Attorney-General for Ireland that a more fair and impartial trial can be had in England than in Ireland, or that, having regard to the safety of jurors, their lives, property, or business, a satisfactory trial cannot be had in Ireland, make an order as of course that a trial shall be had in some county in England named in the certificate or in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England or at the Central Criminal Court in London where such division or court is specified in the certificate in that behalf. The defendant or any defendant, if more than one, may in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, apply to the High Court to discharge or vary any such order for the removal of a trial upon the ground that the trial can be more fairly and impartially had in some county in Ireland, than in the county named in the order of removal, or in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England, or at the Central Criminal Court, as the case may be, and that a satisfactory trial can be had in Ireland, and thereupon the High Court, if they are satisfied that a satis- factory trial can be had without danger to the jurors, their lives, property, or business, and that the trial can be more fairly and impatially had in Ireland, as alleged, may order that the trial shall be had in any county in Ireland in which they are of opinion that the trial can be most fairly and impartially had. Dangerous Association and Arms. Clause 6. — If the Lord-Lieutenant is satisfied that any associa- tion (a) formed for the commission of crimes, or (b) carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes, or (c) encouraging or aiding persons to commit crimes, or (d) promoting or exciting to acts of violence or intimidation, or (e) interfering with the administration of the law, or disturbing the maintenance of law and order (in this Act referred to as a dangerous association) exists in any part of Ireland, the Lord-Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, may from time to time by proclamation declare that the enactments of this Act relating to dangerous associations shall come into force. 388 Clause 7. — From and after the date of such special proclamation, and as long As the same contines unrevoked or unexpired, the Lord- Lieutenant in Council may, from time to time by order, to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit or suppress in any district specified in the order any association which he believes to be a dangerous association. Clause 8. — {a) The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, as amended by the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Continuance Act, 1886, shall continue in force for five years from the passing of this Act, and until the end of the then next session of Parliament, (b) A warrant under the said Act directing a search for arms or ammunition in houses, buildings, or places in a proclaimed district, as defined by that Act, shall be valid in law notwithstanding that the houses, buildings, or places to be searched are not specified therein further than as being houses, buildings, or places situated in a specified townland or municipal ward. Provision as to Special Jury and Removal of Trial. Clause g. — Where under this Act a trial is had by a special jury, the special jurors shall be taken by ballot in the manner provided by the 19th section of the Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876, from all the jurors upon the panel returned by the Sheriff from the special jurors' book. Clause 10 (Section i). — If an order for the removal of the trial of a crime to any county in England or Ireland, or to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England, or to the Central Criminal Court, has been made under this Act before the indictment is found, such crime may be inquired of by a grand jury of, and may be heard and determined in the county named in the order of removal, or the Queen's Bench Division, or the Central Criminal Court, as the case may be, in like manner as if the crime had been committed in such county, or in the county of Middlesex, or within the Central Criminal Court district, as the case may be ; and if the order is made* after the indictm.ent is found, such crime may be heard and determined as if the indictment had been found in the court to which the trial is removed. Clause 10 (Section 2). — In either case the defendant may be convicted and sentenced as if the crime had been committed in 389 the county named in the order of removal, or in the County of Middlesex, or in the Central Criminal Court district, as the case may be, but the sentence of the court shall be carried into effect as if he had been tried in the county in which he would have been tried if the order had not been made, and the defendant shall, if necessary, be removed accordingly, in pursuance of an order of the court in which he has been tried made for the purpose. Clause II (Section i). — A person prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction under this Act shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, and shall have the same right of appeal as he would have under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts in the case of any other summary conviction. Clause 14. — There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, such allowances to officers and other persons acting in pursuance of this Act, and such expenses incurred in reference to any' court exercising jurisdiction under this Act, and such expenses of persons charged, counsel, and witnesses payable in pursuance of this Act, as the Lord-Lieutenant, with the approval of the Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, may from time to time direct. Clause 16. — Any powers or jurisdiction conferred by this Act on any Court or authority in relation to any trial, offence, or matter, shall be deemed in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other power or jurisdiction of any court or authority subsisting at com- mon law or by Act of Parliament in relation to such trial, offence, or matter ; provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence. Clause 18. — An agreement or combination which, under the Trade Union Acts 1871 and 1876, or the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, is legal, shall not, nor shall any act done in pursuance of any such agreement or combination, be deemed to be an offence against the provisions of this Act respecting conspiracy, intimidation, and dangerous associations. Clause 19 gives the definitions of the Act, and the short title of the Act is set forth in clause 20 as follows : — This Act may be cited as the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887. 390 Mr. Clancy on *'A Year of Unionist Coercion." Mr. J. J. Clancy, M.P., has done good service by writing a series of articles entitled *'A Year of Unionist Coercion." He shows the way in which . Mr. Balfour carried out the provisions of the Crimes Bill, and that the measure conceived in bitterness was administered with harshness and severity. People were prosecuted for the following offences, viz. : — assault, riot, obstruction to officers of the law, intimidation, taking illegal possession of houses, attending meetings of suppressed branches of the League, selling newspapers containing reports of the meetings of suppressed branches, publishing such reports, cheering or groaning in crowds, inducing or compelling people not to deal with or work for others. The measure for which urgency was demanded in. the House of Commons was not put into operation on any extensive scale for six weeks. Three months passed before a single case of boycotting was dealt with. The Bill was used as a weapon against old people and children, and newsvendors striving to obtain their scanty livelihood in the streets, were made to feel the sting of this coercive measure, '* Booing " Mr. Balfour's name was a crime. Cheering Mr. Gladstone's name was regarded as intimida- tion. Whistling at policemen was declared to be an obstruction of the law. How THE Bill was Administered. Mr. J. R. Cox, M.P., made a speech in which he urged the people to shun outrages as one would shun poison, but the Removable Incompetents convicted him for incitement to crime. In cases of appeal from Lower Courts, the appellants were punished for daring to appeal against the verdicts of these magistrates by having their sentences 391 increased. Men who appealed, and pending tne appeal should have been at liberty, were arrested as they left the Court on other charges. Men were sentenced to double terms of imprisonment for two portions of the same speech. To prevent an appeal which could have been entered had the sentence been for two months, the accused were sentenced at the same Court to separate terms of a month's imprisonment. Men were therefore in gaol for two months, but were tricked out of the right of appeal by separate sentences. The police called upon shopkeepers to ask for what they did not require, in order to found a charge against those whom they knew would refuse to sell to them. Incitement to crime was thus openly indulged in by Magistrates and Constabulary. Bakers and publicans were imprisoned because they objected to sell bread and beer to the police. Men who refused horses and cars to the Constabulary when they wished to suppress a meeting of the National League, a few miles off, were imprisoned. They had supplied cars for taking afflicted persons to lunatic asylums, but refused to help in the suppression of the people's combination. Blacksmiths refused to shoe horses, and were convicted and sent to gaol. A Landlord Inciting to Crime. Mr. Leader, a landlord in County Cork, acknowledged in evidence that he went to certain individuals whom he had never bought anything of previously, because he knew they were hostile to him and would refuse to supply him with goods. In his evidence against them, he admitted that he had a standing quarrel with them, that he could have got the food elsewhere, that he did not need it, that he offered no money in payment, that he consulted the police before he visited the shops, and that he went for 392 the sole purpose of getting up a prosecution. That is, he went, backed up by the Crimes Bill and the police, to tempt these shopkeepers and incite them to become criminals in the eyes of the law. When public-houses were closed at Milton Milbay, at the request of the parish priest, to avoid disturbances during a time of excitement, the police went from house to house demanding to be sold drink, and twenty-four publicans were convicted and sentenced to a month's hard labour for refusing to sell. In cross-examination, it was admitted that the drink was not needed by the police, as there was plenty of refreshment in the barracks. A bogus case of boycotting was trumpeted in the English newspapers to excite the indignation of Christian people. A Protestant Minister in Tulla was held up as an object of sympathy because he had been compelled to nail up his wife's coffin. But a question from the Bench extorted from him an acknowledgement that he had never asked anyone else to do it. How Mr. Balfour kept a Pledge not to curtail THE Liberty of the Press. When the Crimes Bill was introduced, Mr. Balfour announced that he did not intend to interfere with the liberty of the press. As soon as Parliament ceased to sit in the same year, he proceeded to violate this pledge by prosecuting Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the proprietor of the Nation newspaper ; and Mr. William O'Brien, the editor of United Ireland: for publishing reports of meetings held by suppressed branches of the League. But as these men published their papers in Dublin, the case had to be tried by a magistrate who was not removable at will by the authorities of Dublin 393 Castle, and he dismissed the charge on the ground raised by Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P., the counsel for the defence, viz., that the Prosecution should prove that the meetings had actually been held. The Crown lawyers appealed to the High Court, and were successful. Mr. O'Donel, the Dublin magistrate, was therefore compelled to sentence to two months' imprisonment a Lord Mayor of the City, whom he respected for his character and work. He mitigated the severity of the sentence as much as he could by making Mr. Sullivan a first-class misdemeanant. This act is in contrast with the sentences of removable magis- trates acting under the direction of Dublin Castle, which branded the prisoners sentenced by them as though they were common felons. Mr. William O'Brien was let off on this charge, because he was being assailed and imprisoned on other grounds, in another part of the country. Mr. Walsh, of the Wexford People; Mr. Alderman Hooper, M.P., of the Cork Herald; Mr. Edward Harrington, M.P., of the Kerry Sentinel; Mr. P. A. Hugh (Mayor of Sligo), of the Sligo Champion : were all assailed, and, with one exception, imprisoned as common criminals. At one time, a larger number of the representatives of the people were in prison than at any time in any country, since the French Revolution. The Crown versus Newsboys. The police watched the sales of the newsvendor, and acting on the the presumption that a news' seller should know the contents of the paper he hawks for sale, the Crown prosecuted a number of them. Mr. Clancy gives the following cases : — The case of Mr. Denis M'Namara exhibits a course of petty persecution which has but few parallels. We find (i) that on the 394 26th November, 1887, this respectable man was convicted at Ennis of the "crime" of selling copies of United Irelard, and sentenced therefore to seven days' imprisonment ; (2) that on the 24th December, at the same place, he was convicted of the same "crime"' and sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour ; (3) that at the same place on the 7th January, 1888, he was prosecuted for displaying in his window a transparency representing a harp and shamrocks surmounted by the motto " God save Ireland," and fined £2 ; (4) that, apparently to ruin his business as a grocer, police were told off to stand outside his house for the purpose of taking down, as far as possible, the names and addresses of all who went into and out of his shop ; and (5) that on one occasion — the i6th December, 1887 — the police actually entered the poor man's house, ransacked his shop and every one of his private apartments, and wound up their raid by seizing and carrying off — of course, without payment — thirty dozen copies of United Ireland ! Such occurrences, in this age, may well appear incredible to Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welsh- men ! but, unfortunately, they are not unfamiliar occurrences in Ireland ; and Mr. M'Namara was not by any means the only victim last winter of such vindictive, if not absolutely lawless tyranny. Here it may be mentioned, as additional evidence of the spirit in which Mr. Balfour has gone to work in these matters, that Mr. O'Rourke, the newsvendor of Tralee, was prosecuted and sent to prison for a month, almost immediately after his wife had died, leaving behind her a large family of helpless young children. Mr. Flynn, M.P., laid the following case before the House of Commons — "Dennis Desmond (young lad), who refused to sell a policeman a copy of United Ireland, arrested by Sergeant Kennedy, and detained for a short time in Bridewell ; Dennis M'Carthy (youug lad), refused to sell a copy of the Cork Examiner to Police-sergeant Power, arrested by Sergt. Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time; John Radley (young lad), refused to sell a copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner to policeman, arrested by Sergeant Power, taken to Bridewell and detained there for some time ; Cornelius Coakley (young lad), arrested for refusing to sell to a policeman a copy of United Ireland and Cork Exrminer, by Sergeant 395 Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time ; Patrick Bradley (young lad), arrested under circumstances similar to the above by Sergeant Power; Patrick Carleton (young lad), refused to sell a copy of Cork Herald to policeman, arrested by Sergeant O'Leary, and lodged in Bridewell for some time ; Michael Murphy (an old man of seventy), refused to sell a copy of the Examiner to policeman on beat, and the policeman kicked the old man's box about, scattered his papers, cuffed the old man, and warned him against selling the paper." Mr. Balfour vainly tried to explain theses cases away, by saying that these were prosecuted for drunkenness, street obstruction, and other offences against the law. Government Assaults on Free Speech. The rights of free speech were also assailed. Mr. John Dillon, for a speech delivered at Tullyallen, in the county of Louth, was convicted and sentenced to two concurrent terms of six months' imprisonment. The county of Louth had not been proclaimed under the second section of the Coercion Act, when Mr. Dillon made his speech, but the county was afterwards proclaimed, and the section was made to act retrospectively, so as to deprive Mr. Dillon of the benefits of a jury. It was admitted that he used the following words : — "What used they do to traitors in the olden times ? They used to shoot them. Well, I wanted to turn our people away from that course. I wanted to place before the people of Ireland a Christian, a civilised, a moral plan, by which, if they adhered to it bravely, they could put down this infamous system of rack-renting and treachery, to which the people of Ireland have been so long subjected." Mr. William O'Brien at Mitchelstown. Mr. William O'Brien's crime was to use his own words, that of " holding the arm of an executioner, when he knew 396 that a reprieve was actually arriving at the gates." In the House of Commons he justified his conduct as follows : — "There was just one hope for these poor people in all the world. The Northwich election was pending ; it was coming off in a few days. Irish evictions were becoming an awkward topic for the Tory candidate. The story of Glenbeigh and of Bodyke was beginning fo horrify and revolt the English mind. I knew that Tory statesmen would not scruple to lend their troops to perpetrate this wrong if it could be done without commotion, but I knew also, or guessed at all events, that they would scruple to do anything that would make them lose the Northwich election. I had not a moment for consultation with anybody in the world. On my own responsibility, and actually and absolutely on my own responsibility, without consultation with anybody, and on the spur of the moment, there and then in the open square of Mitchelstown, and in the hearing of a number of policemen, I did tell the people that if under those special circumstances those evictions were carried out before the Land Bill, which was just almost law then, could become law, but it would not be a vindication of the law, but it would be an outrageous evasion of the law, and that they would be justified in the eyes of God and man in defending their homes by every honest means in their power against such an infamy. I may have been right or I may have been wrong. I have no doubt on the point in my own mind, and I have not been in the least degree inclined to complain that I should suft^'er in reference to it. I have no doubt that technically it was illegal for me to save the people, as it was legal for the landlord for a few days more to ruin them just as — I daresay it would be, strictly speaking, a breach of the law to hold the arm of the executioner, even if you knew and he knew that a reprieve was actually arriving at the gates." At the trial the warrant was not filled up, and the Recorder stated that until that was done Mr. O'Brien had liberty to leave the court, but Captain Stokes, the Divisional Magistrate, defied the Judge, and on his own responsibility detained Mr. O'Brien, and was not repremandcd for his conduct. 397 Mr. J. R. Cox., M.P., delivered a speech to his own constituents at Ennis, and was sentenced to four months imprisonment. The following extract includes the state- ments for which he was condemned : — " I would implore the young men of Clare — and I wish my voice could reach the ears and hearts of every young man to-night, and this Lisdoonarva case may point a moral if it cannot adorn a sad tale for them. Let them shun outrages and avoid the tempter to evil deeds as they would shun Satan himself, and if for no holier and higher motive, at least for the selfish motive of their own safety. There were foolish people in the country who thought revenge should be wreaked for every petty act of local tyranny. I do not think the common sense of the country will accept their opinions and views against the opinions and views of our great leader, Mr. Parnell, or the greatest statesman of modern times, Mr. Gladstone. Wherever and whenever you meet with such men, avoid and shun them, for, believe me, theirs is no good purpose. The louder they boast of their patriotism, and what they are prepared to do and dare, the more reason have you to shun them, for, believe me, nine out of every ten of such men are in the pay of our enemies. We have now the great Liberal party of England at our back, with their great leader Mr. Gladstone ; we have the English democracy with us, as will be told you in a few minutes by Mr. Conybeare| With such allies, nothing can stop or stay our march to liberty, save and except the commission of outrage, which must inevitably drive our allies from our side, and bring joy, hope, and satisfaction to the hearts of the miserable gang of Coercionists — the Cullinane Balfour now in office. Hearken then to the advice of the great leader who never yet gave wrong counsel or advice, follow the counsel of the veteran leader of the Liberal party, be guilty of no crime or out- rage. Follow the open and Constitutional agitation, which has almost brought us to the goal of our long-lost right. Adhere to the teachings and doctrines of the National League — but I forgot, my friends, Balfour says the League has been proclaimed in Clare. I ask you is it ? (loud shouts of ' No ! ') I wish Balfour was there to listen to that thundering shout ; he would know the value you place on his proclamations." 398 The constable who took down the speech for which Mr. Sheehy, M.P., was imprisoned acknowledged that he could not keep up with the speaker — though he spoke slowly, that he was often two or three sentences behind, that he had to skip over sentences every now and then to start afresh, that he often missed sentences altogether, and that he only wrote down one-fourth or one-fifth of the speech. Mr. J. W. Lane, M.P., spoke to his constituents and to the landlord of the district. The man supposed to be specially aimed at, expressed his entire satisfaction with the speech, and offered to leave to Mr. Lane the settlement of the dispute between him and his tenants. He — Mr. Hayes — said at the trial of Mr. Lane that he had not suffered in any way from the speech, that he had never complained to anyone connected with the Crown on account of it, and that he would not object to the " Plan of Campaign " on his property because he could get more money from his tenants through it than without it. But Mr. Lane was convicted for delivering the speech and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. Mr. Clancy says :— " Mr. Flynn, M.P., was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment as a common criminal, for a speech in which he actually advised a body of tenantry amongst his constituents to " shun crime and outrage as they would shun prison," and in which the worst passage, according to the " Removable " who pronounced judgment, recommended that body of tenantry to " follow the advice of a great English orator and stick firm to their just and lawful combination." Mr. T. J. Condon, M. P., was was sent to goal, first for a fortnight, virtually for a speech which not he, but another, Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P. deliver- ed in Mr. Condon's absence ; and then for a month for ad- 399 vising the people of Mitchelstown not to pay what is known as ** the Mitchelstown Blood Tax," — a form of resistance to oppression which Mr. Matthews, the present Home Sec- retary, recently expressed something like approval in the House of Commons, in the case of the Welsh resistance to tithes. Mr. O'Brien, M.P., for North Monaghan, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for having, in the middle of a speech in couuty Kilkenny, humourously re- marked, in response to a person who had handed him a glass of water, " Here's to the downfall of Smithwick " — a remark which the " Removable " magistrate who sen- tenced him took care to state that he did not for a moment mean to interpret as an incitement to any physical violence whatever to the said Smithwick ! Father McFadden, the saviour of famine-swept Gweedore ; Father Stephens, the young patriot curate of Donegal ; Mr. Blane, M.P.; Mr. John Redmond, M.P.; Mr. J. J. O'Kelly, M.P.; and many other less conspicuous men in various parts of Ireland have been prosecuted, and in most cases convicted, on various preposterous criminal charges, for speeches, some of which may have been technically illegal, but not one of which, as we have said, might not be delivered in England, Scotland, or Wales amidst the applause of thousands of honest men." Mr. Balfour's Triumphs. Three men shouted at another from behind a wall and were sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment for intimida- tion, and yet the man thus intimidated swore that no violence had been used against him, and that he had not; been frightened at the shouting. Four persons on October 14th, 1887, were prosecuted by the Crown at Taghmon in the County of Wexford for " intimidation and unlawful assembly." The male prisioners were of the 400 ages of fifteen, thirteen, and eleven years respectively, while the fourth was a girl. Their crime was that they had blown horns and shouted "emergency man" and "land grabber," at a man who worked on a farm from which a tenant had been evicted. He swore that he had not been frightened by the noise, nor interrupted in his work. An alibi was proved by a schoolmaster in the case of one of defendants, and the other three were sent to goal for four- teen days. Two men were imprisoned in King's County because when going home from a fair they shouted when passing the house of an unpopular man. For these shouts one was sent to prison for a fortnight, and the other for a week. A caretaker of Lord Clanricarde's was purchasing goods at a shop, when Peter Kelly saw him, and refused to buy goods at the same place. Peter Kelly was sent to gaol for three weeks. Two men in King's county were charged with intimidating a bailiff. They had whistled at him. But they escaped imprisonment because they were whistling for a dog. At Athenry a man was put upon his trial for intimidation because his childrert had groaned at a local land agent. The man was acquitted, but pending his trial he was kept a week in Gal way gaol and was brought to the court in handcuffs. While a man was being brought to gaol for resisting eviction, a crowd which included the chairman of the Town Board and the leading men of the pl'ace met to show sympathy with the evicted tenant. They shouted three cheers for Mr. Gladstone and hooted the police. She Stationmaster at whose station the mcident occurred said that there ^vas no riot, and that the crowd was " good-natured and peaceful." The cheerers for jNIr. Gladstone were sentenced to imprisonment varying from six weeks to three months with hard labour.* * Clancy. 401 Mr. Shaw-Lefevre's Speech at Bradford. The Right Hon. Shaw-Lefevre in a speech at Bradford, recited an account of the number of people who were sent to prison for one case. He said : — Since the Coercion Act came into effect there had been some- thing Hke 1700 prosecutions, and no fewer than 1200 persons had been sent to prison. Among them there were twenty-three members of ParHament, fifteen priests, many editors of newspapers, and not a few women and children. It was his conviction that when they examined these cases, and traced them to their causes, it would be found that without exception they had arisen from disputes between landlord and tenant in respect of arrears of unjust rents. There was a kind of sequence about these coercion cases which was very remarkable. Many of them were connected in groups, and all arose, as a rule, out of some great case of dispute between landlord and tenant. What happened was this. In the first place a landlord began to evict his tenants on a great scale. Then the tenants resist- ed, because they found that it was only by resisting that they could call the attention of the English public to their case, and so have their claims recognised. Then, under the Coercion Act many of them were arrested and sent to prison for resisting. Either the members for the district or some popular Member of Parliament came down and held a meeting for the purpose of expressing sympathy with the evicted people. That was declared to be illegal, and their member or members were arrested and sent to prison. Then the people were sent to prison for being present at the meeting. Next, at the trial of these people, further demonstrations took place which the police chose to call disturbances Then another batch of people were evicted and sent to prison. Then on the way to prison there was another demonstration, and the police chose to call that an illegal meeting, and they prosecuted another batch of people for being present. Then finally the popular man or the priests came out of prison, and then there were demonstrations once more, an impromptu meeting was held, and the police chose to call that an illegal meeting, and put more people in prison. He could give them twenty illustrations if necessary of this kind of sequence, but he would content himself with two, The first was with reference to Lord Clanricarde's case. He did not propose to go over the old story of Lord Clanricarde and his tenants. He had told it before in Bradford, in the public Press, and in the House of Commons, and he stood by every word that he had said before. No one had ever yet been found to deny it, and no man in the House of Commons, speaking on behalf of the Govern- ment, had ventured to deny it. Every one knew that the dispute arose on account of the unreasonable conduct of Lord Clanricarde in refusing that abatement of rent which all his neighbours were making, and which his own agent advised him to make. Everyone knew that evictions followed, and that the action of Lord Clanricarde had been unjust, and that while on their parts the tenants had been willing at any time to settle on reasonable terms, such as other land- lords conceded. Lord Clanricarde to this day had never made a reasonable offer. But what he wanted to refer to was the number of people who had been sent to prison on account of that one case, and the circumstances under which they had been sent to prison. When evictions first began the tenants resisted, and seventy-five of them, young men of good character, were sent to Sligo, and there, by means of packed juries, were prosecuted, condemned, and sent to prison for eighteen months with hard labour. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Wm. O'Brien desired to hold a meeting to express sympathy with the men. His meeting was proclaimed, and in order to hold a meeting he was compelled to hold it at midnight, at Woodford, so as to elude the authorities. The meeting was held, and twelve persons were prosecuted for being present at it who were merely in the crowd, and who took no actual part in the proceedings. And when some of them came out of prison, after having served a month's hard labour, an impromptu meeting of 400 or 500 people was held to welcome them home. Twelve of these persons were prosecuted and sentenced, some to six weeks' and some to three months' hard labour, for being present at the supposed illegal meeting. Shortly after- wards further convictions took place, and another batch of eight were sent to prison for resisting the police. Then Mr. Wilfrid Blunt went to Woodford and endeavoured to hold a meeting to express sympathy with the prisoners, and he was prosecuted and sent to prison as a common criminal for doing it. Other evictions shortly afterwards took place, and other persons 403 were sent to prison for resisting, and then their humble servant went there, and put his hand into the hornets' nest of coercion ; but, unfortunately, he was able to pull it out again without damage. Not very long afterwards Mr. W. O'Brien desired to hold another meeting in the same district, to express sympathy with the tenants of this property, and also to demonstrate that the National League still existed in that district as an important institution. The meeting was proclaimed, and Mr. O'Brien and twelve other persons who were present were prosecuted, and but for a technical difficulty they would have been put in gaol. Lastly, and only last week, as he had already stated, further evictions on a wholesale plan were carried out, and thirty or forty more persons had been sent to prison. If they would count up the numbers which he had mentioned they would find that in this one case alone i6o persons had gone to prison, and all had gone, in his opinion, unjustly. He did not believe that if these persons had been tried by a fair jury in any part of Ireland, or even England, any one of them would have been sent to gaol. He would mention another case which he came across during his visit to Ireland. While in that country he went to Miltown Malbay, in the county of Clare. The town had only 1300 inhabitants, but he found that no fewer than fifty-four persons in it had been prosecuted, and forty of them had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. In nearly all these cases there had been refusals to supply goods to one or two landlords and one landlady in the district, and to the police, and when he came further to trace the cause of these refusals he found that they arose from unjust evictions by these landlords and this landlady. The lady's rents were probably more excessive than any other rents in the country — they were 100 per cent, above the Government valuation. Some time ago, in the bad times, this lady evicted fourteen of her tenants. This caused a great feeling of indignation throughout the whole district — as well it might — and consequently the people unanimously, but without concert or con- spiracy, determined to have nothing to do with the lady. Her own servants, without the invitation or the desire of anybody, left her. The tradespeople of the place who had been in the habit of supply- ing her declined to supply her any longer, although, of course, it was very much to their interest to continue their supplies. Action of 404 this kind might be wrong, and they might under certain circumstances deplore it. If it were a conspiracy on the part of a few people for the purpose of ruining and injuring another, then it was undoubtedly criminal and wrong ; but if this action was the result of the indig- nation of the whole district, without concert or conspiracy, then, however much they might deplore it, it was certainly not criminal, and he did not see why they should deplore it any more than the unjust evictions which gave rise to it. He was bound to say that this lady was an extremely plucky and determined woman, and she engaged servants from another part of Ireland, and set up a store to provide her horses and servants with all they wanted ; and apparently things went on not amiss. But when the Coercion Act was passed she sent police for goods that she did not want, selecting for the purpose persons whom she thought it desirable to send to prison, and when the tradespeople refused to supply her they were prosecuted. She sent her horses to three or foui blacksmiths, three of whom she had never before employed, and the other she had not employed for six years. She demanded them to shoe the animals, and when they refused she had them prosecuted and sent to prison for a month's hard labour. But he was now coming to a more extraordinary part of the case. In connection with one of these batches of prosecutions, a parish priest had reason to believe that the country people would go into the town in great numbers in order to make a demonstration, and he was informed that the police, under the orders of Mr. Roche, would not be unwilling to avail themselves of that opportunity to bring about a conflict between themselves and the people. Accord- ingly, on the Sunday before these prosecutions took place the priest urged the country people not to go into the town on the day of the trial, and, also with the object of avoiding trouble, he asked the shop- keepers in the town to close their shops during the trial. They followed his advice, and closed their shops from eleven till half-past two o'clock — the time during which the trial took place. Would they (the audience believe it ? — the police took that opportunity of getting up prosecutions against these people. They went to twenty- six shops — apparently in that town almost every shop had a licence to sell spirits — and knocked at the doors, and asked the shopkeepers to sell them spirits. The shopkeepers refused, and the police prosecuted them, and they were all convicted and sentenced to one 405 month's imprisonment each with hard labour. But this was not all. A few days afterwards the country people in the neighbourhood determined to make a demonstration in favour of persons who had been convicted, and they sent a number of carts into the town containing turf, potatoes, and other supplies for the benefit of the famihes of those people. There was a procession of these carts and men through the town as a kind of demonstration. No disturbance whatever took place, and it was admitted by the police that the town was peaceable ; and yet the authorities chose to treat the procession as an illegal meeting, and they prosecuted ten persons for being present, and these persons were convicted and sentenced to six weeks' hard labour each. He ventured to ask them if they could be surprised that in the face of things of this kind there should be discontent in that part of Ireland. He must also mention to them the fact that, with one exception, the magistrates refused to state a case in every one of these cases. It was absolutely certain now, upon the decision of the judges in the Exchequer Court of Dublin in a recent case, that every one of these convictions for refusing to supply goods to the lady or to the police was absolutely illegal, and that all these people had been illegally imprisoned. * The Modern Star Chamber. The Star Chamber clause provides for the holding of secret inquiries, and for inflicting terms of imprisonment which are practically indefinite. It can be called into operation on small pretexts, and can be used as a weapon, either by an individual or a privileged class. Secret inquisition has long been obnoxious to Englishmen, but it has been thought good enough by a Tory Government and Mr. Chamberlain to be applied to Ireland. It has been used in the interests of the landlords, to the injury of the struggling tenants. The Catholic Bishop of Raphoe wrote to the Freeman on the subject, as follows : — Letterkenny, June 13th. Dear Sir, — The extraordinary way in which the preliminary * See ^Iso Shaw-Lefevre's " Incidents of Coercion." 4o6 inquiry clauses of the Crimes Act are being worked in Donegal compels me to draw public attention to the increasing gravity of the situation that has been forced upon the people. For the main- tenance of good order among them I am, by my position, more deeply concerned than any resident magistrate, and I cannot look on, without a protest, while some of the most peaceful districts in Ireland are being thrown into a state of utter confusion by the needless operations of a secret coercion court. It is impossible to heal the wounds already inflicted on public tranquillity by this itinerant tribunal, but it may not be too late to arrest the danger of still worse results. Its daily work is a standing menace to peace and incitement to violence. The little town of Dungloe is situated in the midst of a population, whose character for intelligence, industry, and peace- fulness is not surpassed by the good name of the inhabitants at any point on the Irish seaboard. Until a few weeks ago, its townpeople lived in a state of enviable quietude, such as the strained relations between landlord and tenant would allow few neighbouring districts to assume. As a matter of fact, the locality has been always remarkable for the amicable settlement of agrarian disputes. But this bleak Arcadia was doomed. A resident magistrate thought well to establish his Star Chambers in its midst. The leading men of the town were summoned on short notice before him, with practically no option but to decline answering or appear before the public in the odious character of informers on their neighbours. It is unnecessary to say which course a Rosses man will take in such circumstances. These townspeople of Dungloe, some of them in a most delicate state of health, were made to come from Derry Gaol long journeys on outside cars, at late hours of the night, and in torrents of rain, rather than have the name of yielding to the behests of this mischievous court. Worse still, their friends and admirers, who most naturally throng to welcome them on each return from prison, must atone for their impudence by yielding to a baton charge or being dragged from their beds to a police bar- racks in the small hours of the morning. I implore the people to be true to their Christian duty, to Ireland, and to themselves, by not allowing even such insensate provocation to drive them into violence. They have not begun the 407 disturbance. They are under an excellent guide in their parish priest. Let the whole responsibility for disorder rest on those whose tyrannical administration has called it into being. Faithfully yours, + Patrick O'Donnell. Men who objected to answer questions were sent to gaol; men who refused to obey the summons of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction were arrested in the middle of the night and dragged from their beds. Youths, girls, and boys as well as men were summoned before the secret tribunal, and joyfully went to prison rather than be branded as informers and thus play into the hands of a coercive Government. Police Violation of the Ordinary Laws. The ordinary law of the country has also been over- ridden by the police, and respect for law has been brought into contempt by the action of law officers. Jury packing has been indulged in repeatedly. At Queen's County, all Catholic jurors were ordered to stand aside, though the Catholics number 88 per cent, of the population. They sent a protest to the Judge signed by thirty-nine persons, as follows : — May it please your Lordship, — We, the undersigned Roman Catholic jurors from various parts of the Queen's County, respectfully beg to bring under your Lord- ships notice the following facts : — We have been summoned as jurors and compelled to attend the assizes under penalty of being severely fined ; we have attended from day to day at great loss and inconvenience, and, while prepared to perform our duty conscientiously and justly, the Crown officials have denied us, as Catholics, the exercise, in important cases, of our right, by ordering us when called upon to stand aside, without any just cause or objection save our faith. 4o8 We resent this gross outrage and indignity not only to our- selves, but to the whole Catholic community who form the vast bulk of the population of the Queen's County. We protest in the strongest manner against the vicious system of jury-packing, which carries into courts of justice party prejudices and passions, that seeks to libel the Catholic community, and stigma- tises them as being unconscionable and unfit to serve on juries or keep their oaths. Mr. Clancy says : — " Finally, at the Wicklow Assizes of last summer to which had been transferred some cases from other counties, exclusively Protestant juries were sworn in every case of importance, every Catholic juror being excluded by being told to "stand aside" when he went into the box to be sworn. In one case — that of ten young Catholic peasants tried "obstructing" the sheriff at an eviction in the county of Wexford — not only Catholics to the number of thirty-five, but two or three Liberal Protestants were also ordered to " stand aside," the consequence being that a public meeting was held in the Town Hall, Wicklow, to denounce such insults to the majority of the population — but, of course, without the slightest effect." Attacks on Public Meetings. The right of public meetings has been interfered with, and men have been cruelly batoned and shot by the paid supporters of law and order. Meetings at Ennis, Mitchelstown, Fcrmoy, Limerick, Ballinsloe, Dunkalk, and many other places bear witness to this. " Remember Mitchelstown." The Mitchelstown outrage by the police has com- manded much attention. The authorities knew that the 409 meeting was to be held. The meeting was properly called and advertised, and was attended by two English Members of Parliament, viz., Mr. Henry Labouchere the proprietor of Truth, and Mr. J. T. Brunner who had just been successfully returned as member for Northwich, and who carried with him a message of friendship to the Irish people. I was present at Leinster Hall in Dublin the night previous to the Mitchelstown meeting, and heard their pacific and sympathetic utterances. The police, however, waited until the meeting was being held, and then without any warrant or legal authority endeavoured to force their way through the closely packed mass of eager hsteners. Failing to do so, they returned for re-inforcements, and with batons in hand charged the crowd, striking the horses on which some of the Tipperary men sat on the edge of the crowd. The people still held to their places, until beaten, bruised, and exasperated beyond measure, they retaliated, and the police were forced to seek shelter in their barracks. Then these hrave men, from an upper window fired upon the crowd, who were not within many yards of the barracks, some without orders or further pro- vocation. The result was that one man was killed instantly, and two others mortally wounded. The coroner's jury brought in a verdict of '* wilful murder," against the policemen, but the Dublin Executive, by an arbitrary Act, quashed the proceedings. The plea of the Government was, that these men were killed by a ricochet shot, but Mr. H. J. Wilson, M.P. for a Yorkshire constituency, viz., Holmfirth Division, visited Mitchelstown, and from the windows of the barracks took photographs of the places where the m.en had been shot, and conclusively proved the falsity of the Government statement. 410 A National League Meeting near Cork. What would have followed had this policy of forcing reporters through crowds of citizens assembled at public meet- ings been continued, it is impossible to say. The people of Ireland were angered beyond endurance ; and I was present a week after the Mitchelstown tragedy at a meeting near Cork where the Irish "boys" came marching after the armed Constabulary, with hurley sticks on their shoulders, determined not to allow their meeting to be illegally interfered with. The Mayor of Cork presided, and was supported by the High Sheriff — a Protestant — Messrs. J. Deasy, O'Hea, and Dr. Tanner, Members of Parliament, and the leading citizens of Cork. But the indignation excited in England by the Mitchelstown murders made Mr. Balfour desist for a time from breaking into Constitutional Meetings, and in consequence the officer in command of the Constabulary in Cork con- ferred with the Mayor previous to the commencement of the proceedings, and facility was given for the Government reporters to be placed in front of the platform, protected by chosen members of the Police Force. Although Mr. Wm. O'Brien was incarcerated a short distance away in Cork gaol, the meeting was orderly in the extreme. To light a bonfire in honour of the release of political prisoners is, in Ireland, a crime. Young men were fined and imprisoned for lighting fires in celebration of the release of Mr. Wm. O'Brien and Mr. T. D. Sullivan. AtTralee,two young men, highly respected in the neighbourhood, were bound over to keep the peace, or go to gaol for a month, because they laughed and *' booed " at a police-sergeant. A constable, who was a chief witness for his superior, swore that the noise they made " was not exactly a boo, but between a boo and a laugh." They went to gaol. 4ti Police Espionage. Visitors to Ireland have been dogged by police spies, their letters have been opened, and themselves subjected to various indignities. Police-officers, armed to the teeth, are to be found at railway stations, walking along the line of carriages, and peering suspiciously into the various compartments. I have seen them pursuing this work of spying. I distinctly saw a police-inspector in Dublin pointing me out to the Head Detective, because I been in the company of the Lord Mayor, Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., and other leading Nationalists, and I enjoyed the consciousness of being an object of suspicion. The delegates of the English Home Rule Union had a similar experience. An Evening at Cork. I steiyed in the Victoria Plotel, in Cork, and was present in the coffee room one evening with Mr. J. T. Brunner, M.P. for Northwich ; Mr. J. B. Firth, now M.P. for Dundee ; Mr. Coote, ex-M.P. for South Huntingdon- shire ; Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., and other gentlemen. The special correspondent of the Manchester Guardian was also in the hotel. We were assured that we were being watched. Mr. Firth and Mr. Coote left the room, and quietly proceeded outside, when they found several police- men peering through the blinds of the coffee-room in order to watch the deeds of the desperate conspirators inside. The men were non-plussed at being detected, and could only stammer out the unsatisfactory explanation that they were at their proper post, and were doing their duty. Government Meanness. Petty meanness has characterised the administration of the law. Mr. Sheehy, M.P., returned home to see his ^12 wife who was dangerously ill. He was immediately arrested and denied bail. On appeal against the verdict he proceeded, as was his right, to leave the court pending the appeal, but was again arrested at the door, carried across the country, tried on another charge, and sent to gaol for a month, because that term precluded an appeal and liberty pending its settlement. During his imprisonment he was brought up to give evidence in the case of Mr. Wilfred Blunt. He was presented before his own constituents in a prison dress and was conveyed fifteen miles in an outside car in winter weather without hat, because he refused to wear the prison cap. John Roche, of Woodford, for helping the tenantry to resist the injustices of Lord Clanricarde has been imprison- ed three times, and for showing Lady Anne Blunt a portion of the estate has also been fined for trespass. He says in a letter to the Freeman! s Journal : — On the evening of the 13th instant I was visiting my brother- in-law, Mr. Vicary, and left his house at 9 p.m. for my own, which is not more than 200 yards distant. I had not gone more than 5 yards from Mr. Vicary's door when I found myself suddenly clutched by the arms. The night being very dark I at once asked who my assailant was, and was told it was the head constable, who had a warrant for my arrest. I then requested to be allowed to tell Mr. Vicary of my arrest, and to send word to my wife not to expect me for the night. Not alone was this refused, but I was violently dragged by the head constable. I again requested that he would not drag me in such a manner, that there was no necessity, as I did not offer the slightest resistance. He still persisted in pulling me along at a quick pace, and had it not been that I saw a little boy near the bar- rack door, and called out to him to go and tell my friends that I was arrested, they would, I am certain, have remained in total ignorance of my whereabouts for the night. On being informed by the head constable that I and my friend Mr. Boland, who was subsequently arrested, would be kept in the barrack for the greater part of the 413 night, I requested that our friends might be allowed to bring us a cup of tea, which request was refused in the most insolent manner ; and we were compelled to remain in the kitchen of the barracks, without any accommodotion except a form to sit on, until nine o'clock next morning, when we were driven a distance of four miles, and charged before Mr. Townsend, R.M., with taking part in an illegal assembly, and admitted to bail. I may add that it is the belief of everyone here that the treatment we were subjected to was prompted by Mr. Bal- four's policy, exposed by Mr. Blunt, as we could be found at our homes on the following morning, as well as any morning since the alleged offence committed on 21st December, 1887. I have written to the Inspector-General complaining of the treatment we have re- ceived at the hands of the police, and received the usual stereotyped answer, that inquiry would be made into it. I dare say that is all I will hear about it from the Inspector. General, and I believe the head constable will be complimented for his cruelty. The *' Tender Mercies " of Mr. Balfour ! The wife of a prison warder put a lighted candle in the window of her house on the occasion of Mr. William O'Brien's release from gaol. Her plea was that all the other houses were illuminated and she did not wish her house to be made the subject of an attack, because the inmates did not participate in the general rejoicing. Her husband was on duty, and did not know of the offence. His ignorance of the occurrence was no extenuation of his guilt. He was reduced in rank, removed to a distant prison at his own expense, and practically fined £'] a year for life. Through the persistent questions of Mr. Bradlaugh and others in the House of Commons, the Government have reluctantly been compelled to restore him to rank. Teachers and schoolmasters have also had their political liberty infringed, and have been reprimanded by the Commissioners of National Education for attending 4^4 political demonstrations, and for being members of the Gaelic Athletic Association. For further detailed statements of this petty persecu- tion, I refer the readers of the above to the able articles of Mr. J. J. Clancy, M.P. Thomas Larkin entered prison a hale and finely-built man, and was carried out to his burial. John Mandeville refused to wear felon's clothes and do menial work, so he was stripped by force, fed on bread and water, and, though under medical treatment, and suffering from sore throat and diarrhoea, was kept on punishment diet. His health broke down, and after his release, he died. Dr. Ridley, the medical officer in charge, would have treated him leniently, but was overridden by a special doctor, sent by the Prisons Board to carry out the Balfourian policy, and was also reprimanded for his kindness. Even then, he committed suicide rather than face the inquest on Mr. Mandeville. A warder who threw Mr. Mandeville a morsel of meat, when he was too ill to eat coarse brown bread, has been since dismissed the service. Mr. William O'Brien fought to retain his clothes, and they were stolen from him. He would have remainded in a naked condition, had not a suit of tweed been smuggled into the cell. Dr. Hooper, M.P., Mr. J. W. Lane, M.P., and others have also given strong evidence to prove the inhumanity of Mr. Balfour's prison regulations. Another Failure of Coercion to Record. But what must be most mortifying to Mr. Balfour and the Tories, is the fact that all this extreme policy has failed. The National League is not suppressed. The aid of the Tivies newspaper has been called in. Pamphlets on " Parnellism and Crime " have been scattered broad- 415 cast over the country. Mr. Parnell and the national leaders have been called by the vilest epithets, and have been charged with being the fomentors of insurrection, the manufacturers of outrage, and the associates of the criminals, whose weapons are dynamite and daggers, and whose trade is murder. The Government, in the person of the Attorney-General, has identified itself with the Times. Mr. W. H. Smith, the Tory Leader of the House, admitted that before the application of Mr. Parnell to have the charges investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons was considered, he had called upon his '* old friend Walter," the proprietor of the Timds^ though he disclaimed any arrangement with him on the subject of the Government's attitude. The Times and Parnellism. Forged documents purporting to be the writings of the National Leaders have been purchased by the Times, and some of them have been found to be too clumsy to be used. The English characteristic of fair play has been conspicuous by its absence in the conduct of the Govern- ment towards the Irish Leader. The accusations were terrible, yet the precedents of trying a member of the House by his compeers were set aside. Mr. Smith stated that the House of Commons was "absolutely incompetent" to investigate the charges made against Mr. Parnell. So much for his opinion of the intellect or character of Mem- bers of Parliament. h special Act of Parliament was passed, giving powers to three judges to investigate the statements of the Ti??ies. At the first meeting, the Times was called upon to state its case and formulate its charges. The Counsel representing the Times tried to evade this responsibility, but failed, and 4i6 now, the greatest trial of the century proceeds to drag its slow length through the court of special commission. The people of England are dragged at the heels of the Times newspaper. Will the Irish Question be settled if the Parnellites are condemned ? But what is the result of it all ? If Mr. Parnell and his party are found to have kept company with men of advanced or of murderous purposes, will it settle the Irish Question ? Ireland will still be England's neighbour, and the condemnation of the Nationalists will not smother and destroy the fires of patriotism and nationality. The black and cowardly attacks of the ''Thunderer" up to the present time allied with the rigorous coercion of Mr. Balfour, have not advanced the cause of " Unionism " in the English constituencies, and have not made the Irish people less loyal to their leaders and their cause. There is not one more loyal person in Mitchelstown to-day, than there was before the constabulary shot down unoffending persons in the market-place. No one loves the legislative Union any more than before the imprison- ment of National leaders. The "Plan of Campaign" still flourishes. For every patriot who has fallen, a hundred are ready to step into the breach. For every imprisoned leader, a thousand are eager to repeat his words. Mr. Balfour's victims come out of prison and speak again and again the words for which they were condemned. The receipts in support of the National League increase by the greater sacrifices of the Irish at home and abroad. Those branches of the' League which are the most vigorous, are those which have been most bitterly assailed. 417 Balfour's Triumphs refuted by his Colleagues. Mr. Balfour, in April, 1888, stated that the League had become " a thing of the past." In a few days, Mr. Trench, the agent for the Tory Lord-Lieutenant, declared at a meeting of landlords in Dublin, that " anyone who imagined the League to be dead, had a very curious idea of what was going on in Ireland." Two months after, Mr. Goschen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that ** the power of the League in every quarter of Ireland was ubiquitous." Mr. Balfour and the Tories have been sitting on the safety valve of the nation, and at every election have been lifted, to their discomfort, by the escaping steam. All this goes to prove that their policy is not only wicked, but is also worth- less, and that their methods of government are worn out, because the thoughts and sympathies of men have out- stripped them. Charlatans in politics only cling to antiquated methods which are forsaken by those who have made progress in the science of government. Coercion deserves to be buried with the gyves, stocks and thumb- screws in the Tower of London. It is fit only to be associated with autocratic despotism, in a nation of slaves. It fails ever when applied to a nation made free by repre- sentative government. But Mr. Balfour still praises it. He is enamoured of his policy. It will succeed he thinks: — Thus, Harlequin extolled his horse ; Fit for the road, the race, the course ; One fault he had, a fault indeed ; And what was that ? the horse was dead ! If any thing could have brought it to life Mr. Balfour might have succeeded. But electric batteries of Unionist and Tory arguments have all failed, and the Government in its policy 4»o of coercion, bestrides the galvanised corpse of a method of government which was slain when the people obtained the Franchise. Two democracies, those of Great Britain and Ireland, defy the coercive policy of Mr. Balfour, and laugh at his attempts to succeed with methods which stronger men, like Wellington, Peel and Forster, failed to make effective. More Prisons Needed. When I visited Dublin last year, a carman pointed out to me a large hospital built by Messrs. Guinness. I knavishly asked whether it was intended for the purpose of curing those who had injured themselves after drinking the celebrated stout made in the neighbouring brewery, and he replied, "Oh, no sir! shure, and there isn't a place in Dublin big enough for that." So there are not sufficient prisons in Ireland, to hold those who are prepared to defy coercion, and support the policy of the National Leaders. The Government, supported by thirty thousand soldiers and twelve thousand constabulary, have been unable to break the spirit of Irish patriots, and choice must now be made between granting the national demand for Home Rule, or the total suppression of every constitutional right, in- cluding the imprisonment of all the Irish representatives, and the taking away of the Franchise, for while one Irish freeman remains he will insist upon a recognition of Irish nationality. Sympathy with Nationalism by Government Employees. Government officials are in sympathy in many instances with the National cause. The soldiers allowing their humanity to rise above their allegiance to Government 419 have subscribed money at evictions for distressed tenants, and employes of the Government have been known to cheer Irish patriots. I was in Dublin when Mr. William O'Brien was arrested and taken to prison. From the post office men came out to cheer the prisoner, while all along the route workmen and shopkeepers joined in greeting him, until the procession seemed like a triumph for the accused. I witnessed the sympathetic expressions and heard the cheers, and was present at the meeting at Leinster Hall, on the eve of the Mitchelstown trial, when thousands, not clad in rags, but in broadcloth and tweed, met to cheer the heart and strengthen the hands of the man already strong in his con- sciousness of the justice of his cause and the needs of his fellow-countrymen. I shall never forget the demonstra- tions of grief which marked his entrance into the train at Dublin, to be conveyed to an unknown prison. The tears of strong men, their groans and cries, were enough to move a heart of stone, and never until then did I feel how hateful was the English system of administering law in Ireland. Lessons learnt during a Personal Visit. From a free visit to all classes of the community, unattended by Nationalist guides, in Belfast, Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Lismore, and many other places further removed from the centres of population, I learnt the following lessons : — I. That ministers of religion gain the truest respect, who identify themselves with the struggles of a peasantry, who are the worst fed, the worst clad, and the worst housed of any peasantry in Europe, although for seven hundred years they have been connected with the wealthieat nation in the world. 420 2. That the National movement embraces all classes of the community, and that it is a libel to say that only the poor, depraved, and self-seeking support it. 3. That the National cause cannot be suppressed by tyranny, and that freedom is indestructible. 4. That Protestants, outside the Orange Lodges, are, in many instances, in favour of Home Rule, and that nothing but the fear of oppression from Orangemen prevents them from publicly assert- ing their opinion. 5. That the administration of law, and the maintenance of order, have intentionally been made offensive and obtrusive by the partisans of Dublin Castle, with a view of discrediting the Nationalists, and exasperating them to acts of outrage and violence. 6. That to assail men who are fighting their country's battles, defeats the assailants, and strengthens the people's affection for their leaders. 7. That Ireland after 700 years of the failure of force to subdue it, is conquered to day by the kindness and sympathy of the English Democracy. The visits of political leaders to Ireland have done much to accomplish this. The True Conquest of Ireland. The invasions of friends have captured the susceptible heart of the Irish nation, and have done more to secure a fusion of interests and unity than all the virulent attacks of the supporters of Coercion. Mr. P. Stanhope, M.P., and the Members of Parliament who, under the leadership of Mr. A. lUingworth, M.P. for West Bradford, are to be credited with much of the changed feelings of the Irish masses. The personal visits and influence of Mr. Shaw- Lefevre and leading journalists have also worked wonders. Their journeys to remote places have stirred up the latent embers of confidence and love, which so many years of Coercion had done so much to stifle, and to-day, hands which were once clenched in anger and strife, are 42 1 held out openly to the English people. The cheers I heard given in Dublin, Cork, and Belfast, for Mr. Gladstone, were suggestive and instructive, and taught the lesson that kindness and generous treatment are a truer corrective of a nation's disorders, than the severest methods of repression. To v^^in the heart is better than to handcuff the limbs. What Constitutes a People's Liberty? Cowley says,* '* The liberty of a people consists in being governed by laws which they have made for them- selves, under whatever form it be of government ;" and Landor says, ** Let us try rather to remove the evils of Ireland, than to persuade those that undergo them, that there are none." Mr. Lowell has written in the *' Biglow Papers," that— Labourin' man and labourin' woman Hev one glory and . one shame ; Ev'thin' thet's done inhuman Injirs all on 'em the same. This is the lesson which the English Democracy are learn- ing, and they see that in the interests of England and the British Empire at large, it is necessary to make the people of Ireland contented and free.- In a speech of Mr. O'Brien delivered in my hearing, the following passage was greeted with thunderous applause : — " Irish forgiveness is to be had to this hour for the honest asking. A single Smith O'Brien redeems a whole pedigree of Murrough the Burners and Black Inchiquins. The change which the wizardy of one great old man has wrought in the course of a single year in the feelings of the most extreme of us towards the English people is an assurance that no prejudices are too ancient, no wrongs too cruel, no grudges * Quoted by Robbins, in " Practical Politics," 422 too deep-seated to yield to the first appeal of genius and sincerity to the infinite tenderness of the Irish heart. There shall be false gods no more in Ireland ; but for good men and capable men who have a heart for the miseries of their countrymen and the will to labour for their alleviation, there is still, and there will be always, welcome, honour, and gratitude, no matter what his class or from what race he may be sprung." Earl Kimberley in a speech in the House of Lords, said — " Ireland is a country with which English Statesmen have been singularly unsuccessful in dealing. But if we can devise any measure by which that country can be brought into sympathy with the rest of the United King- dom, by which we shall touch the hearts of the people, which we have never yet touched, we shall add to the glory and strength of the Empire, more than by any other mea- sure we can possibly devise." The answer to Lord Kimberley's appeal is the Home Rule Scheme of Mr. Gladstone, and the wisdom of the words are proved by the present attitude of the Irish people in relation to England. Home Rule Benefits to England. The benefits accruing to England from Home Rule would be, that Parliament would be lightened of many of the burdens which now cripple its progress. England would be strengthened in time of war, by having a friendly and contented people at her back, instead of a nation dissatisfied and rebellious. Greater attention could be paid to the colonies, and the suffering races that appeal to England for guidance and government. The first step in the scheme of Federal Government for the British Empire would be taken. The taxation of the country would be lessened, and fewer forces would be needed to keep Ireland quiet. An immense impetus would be secured 423 for the progressive legislation urgently needed in England. Ireland would settle her agrarian difficulties, so that instead of Ireland having only one owner of land to every seventy-nine souls, she would more nearly approach France, which has one to every twelve, or Austria or Hungary, where is one to every ten, or Italy and Switzer- land, where is one to every nine ; or Belgium, where there is one to every five ; or better still, would secure that nationalisation of the land, which would make it the common property of the people. Cheerfulness would take the place of suUenness in maintaining the law, and an Irishman would feel that in his own country there was that sphere of laudable ambition, which he has now to seek across the wide waste of waters. The Responsibility of the English Masses. To this work the English masses have now to devote their powers. Upon them rests the responsibility. Previous to the extension of the Franchise they could say, "We have no power, and are not responsible for the acts of our rulers," but now responsibility rests upon them, for the power is in their grasp. At the last elections the people said, we do not understand the question aright, but while we give a mandate against Home Rule, we also give a mandate against Coercion. While professing to carry out the former, the Tories and "Unionists" have violated the latter. When they found that the ordinary law had failed them, their duty was to come back to the people and acknowledge that their proud boast had been an empty one, and that they must be entrusted with fuller powers. They refused to do this, and retained office with its sweets and emoluments. But they must again face the people to answer for their political 424 perfidy and their violent measure of Coercion. That they dread the event is certain, for they know that it will be the time of their political doom. In appearing upon platforms, they must take as their motto the words of the gladiators in the Roman arena, " Morituri te salutant" — "Those who are about to die salute thee." It will be then for the people of England to say, in the words of Mr. Bright : — " Let us make a new union ; written on no parchment, bound with no oath ; its conditions : Justice on the part of England, forgiveness on the part of Ireland ; and we will pray to Him, Who is the Father of all, that He will keep it for ever and ever inviolate." APPENDIX ON THE LAND QUESTIOT^, BY THE Rev. JOSEPH ELLIS, VICAR OF WILSDEN. The following remarks on the Land Question will not be found to contain its history, but only an account of its position at the present moment, for the purpose of assisting those who are called upon to promote its settlement, by their votes and influence, to form a sound opinion. The past history of the question is of the greatest importance, and much of it will be found in the work itself ; it is rather the object of the writer to carry that history down to the present hour, that we may see how insepar- ately it is bound up with Home Rule, and, taking a wise lesson from our previous mistakes, resolve that the Irish people shall be left to deal with Irish affairs. Beginning then with the Land Act last placed on the Statute Book, I would say that perhaps no better example can be adduced of the defects of government in London for the affairs of Ireland than the great Land Act of 1881. The measure was devised with consummate skill and knowledge ; it was honestly designed to reach the root of the Irish Land Question ; it avoided many defects of former measures ; it boldly confiscated ancient rights of property in favour of the tenant ; it aroused the fury of the landlord class, and the enthusiasm of English Liberals, We 42b hoped the Irish Laud Question was settled by this "Magna Charta of Ireland," and were proportionately indignant with Mr^ Parnell, Mr. Dillon, and their followers, for withholding their support. Yet it is failing, as all laws are doomed to fail which are made for Ireland in England and by Englishmen, instead of being made in Ireland and by Irishmen for themselves. Its defects were foreseen by the Irish leaders, and they are proving fatal ; for : — . 1. — It sets up a joint ownership in the land between persons of opposing interests ; whereas the only true solu- tion, some of us think, is that of working ownership under the State. 2. — It makes no provision for sudden falls in the value of produce. 3. — It makes no provision for suspending evictions pending settlement of fair rents, or in case of a fall of prices after a judicial rent has been fixed. 4. — It allows appeals from the Local Land Courts to a Central Court in Dublin, which, however fair in itself, placed in the hands of the rich landlord an effectual weapon against the tenant. 5. — It left the leaseholders at the old rack-rents without a remedy. 6.— The "Healy Clause" of the Act, by which Mr. Gladstone and the House of Commons intended to ex- clude the tenants' improvements in calculating the judicial rents, was made null and void by the Irish Lord-Justices of Appeal; who held that the enjoyment of improve- ments made before the Land Act of 1870 was a compensa- tion for them. And lastly, the tenants were to a great extent deprived of the benefit of the Act by the appointment of Com- missioners from the landlord class, and by making an example of those who ventured to give large reductions. 427 Referring to the mode of appointing Commissioners,Mr. Healy in "A Word for Ireland," writes (p. 130) " Of the seventy or eighty Commissioners appointed to fix fair rents, not more than two or three were tenant farmers. The rest were landlords, agents or lawyers, most of them in bitter antagonism to popular feeling ; and the moment they began to cut down rents they were intimi- dated by the protests of their own class, and by a Committee of Enquiry set on foot by the House of Lords. As an instance of the spirit that prevailed, it may be mentioned that Mr. George Fottrell, Solicitor to the Land Commission, was called on to resign for publishing a leaflet encouraging the people to use the purchase clauses of the Act, and citing the names of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt as advocates of peasant proprietary. This high-handed proceeding completed the terrorism of the officials. Those who remained took their cue from the castle, and to clinch the influence of the administration over the Sub- Commissioners, a number were appointed for short terms not exceeding a year, so that when the list of quarterly dismissals was counted over by the trembling rent-fixers, they might judge what line of conduct was best calculated to secure the continu- ance of their salaries. A few of them had originally been appointed for longer terms, and whenever these shewed any signs of independance, their circuits were broken up, and themselves transferred to distant counties far from the landlords upon whose rack-rents they had been operating." Lest the suspicion which still lurks in the English mind respecting the statements of a National leader, should deprive this quotation of its due weight, I will support it by the testi- mony of Mr. T. A. Dickson, late M.P. for Tyrone. This gentleman is a Protestant of Ulster, a Liberal, and one of the most ardent supporters of Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill of 1881. In reply to the question of a reporter sent to him from the office of the Freeman'' s Journal: — "Do you think the Ulster tenants were in too great a hurry to enter the land courts ? " Mr. Dickson said : — " I am sorry to say I do, and that I, and other friends, urged them to go in at oncCj. 'J li^d tb^^^[^4|^plicit 428 faith in the Land Act; but I had no idea, when I so advised the tenants, that the House of Lords would, before the Act was six months working, luive sought to frustrate its intention by a Committee of Enquiry, which terrorised Sub-Commissioners whose tenure of office was from year to year. I gave evidence before the Royal Commission which has just closed its sittings, that judicial rents fixed 1882-5 had now become impossible rents. The Commissioners were afraid at the commencement of their operations to make such reductions as the case demanded, and those of them who fearlessly endeavoured to do their duty by the tenants, such as Mr. Wylie in JSIorth Tyrone, and Mr. Meek in Armagh, were removed from their counties on the complaint of the landlords and removed to other districts." These facts bear out what we English have been too slow to learn, that even if our Government were inspired with the most righteous determination to do justice in Ireland, it would not avail the Irish people, because the official class, from the Judges downwards, are nearly all the brothers, cousins, nephews, or near relations of landlords, and consequently have an interest, direct or indirect, in supporting them. Through the wall of brass which surrounds Ireland, English good intentions cannot pass. The question of the moment is " Are the present rents possible or impossible ? " I believe they are impossible for reasons which I will briefly give. But first, to lay our grounds safely, we must enquire, " What is rent? " It is obvious that rent must come out of the produce of the farm. The farmer digs, ploughs, sows, weeds, reaps and thrashes : he eats part of the produce, sells a part that he may buy clothing, pay his school pence, his doctor's bill, and his priests fees. Out of the remainder he provides seed for the next sow- ing, and rent for the landlord ; and ought to save something for bad times, sickness and old age. Now, seeing that by the first law of nature, he and his family must live, and that he must save out of this year's produce enough to seed for the next, it follows that rent is surplus produce. 429 The Bradford Observer in one of its thoughtful able articles, recently gave this definition : — " Economic rent is that surplus of produce which the soil yields over and above the ordinary return to the labour and capital extended upon it." Rent then is surplus produce, not a fi.rst and sacred charge upon the land which must be paid whether the tenant can live or not. It is of the utmost importance that this superstition should be exploded, for until men's minds are disabused of such falsities the dictum of Lord Salisbury will find too many supporters : ' Let the tenant pay or quit.' " It is estimated by Mr. Giffen, the eminent statician, that the average produce of an Irish farm before the late fall in prices was £70, and that about one-fifth was paid in rent. A fifth of £70 is £14, and this is the average rent of an Irish holdings. But though the average Irish farm produced £70 a year, yet the vast majority of them did not yield half of that amount. The gross produce of nearly four-fifths of the Irish holdings before the recent fall in prices was nearer £30 than £70. Now the average judicial rent of these farms as fixed by the Land Courts in 1882-5, for fifteen years was £6, and when that was paid the tenant had £24 a year, or 9s. 3d. a week for the support of five persons. But the great fall in the value of produce has swallowed up nearly all the rent fund ; and there- fore if he continues to pay the judicial rent it must come out of 9s. 3d. a week. Is this possible? It is a sheer impossibility that tenants whose gross produce was £30 before the recent fall in prices, should continue to pay £6 in rent now that prices have fallen 15 or 20 per cent. To prove tliis point, before I proceed, I quote Sir James Caikd {Times, March, 1886) :— " The land in Ireland is held by two distinct classes of tenants — the small farmers who pay rent from £1 to £20, and the comparatively large farmers who pay rent from £20 upwards ; of the first class there are 538,000 lioldings, averaging £6 each ; of the second class 121,000 holdings, averaging £56 each. If the present price of agricultural produce 430 continue, I should fear that from the land held by the large body of the poor farmers of Ireland, any economical rent has for the present disappeared." Now I want to fix attention on this fact, that the gross pro- duce of the vast majority of Irish farms is only £30 a year. The value of produce has fallen at least 15 per cent, since the rents of these farms were fixed ; 15 per cent, on £30 is £4 10s. His rent is £6, and £4 10s. or 75 per cent, is swallowed up by the fall of produce. How is he to pay it out of 9s. 3d. a week ? Not that the actual loss to the farmer on these holdings is 75 per cent., inasmuch as the part which he consumes, whether as seed or food, is not affected by the fall in prices ; but that portion which he sells to procure clothing, school-money, imple- ments of husbandry, rent, &c., is affected ; therefore, probably half the drop in prices, or 35 to 37 per cent., is a fair reduction: and this is what the Commissioners are giving at the present time. But the fall in the value of produce is denied, as everything which happens to be inconvenient is denied by some politicians. Mr. Giffen estimates the fall since the judicial rents were fixed at 11 to 19 per cent. Mr. Parnell made certain statements jn introducing his bill for staying evictions which no one ventured to meet. Pie said that The Farmers' Friend, an Irish landlords' paper, gave a table of the relative prices before and after 1885 ; showing a fall in pork of 30 per cent., butter 27, beef 16, mutton 18, wool 27, live stock 20. He also showed that the Land Com- missioners fixed judicial rents before 1886, 9 per cent, above the Poor Law valuation, but since this year came in 9 per cent, below it, or 36 per cent, on the old rents. Mr. Parnell also referred to reductions made in English farms of 27, 30, 40, and 50 per cent., and in Irish estates, such as that of Earl Fitzwilliam, of 50 per cent. Mr. Dillon, who followed on the same side, gives a case in which an Irish landlord agreed with a tenant in 1881 that they should keep out of the Land Court, and settle the reduction of rent between themselves. The rent was £185, and it was 431 reduced to £150 ; but this year the tenant, induced by the low price of produce and the great reductions made by the Commis- sioners, went into the Land Courts for a further reduction, and the fair rent was declared to be £100. And Mr. Dillon points out that if this tenant had gone to the Land Court in 1882 he would have had his rent fixed at itl50 for fifteen years, and might during that time have paid (including compound interest) £1000 more than the farm was worth, without remedy. A thousand pounds ! Is not the source of Irish poverty revealed by such cases? Mr. Dillon also quotes the Antrim Tenants' Defence Association — Protestants and Tories — who passed a resolution declaring that 50 per cent, reduction would not meet the depression ; and adding, that if it continues the tenants of Ulster cannot pay rents and live. The Ulster Land Committee also issued a report in 1885, stating that if rents were not lowered one half the farmers of Ireland would be ruined in three years. Mr. Dillon refers to the Kildare Board of Guardians. The Guardians of Ireland are half of them landlords, and the rest elected by a very restricted suffrage ; but two Kildare Boards adopted resolutions stating that the interests of landlord and tenant would be best promoted by abatements of rent ; and that 50 per cent, below the Guardians' valuation was the least that would do any good. It was their unanimous opinion that evic- tions should be stopped. " If you won't believe the National League," said Mr. Dillon addressing the House, "if you won't believe Presbyterian fanners, yet you cannot refuse to believe the Conservative landlords of County Kildare." Upon two-thirds of the estates of Ireland the tenantry have never applied for a reduction of rent till this year, because they have been threatened with appeals which would swallow up in costs of law more than they would get by way of relief. But this year, tempted by the large reductions the Commissioners are making, and driven by the terrible stress of the times, many have entered the Land Courts with the result that 50 and 75 per cent, has been obtained. 43^ Lord Clanricarde"s tenants have been defrauded of their rights by these threats of appeal, and their claims in the Land Courts this year have obtained reductions of 50 per cent., and on an average of 25 per cent. Lord Clanricarde's estate at Wood- ford having become the centre of agrarian war. I will quote at length what Mr. Dillon said in the House of Commons about him. " We have heard a good deal of Lord Clanricarde. He knows nothing about his estate, and his tenants never see him His tenants came into court in the month of May this year. If you ask why they did not come there before, I will answer that they were afraid to do so, because, as is the case in so many other estates, the tenant has costs of appeal held over his head, and is warned that every penny will be taken out of him by writs from the superior courts of Dublin. They went into the court at last. In one case the tenant's rent, which was £30, was fixed at £15. In another from £7 10s., it was reduced to £3 5s. This on an estate where the tenants have been compelled by threats of writs from Dublin, to pay up to the last penny for the last five years since the Land Act was passed. This is the land- lord you expect to act reasonably, and to be merciful to his ten- ants. These two cases I have picked out of dozens. I have others of a similar character, and this is a man who has 3000 to 4000 ten- ants in Galway, " He draws £20,000 as an absentee landlord out of Ireland." We shall hear more about Woodford in Galway, amongst the mountains that overhang Loch Derg, where the mountaineers have rescued their tiny holdings out of the moors, where rents have been raised, doubled, trebled, multiplied on their own improvements, and where backed by Ireland, America, and the civilized world, they would stand at bay. Mr. Stead, the well-known Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette has been down to Woodford in Galway, and has given his own account of it. He says that after a famous Galway election (1872), the Marquis of Clanricarde, to avenge a political defeat, clapped an increase of rent of 33 per cent, on those tenants who dared to vote against the landlords' candidate. 433 I ask you to study that, and consider whether political freedom, or freedom of contract, exists in Ireland. Can it be wondered at that men who believe their rent was put up 33 per cent, to avenge a political defeat do not see any harm in combin- ing to pull down rents by 40 per cent, to meet a period of universal depression ? Mr. Stead goes on to say " The opinion in Woodford is that if the Land Act was applied as Mr. Gladstone intended it should be, in which the " Healey Clause " provided that the tenant's im- provements, and those of his predecessors in title, should not be counted in the valuation, — if this had been done, the rents would be reduced to a mere song. For all that is rentable on the Woodford estate is the work of the tenants. It is a mountainous estate, and the farms stand out clear and distinct from the midst of boulders and heather ; green spots surrounded by waste, worth no more than 2/6 an acre. Over the mountain sides are scattered the little holdings, — little green and gold bits of land with a cottage in the middle, — the house of the peasant who has made a home for himself where, but for his thrift and labour, no blade of grass would grow. You ask who drained the bog ? The tenant. It is he who piled the fences, who stubbed out the stones, who sowed the grass, who manured the fields, who put up the buildings, who made the roads across the fields. The tenant did everything, the landlord nothing. If the tenant leaves the farm to-day it lapses into waste again. Nothing but the unremitting toil of the labouring man keeps these emerald patches in the midst of the surrounding black. For the privilege of converting bleak mountains into arable land, Lord Clanri- carde charges the Woodford tenantry £800 a year. The tenants consider that if justice were done the fee simple would be handed over to them at once, as they have paid the prairie value of their lands over and over again. This is at the back of the Woodford mind. But it is not pressed. From time immemorial they have paid their rack-rents with the utmost punctuality." The tenants at Woodford asked a eduction of 25 per cent. 434 Lord Clanricarde refused any concession. A number of tenants were picked out and proceeded against by writs from the superior Court in Dublin. Mr. Stead asked an official why this was done* "To strike terror," said he. "The costs are seven times as high, and no time is allowed for redemption." Four tenants were summarily dealt with. Their full rent and costs being demanded, they refused to pay more than their rent less 25 per cent. Then their interests in the farms was put up to public sale in Court, but no one would buy over the head of an evicted tenant. So the whole was bought in for the landlord by his agent for an old song. One of these evicted tenants was Thomas Saunders, his wife, old mother, and seven children ; he owed two years' rent, £18, and costs £17 10s. He had returned from Australia about seventeen years ago where he had made over £600 by farming. He paid a fine of £100 on entering the farm, he built a house and outbuildings at an expense of about £200 ; and although strictly sober, hard-working and industrious, is not now worth a shilling. To evict this man and three others, the bailiff came with 700 police and a gang of Orangemen from Ulster ! Mr. Martin, of Galway, is one of this class of landlords. I have passed through the country where his vast estate lies for fifty miles along the road side. It is a day's journey from one lodge gate to another. His tenants have received fair rents this year, e.g., of £2 3s. reduced to 17s. 6d., £2 Is. 3d. to 10s. 6d., and so on. " The Land Commissions, meantime, which always, though ostensibly judicial tribunals, take a good deal of their inspira- tion from the Government, are tumbling down the rents at a pace that might well take the breath away even of a secretary of the National League. To-day, for instance, is published a list of the reductions of rent on the estate of Colonel Tottenham, M.P., one of the shining lights of the Tory party, who most bitterly opposed Mr. Gladstone's land legislation. In this catalogue there are instances of rent being reduced from £8 to £3 15s., from £17 17s. 6d. to £6 10s„ and from £47 10s. to £20. It is perfectly 435 clear that if this kind of thing goes on the ' plan of campaign ' will perhaps be more welome than the regular and legalised abatements of the Land Courts.''* These are the worst cases no doubt, but they show the system. And be it remembered these holdings are most of them reclaimed from the mere prairie by the tenant, and therefore should pay no rent whatever to landlords who have done nothing for them. It is clear then that the produce of an Irish farm will only realize to-day within 15 or 20 per cent, of its value in 1882. It is also clear that a 20 per cent, fall in prices, which is a fifth, will swallow up the whole rent which is also a fifth. It is clear too that out of what remains, viz., 9/3 a week, little if any rent can be squeezed. What then should be done ? The people refuse to be turned out. They have some little property in their holdings — the buildings, fences, drains, and the tillage which they have provided by the sweat of their brows ; they have nothing to turn to. They love their native land, and are unwilling to be exiled. Eviction means starvation in many cases, or at best the work-house. If the tenant refuses to be evicted from the holding which he has reclaimed from the moor and bog, because agricul- tural depression has made the payment of the accustomed rent impossible, his resistance may be illegal, but it is natural and without injustice. He is a partner with his landlord in the little estate. The laws have acknowledged a joint ownership, and without doubt the tenant has the larger stake ; for not only is he the acting partner, but the sole creator of its agricultural value. Of these partners in trade one has asked of Parliament an umpire, who should fairly divide the proceeds between them, but the other has refused all arbitration. An infatuated govern- ment has rejected all mediation, and why ? Not because they are deaf to the cries of the poor, but because, being themselves landlords they sympathise with their class ; because Irish Gov- * Pall Mall Gazette, 436 ernment is enveloped in an atmosphere of lies ; because Irish absentee landlords, moving in the society of London, have persuaded their class in England that the Irish peasantry are idle, drunken, and dishonest, and could pay if they would. Hence, Mr. Parnell's Bill was rejected. No wonder Mr. Gladstone, when asked why he does not open his mouth in con- demnation of the Plan of Campaign, replies that he supported the demand of the Irish people for a better plan, but was defeated. No wonder Mr. T. A. Dickson should say "The Plan of Campaign I regard as the natural result of the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill, which would have tided over the winter without collision between landlord and tenant." It is pretty well understood that landlordism in Ireland is doomed to extinction. This has been admitted even by the present Prime Minister. It deserves to fall, for its history is full of cruelty and destruction of life. Bad as it is, however, we are unwilling to lay the blame on those who have come into the inheritance of a vicious system, and are glad to find that even the Irish Nationalists propose to treat the present landlords as they would wish to be treated themselves. The words of Mr. T. A. Dickson, whom I would quote once more, probably express the opinion of most Irishmen : — "I am anxious to see the landlords bought out at a fair price, but this must be accomplished at the risk, and upon the responsibility of the Irish tax -payers ; and alj payments to redeem land should be converted into a land tax, the term ' rent ' being abolished ; this land tax to be spread over forty-nine years, and collected under the control of an Irish Executive'" 1887. -«|C^:{E^ 437 INDEX, A PAGE Abercrombie, Forces under, wild and violent . . . . 75 Absenteeism . . . . . . . . 27, 159 Achill, Landlord mercies in . . . . ' . . 228 Act of Union : How secured . . . . . . 81 Pitt's Argument for . . . . . . 82 What it has cost England . . . . 86 Want of Progress since . . . . 157 Unprofitable Compact . . . . 160 Influence on Manufactures . . . . 161 Influence on Municipal Corporations. . . . 163 Are Landlords to be hoisted with their own Petard ? .. 211 Arnold (Dr.). Claims of Roman Catholics .. 109 Arnold (Mr. Matthew) on the Irish demands . . . . 250 B Balfour (Right Hon. A. J.). Land Act of 1870 .. 209 Liberals and Commandments . . . . 333 How he kept his Pledges . . . . 392 Trumpery Triumphs . . . . . . 399 Tender mercies of . . . . . . 413 Contradicted by his Colleagues . . . . 417 Barbarities .. .. .. .. 41.42 Barran (Mr. John), M.P. Introduction to Part HI. Beaconsfield, Lord (Mr. Disraeli). A nation's strength .. 249 Bees, Wingless, make no honey . . . . 82 Benevolent Acts of a Paternal Government . . . . 97 Bessborough Commission .. .. .. 211 Bill Against Combinations . . . . . . 377 43^ pa6e Blackie (Professor). Authors of Agitations . .• 78 Blunders of Politicians . . . . . . . . 128 Boycotting — in Ireland . . . . . . 295 ♦ in England . . . . . . . . 297 Brabourne's (Lord) Criticism of Froude and Gladstone 78 Brehon Laws . . . . . . . . . • 14 Bright (Right Hon. J.). Few means of subsistence for Irish 8, 15 . Ireland turns to America for assistance . . . . 54 On the Act of Union . . . . . . 76 O'Connell's Album . . . . . . 150 Tribute to Mr. Gladstone . . . . 361 Speech to Farmers' Club at Cork . . . . 338 Buckingham, Duke of, on Reform Bill . . . . 286 BulJer (Sir Redvers) made Under-Secretary for Ireland, and Evidence before Commission . . . . 373 Burke (Edmund). Injustice in Ireland .. .. 32 Penal Code . . . . . . 60 Burke (Mr.), Permanent Secretary in Ireland, Assasinated 237 Butt (Mr. Isaac). Irish Parliament . . .. ..29,47 Conflict with Mr. Parnell . . 222 Caird (Sir James) on Irish Tenancies . . . . 230 Campaign, Plan of . . . . . . . . 378 Canadian System of Home Rule . . . . . . 343 Canning (Right Hon. G.). Resolution in favour of Catholic Emancipation . . . . . . 103 Duke of Wellington and Peel refuse to act with him 105 Cartoons, Fun's . . . . . . . . 172 Castlereagh and Irish Peasant . . . . . . 96 Catholicism, Attempted Suppression of .. .. 32 Catholic Emancipation. Volunteers meeting . . 70 Delayed . . . . . . loi Position of Aristocracy . . 104 The Pitt Dinner . . . . 105 Secured at last . . . . 109 Too late to awaken generous sympathy, no 43^ VAok Catholic Convention .. .. .. a yi Catholic Places of Worship, Deplorable Condition of . . 185 Refusal of Government to help it 7 Cattle, Prohibited Exportation of . . . . . . 52 Cavendish (Lord F.) Appointed Secretary to Ireland, and terrible assasination . . . . a 237 Census Commissioners and Famine .. .. 127 Chamberlain (Right Hon. J.). " Why am I a Liberal " . . 334 Refuses to follow Mr. Gladstone . . 364 Causes Round Table Conference to fail . . 363 Changes of Policy . . . . . . . . 6 Chaplin (Mr.), M. P., on Irish History .. .. 9 Charles I. (King) Reign. Rebellion and Revenge . . 40 Charles II. (King) Reign . . .. .. .. 44 Church of Ireland . . . . . , . . 179 Bright's Opinion . . . . 180 Degraded by Alliance with the State 181 Raumer's Views. . .. .. 181 Sydney Smith's Statement . . 181 Count Cavour's Criticism .. .. 182 Government Grants .. .. 187 Peel's Speech . . . . . . 191 Disestablished . . . . 192 . Speeches of Bright and Lowe . . 192 How the Surplus Money was Divided 193 Orange Objections . . . . 193 Churchill (Lord R.) A candid statement . . . . 244 Clancy (J. J.), M.P. " A year of Unionist Coercion " . . 390 Clanricarde (Lord) and his Tenants . . . . 400 Clare Election . . . . . . . . 105 Classes, Testimony of " Respectable " .. .. 83 Cobden (Richard). England responsible for Irish barbarism 54 Coercion without Crime. Evidence of Judges . . . . 375 Coercion. List of Measures .. .. .. 170 Another failure to record .. .. 414 Commerce Crippled by Statute Laws . . , , 5 Commissions, Evidence of . . . . . . 163 Compensation for Disturbance Bill .. .. 223^ 445 Condition of Ireland Under the Act of Union — Emigration and Population. . Property, Death Rate, Committals for Education . . Conflict of Churches Constituencies, Voice of, on Home Rule Contradictions between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Conquered, not Subdued.. Cornwallis (Lord). Ferocity of English Troops Cowper Commission Cox (Mr. J. R.). Speech at Ennis Crime, Landlords Inciting to Crimes Bill Characteristics . . Summary of Measure How Administered Crown versus Newsboys Cromwell's Raid at Drogheda Curran. Corruption of Irish Parliament Crime, and Balfour 165 166 244 269 377 332 76 369 397 391 377 382 384 390 393 40 69 D Davis (Sir John). Irish History .. .. 23,25,27,31 Davis (Mr. Thomas) on National Unity . . . . 321 Davitt (Mr. Michael). Founding of Land League .. 235 Home Rule and Separation . . 294 Work of an Irish Parliament .. 367 Deane's (Mr.) Irish History . . . . . . 14, 43, 46 Decline of Population . . . . . . . . 165 Devon Commission . . .. .. .. 129 Dicey (Professor). Admissions .. .. .. 108 Act of Union did not lead to National Unity . . iig Dillon, (Mr. John), M. P. Visit to America .. .. 214 Home Rule ; Not Separation . . 292 Political Independence of Rome 323 Disestablishment of Church of Ireland . . . . 193 Disraeli (Mr.) (Lord Beaconsfield). The real Irish Question 203 Drummond (Sir Thomas). Work in Ireland .. .. iii Aphorism on the duties of property .. iii 44* brummond (Professor). Visit to Ireland Dublin, A Sunday in Duffy (Sir Gavan). Irish Emigration Irish Famine and its results Injury to Ireland by Act of Union Dufferin (Lord). Irish History Taxation Dungannon, Convention at PAGE 309-314 332 133 136 160 53 6 E Education in Ireland Eldon (Lord). Policy and Letters .. : Duke of York and the Pitt Dinner Opinions of Roman Catholicism Elizabeth (Queen), Policy of Ellis (Rev. J.). Appendix on the Land Question Emigration Statistics Results of . . Encumbered Estates Act England's Greatest Difficulty England's Interference with other nations. . English Interference with Grattan's Parliament Evening at Cork. Police Espionage Evictions. Views of S. G. O. in the Times Lord J. Russell's Speech Mr. John Bright's Statements Mr. Butt's Opinions Dr. Nulty's Statement . . Glenveigh ,, Captain Kennedy's Report Dr. Spence Watson Increase after Land Act, 1870 Excuse for Delaying Remedies in Ireland . . Exportation of Goods Prohibited Executive in Ireland Counteracting Representative Government Extent of a Government's Sympathy 231 102 104-105 105 37 425 134-135 165 211 143 5 287 79 411 143 146 150 147 149 150 151 151 207 72 52 257 144 146, F Failure of Feeble Remedies Fawcett (Henry), M.P. Fitzwilliam (Earl) sent out as Lord Lieutenant . . Proposals to Premier Recall Result of Recall in Ireland . . Flood. On Irish Parliament Forcing a man to be a Volunteer Forster (Right Hon. W. E.). Secretaryship .. Opposition of Tories . . Compared with Mr. Balfour Resignation of Secretaryship Forty Shilling Freeholders, Influence of How they were punished for patriotism Fox (C. J.) Supports Grattan Resolution in House of Commons Presents Catholic Petition His desire for Irish Government Death Franchise Extended : Its Influence Freedom of Contract Froude. Forcing a Reformation Confiscation of Land Crippling of Trade . . Depopulation of Ireland . . The Irish Parliament G Gardiner (Hon. Luke). Consequences of Injustice General Gordon. Irish Misery Needs of Ireland . . Genius of Statesman versus Madness of King George IV. (King) and Catholic Emancipation . . Gladstone (Right Hon. W. E.). Land Hunger in Ireland Views of Nationality Clerkenwell Explosion Bill for Disestalplishment . . . . PAGE i68 73 74 74 75 . . 29, 48 258 222 223 224 237 104 107 62 64 93 177 100 256 ig6 33. 34. 35 38 51.54 56 78 57 220 371 92 107 15 122 189 191 443 pXge Gladstone (Right Hon. W.E.). Land Act of 1870 .. 194* Irish Education . . . . . . 233 Defeat on Irish Education . . . . 235 To the fore on Home Rule and Land Reform . . 249 ^ Far-seeing Policy . . . . . . 266 ^ Pace too swift for Rival Leaders . . . . 267 Influence on Irish Agitation . . . . 268 Causes of Defeat on Home Rule . . . . 348 Abuse by Opponents . . . . 350 Tory Poetry at Lord Londonderry's. . . . 352 Charged with Intolerance . . . . 353 Concessions . . . . . . . . 353 Mr. John Bright's Tribute . . . . 361 ' Gladstone (Mr. Herbert), M.P. Boycotting in England .. 297 Goethe on English Parliamentary Parties . . 360 Gospel greater than Church Systems . . . . 331 Government Assaults -on Free Speech ., .. 395 Meanness in Administering Law . . .. 411 Grattan (Henry) . Retribution.. .. .. 61 Rise to Eminence . . . . . . 62 Resolution in favour of Irish Parliamentary Independence . . . . . . 63 Ireland's Progress . . . . . . 66 Irish Representation . . . . . . 68 Warning to Pitt . . . . . . 89 Act of Union Opposed by Unbribed Intellect . . 94 Death . . . . . . . . 103 Grattan's Parliament, Defects of .. .. .. 68 Granville (Earl) on Mr. Disraeli's Views . . . . 336 Great Interests at Stake . . . . . . . . 329 Green (Mr. J. R.). Irish Conquest .. .. 24 Conciliation Lost . . . . . . . . 71 Opinion of Mr. Pitt . . . . . . 77 Grenville (Lord). Ireland's Progress under own Parliament 83 Grey (Lord). Ireland's Progress under own Parliament, from 1782 to 1799 . . . . . . . . 83 Guizot. Irish History . . . . . . 18 Gulliver Bound with Threads . . . . . . 284 44+ K Hampden (Lord) on Home Rule . . . » Hartington (Lord). Parallels to Home Rule . . Harvest, Failure of, in Ireland . . Healy (Mr. T. M.), M.P. A Government's Sympathy Ireland's Loss through Absenteeism Imperfections of 1870 Land Act Clause in Land Bill, 1881 Slain Land Bills . . Henry II. (King). Visit to Ireland Henry VIII. (King). Reformation and Suzerainty Herrings, Proposal to Tax Home Rule Movement. How Commenced Mr. Gladstone's Measure Political Objections . . Concessions too large Irishmen not fit to be trusted Pretext for Separation Ingratitude of Irishmen Religious Objections Home Rule means Rome Rule Oppression of Protestants by Catholics feared O'Connell's Words Dr. Wylie's Views Mr. Lecky's Statements Lord Spencer on . . Protestant Leaders of . . Sprung on the Country What is Essential in a Home Rule Bill Benefits likely to accrue to England Howick's (Lord) Bill for benefiting sons of Catholic gentry Hume. Conduct of Military in Ireland Hutchinson (Hely). Irish and English Statute Law similar pAge 335 288 212 144 158 2og 226 250-1 22 31 53 249 259 375 284 285 291 295 301 302 302 302 304-5 307 307 316 338 355 422 102 30 51 I IlHngworth (Mr. Alfred), M.P. Visit to Ireland Preface to Part I. 420 445 Ireland. Colonization .. PAQB 13 Ancient Government . . 13 Early Land System . . .. 15 Christianized . . . . 17 Invasions • . 19 English Invasion . . 20 English Policy there.. .. 23 Needs of . . 70 Prosperity under own Parliament 83 Social Customs Destroyed . . . . 135 Compared v^rith Scotland .. 276 Compared with Southern States of America 288 Present Methods of Government 346 The True Conquest 420 Irish People, Deprivations of . . 16 Petitions of, Rejected . . 26 Irish Parliament 29 Insurrections 75 Famine 124 Landlords and Famine 126 A Royal Duke's Compassion 126 Poor Law Enquiry . . 129 Failure of Remedies 130 Red Tape 133 Influence of Laws on National Feeling 154 Representation at Westminster J .. 354 James II. (King). Wars in Ireland .. 45 Jebb (Mr. Justice). Ireland's Commerce during time of own Parliament 84 K Kilkenny, Statute of Kimberley (Earl), on Ireland's requirements 30 42? 446 L Land, Theft of Legal Confiscations Repeated Confiscations Clearing the . . System of Landlordism No Security for Improvements Influence of Land System on Irish Character Act of 1870 . . Compensation for Improvements Dual Ownership Tory Opposition to Remedies. . Defects in Mr. Gladstone's Bill Failure to Grapple with Rack-Renting . . Bill of 1881 .. Healy Clause Made of little effect Bills Defeated Mr. Gladstone's Last Bill Influence of Land Bill in Liberal Defeat . . Tory attempts to deal with question Land League Originated . . Landlordism and the Law Law and Private Contracts Lecky. Ruin of Irish Industries Depopulation of Ireland Interference with Irish Parliament Public Revenue Divided Irish Government and English Politics Irish Parliament : Guardian of Country Act of Union Opinion of Imperial Parliament "What the Act of Union did Views on Penal Laws Irish not a Persecuting People . . Legend, Welsh Leland. History . . Military Occupation , , , , PAGE 24 447 PAGE Liberal Re-union . . . . . . . . 362 Liberty, A People's True. . .. .. .. 421 Limerick, Treaty of . . . . . . 49 Lowther's (Right Hon. J.) Folly .. .. .. 213 M Macaulay (Dr.). Irish Peasantry and Priests .. 308 Maginn (Dr.). Letter to Lord Stanley .. .. 314 Mansion House Committee on Irish Destitution . . 217 Manufactures Crippled or Destroyed . . . . 52 McNeill. Mr. Swift . . . . . . 46, 47 Meagher. Mr. T. Francis, National Brotherhood . . 319 Meeting at Leinster Hall . . . . . . 409 Members of Parliament Imprisoned . . . . . . 398 Speeches . . . . . . . . 399 Mill (Mr. J. Stuart). Irish Famine . . .. .. 129 Mitchell (Mr. John). Nationality and Catholic Church .. 319 Mitchelstown . . . . . . . . 395, 408 Modern Balaams . . . . . . . . 373 Modern Star Chambers . . . . . . 405 Montalembert. Early Irish History . . . . 18 Morley (Right Hon. John). No Vacancy in the Leadership 270 MuUhall (Mr.). Statistics .. .. ..165,167 National Phlebotomy . . , . . . 169 Nationalism and Government Em oy^s . . . . 418 National League Restrains Crime . . . . 300 Meeting at Cork 7. . • . • 410 New Era of Legislation . . . . . . 178 North (Lord). Irish and English Equality in Commercial Laws 51 Nulty (Dr.). Irish Evictions .. .. .. 149 o O'Brien (Mr. Wm,), M.P. Home Rule and Separation .. 294 Papal Rescript . . , . . . 323 Mitchelstown . . . . . . . , 395 Irish Forgiveness and Friendship . . 421 448 O'Connell (Mr. Daniel). Ireland's Progress in 1799 Personal Influence Separation Speech on Repeal of the Union Speech on Failure of Act of Union Domestic Parliament and Famine . . Last Arguments and Death Relation of Irish Catholics to Church Repudiation of Politics from Rome Religious Intolerance O'Connor (Mr. T. P.), M.P. Parnell Movement Work of Court Martials . . Various Acts Opinions of Unionists Irish Famine . . . . . . 130, Charges against Mr. Gladstone O'Donnell (Rev. P.). Star Chamber Clause of Crimes Bill Orangemen and Peep-o'-day Boys . . Bluster at Disestablishment Orange Lodges and Dissolution of Union Boasted Loyalty Lord Stanley's Estimate of Orangemen Lord Palmerston's Opinion Ormonde (Lord) Palmerston (Lord). Irish Landlords and Evictions Papal Rescript and Nationalists' Reply . . Parliamentary Documents on Ireland's Progress under her own Parliament Parnell (Mr. C. S.). M.P. Visit to America Growth of Influence Letter on Lord F. Cavendish Assassination . . Irish Representation at Westminster . . Bills Introduced by him Commission Parnellism and the Times Newspaper Peel (Sir Robert). Refusal to act with Canning PAGE 85 93 90 95 103 129 142 302 307 320 97 97 99 112 131. 133 449 PAGE Consents to Catholic Emancipation . . io8 Reasons . . . . . . . . . . io8 Speech on Official Report of Evictions . . 141 Kilrush Evictions . . . . . . . . 144 Irish Church . . . . . . . . 191 Irish Schoolboy's Examination ,. .. 301 Peep-o'-day Boys . . . . . . . . 75 Penal Laws . . . . . . . . . . 58 Perceval (Mr.), M.P. Speech on Lord Howick's Bill 102 Persecuting Code . . . . . . . . 49 Persecution, Failure of . . . . . . . . 62 Personal Visit to Ireland, Lessons learnt during . . 419 Phoenix Park. Meeting of Nationalists and Papal Rescript 325 Pitt (Mr. William). Golden Opportunity .. .. 76 Object in securing Act of Union Surrender to the King Retirement from Office His Desertion of the Catholics . Death Plunkett (Mr.). Ireland's Progress under Police Protection : What it costs Violation of Ordinary Law . . Espionage at Cork Policy, The True, for Ireland Political Economy and Humanity Principles at Stake Poor Imitations of Real Article Pope (His Holiness the). Transactions with King Henry II, 23 Poynings Law. . .. .. .. .. 45 Modified . . . . . . 67 Prendergast (Mr.). Land Divisions. . .. .. 45 Priest and Milkman : Limits of Watering Milk . . 203 Prisons, more needed .. .. .. .. ^18 Protestant Reformation . . . . . . 31 Protestantism Reassured . . . . . . . . 245 National Leaders, Protestant . . 316 Exclusive Character of . . . . 317 Purposes of Government . . . . . . 290 94 90 91 91 100 own Parliament . . 83 236 407 411 271 155 334 372 450 PAGE E Raumer (German Historian). Church of Ireland .. i8i Reed (Mr. H. Byron), M.P. Boast a stigma on Bradford 274 Republicanism and Reform . . . . . . 286 Responsibility of English Masses . . . . 423 Resolutions on Irish Parliament in 1799 by Bankers and Merchants . . . . . . . . 84 Richard II. (King) and Ireland .. .. 39 Rule of the Estate .. .. .. .. 152 Round Table Conference . . . . . . 363 Russell (Lord John). Irish Evictions ... .. 146 Irish Self-Governraent . . . . . . 284 s Salisbury (Lord). Hottentot Theory .. .. 273 Views in 1865 ... . . . . 289 On British Taxpayer . . . , . . 368 Scrope (Mr. Poulett), M.P. An Englishman's Opinion of Irish Evictions . . 140 Scruton (Mr.). Formation of Irish Parhament .. 66 Corruption of Irish Parliament . . 69 Self-Government Successful in other Lands . . 341 Servant Girls in America Taxed . . . . . . 220 Shaw-Lefevre (Right Hon. G. J.), M.P. Introduction to Part IV. Pitt and George IV. . . . . . . 92 Comment on Mr. Poulett Scrope .. 141 Speech at Bradford . . . . . . 401 Shelburne (Lord) . Resolution in Favour of an Irish Parliament 64 Smith (Mr. Goldwin). Irish History and Irish Character II, 18, 28, 36, 43, 44, 50, 58 Justice deliberately put aside . . . . 59 How English learnt to reverence Law . . 115 Views on Irish Disaffection .. .. .. 116 Why Irish Legislation has Failed . . . . 116 Fenian Movement ,. .. .. 117 What is Fundamental in Land Question . . 117 Spanser (Edmund) . . . . . . . . 33 451 Strafford (Earl). Policy of " thorough " . . Sullivan (Mr. T. D.), M.P. Home Rule and Separation Swift (Dean). Irish Taxation Exclusion of Catholics at Bandon . . A Modest Proposal Ireland not Dependent on England . . PAGE 41 293 53 61 61 62 T The Hour and the Man . . . . . . • • i73 Times Newspaper. English Interference with the Irish Parliament . . . . 79 Sir James Caird's Statements on Land Question . . 230 Parnellism and Crime .. .. .. 415 Tithe Agitation .. .. .. .. 182 Converted into Rent-Charge .. .. .. 184 Tories and Compensation . . . . . . 223 Tory Alliance with Parnellites . . . . . . 238 Pledges to gain places in Parliament . . 239 Truckling for the Irish Vote . . . . . . 241 Objections to Home Rule . . . . 273 Will they grant Home Rule ? . . . . . . 368 Return to Traditional Policy . . . . 374 Trevelyan (Sir George) on Mr. Gladstone . . . . 353 Tuke (Mr.). Irish Famine .. .. .. 125 U Ulster Tenant Right .. .. .. ..199 Voice of Ulster in Elections . . . . 256 Supposed Superiority to other Districts. . . .278, 284 Unionism, The True . . . . . . 266 Unionists, Liberal, Considering Home Rule with Tories . . 340 Protests Against Coercion to Gain Seats in Parliament . . . . 348 How received at Bye-Elections . . 362 United Irishmen . . . . . . . . 71 Usher (Archbishop) . . . . . . . . 23 452 PAGE . V Volunteers, Formation of . . . . . . . . 65 Meeting to consider Reform and Emancipation 70 W Watson (Dr. Spence) English Tyranny . . . . 54 Grattan's Proposals . . . . . . 63 Evictions . . . . . . . . 151 Heidelberg.. .. .. .. 328 Wayman (Mr. Thomas), M.P. Introduction to Part II. Wellington (Duke of). Refusal to act with Canning . . 105 Chooses between Catholic Emancipation and Rebellion .. .. .. io6 Motives for Catholic Emancipation . . 107 Would Mr. Gladstone's Death stop Home Rule ? . . 271 William III. (King).. .. .. .. 49 Witnesses at Commissions . . . . . . 164 Woodford, John Roche at . . . . . . 412 Work for Unemployed Soldiers . . . . . • 380 Wylies' (Dr.) Views on Catholic Exclusion . . 304-6 Y York, Duke of, and Catholic Emancipation . . . . 102 Of THE ^ V *'ig^:m: ^tB^^^^it^"^ 'fM LS 4/. i# .*: ^.5^ .•:^.:/-)J^