UC-NRLF 
 
 $B 757 bflM 
 
 
 ( I 
 
 \'\>'<^ 
 
 
 
 % < ), 
 
 
 A \'>''( .•• ; 
 
 
 
REESE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY .OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Received ^^-^^^"^''^''-^'2-^ ;i8^^ 
 
 </^ 
 
 Accessions No. .^/C^'S Shelf No. 
 
 s 
 
 -8s> 
 
 >^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^