• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Half Title
 Frontispiece
 Title Page
 Editor's note
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 The home rule bill, 1886
 Irish national convention...
 Irish protestants and home...
 The home rule bill, 1893
 The Rosebery ministry and home...
 Fifteen years in the house...
 Ireland and the Boer War
 Expulsion of Irish members
 The land bill of 1903
 The failure of English government...
 The financial relations commis...
 The Irish problem
 English government in Ireland
 The Irish councils bill
 Dublin convention
 The Irish national demand
 The destruction of Irish indus...
 Extravagance of Irish administ...
 The administration of justice in...
 The local government act, 1898
 The Canadian precedent for home...
 Home rule resolution
 The Irish universities bill
 Crime in England and Ireland
 Appendix
 Index
 Back Matter
 Back Cover














Group Title: Home rule
Title: Home rule:
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098518/00001
 Material Information
Title: Home rule: speeches of John Redmond, M.P
Physical Description: xi, 348 p. : incl. front. (port.) ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Redmond, John Edward, 1856-1918
O'Brien, R. Barry ( Richard Barry ), 1847-1918
Publisher: T.F. Unwin
Frederick A. Stokes Co.
Place of Publication: London
New York
Publication Date: 1910
 Subjects
Subject: Home rule -- Ireland   ( lcsh )
Irish question   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Great Britain -- 1837-1901   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Great Britain -- 1901-1910   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: "The speeches in this volume (covering the period of Mr. Redmond's public career between 1886 and 1909) have been selected by me, and revised by Mr. Redmond."--Editor's note.
Statement of Responsibility: ed., with an introduction, by R. Barry O'Brien ...
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098518
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01017206
lccn - 11035159
oclc - 1017206

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 18 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Front Matter
        Front Matter 1
        Front Matter 2
        Front Matter 3
        Front Matter 4
    Half Title
        Page i
        Page ii
    Frontispiece
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Title Page
        Page v
        Page vi
    Editor's note
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Table of Contents
        Page ix
        Page x
    Introduction
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
        Page xx
        Page xxi
        Page xxii
        Page xxiii
        Page xxiv
        Page xxv
        Page xxvi
        Page xxvii
        Page xxviii
        Page xxix
        Page xxx
        Page xxxi
        Page xxxii
        Page xxxiii
        Page xxxiv
        Page xxxv
        Page xxxvi
        Page xxxvii
        Page xxxviii
        Page xxxix
        Page xl
    The home rule bill, 1886
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Irish national convention in Chicago
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Irish protestants and home rule
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    The home rule bill, 1893
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
    The Rosebery ministry and home rule
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
    Fifteen years in the house of commons
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
    Ireland and the Boer War
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
    Expulsion of Irish members
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
    The land bill of 1903
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
    The failure of English government in Ireland
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
    The financial relations commission
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
    The Irish problem
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
    English government in Ireland
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
    The Irish councils bill
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
    Dublin convention
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
    The Irish national demand
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
    The destruction of Irish industries
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
    Extravagance of Irish administration
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
    The administration of justice in Ireland
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
    The local government act, 1898
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
    The Canadian precedent for home rule
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
    Home rule resolution
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
    The Irish universities bill
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
    Crime in England and Ireland
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
    Appendix
        Page 345
        Page 346
    Index
        Page 347
        Page 348
    Back Matter
        Page 349
        Page 350
    Back Cover
        Page 351
        Page 352
Full Text







i


F It NI I I I -i
I, F
F. BYIBNE .\ IF-


UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
LIBRARIES




















HOME RULE







AL A N I AL V .L A


SPEECHES OF

JOHN REDMOND, M.P.
// /,- ^





EDI ED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION, BY
R. BARRY O'BRIEN \'


/ I


IfT'TH PORTR.-IT


NEW YORK
FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY
PUBLISHERS


.JL%.%6./ 1 -d A-

































































1.4.. A' 1.,- 0'. : 4 A", :d '7-. ?.I




w


EDITOR'S NOTE

THE Speeches in this Volume (covering the
period of IlMr Redmond's public career between
1886 and 1909) have been selected by mne, and
revised by Mr Redmond. I alone am responsible
for the Introduction.
R. BARRY O'BRIEN.















CONTENTS
3 i D 1,11
INTODL'DUCTION I. . .
I. TU' HE:,OME RI'LE BIL., ?th April 1880
II. IRISH NATIONAL CONVENT ION IN CHICAGO,
1 tli Au.u-st 1 17
TII. IRisn PROTESTANTS AND HtME BRLE, 29th
November 18 .
IV. HOME RULE BILL, l4th April 1-.3 42
V. TL RP.OSEUEILY MINI-TRY AND lHOIE RULE,
13th March 1 8' .
VI. FIFiEEN; YEARS IN TiE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
29th November 1 96 7
VII. IRELAND AND THE BI;u WAR, 7th Feiliruary
1900 7. 7
VIII. ExpULi1oN OF IRISH MEMIBER-, 7th March 1901 li9)
IX. Ton LAND BILL Dir 1903, 4th May 19O 120
X. Tnr FAILL'E OF ENiolLI-H1 (VERNUENr IN IRE-
LA.ND, 4th February 1'90; 139
XI. ToL FINANCIAL RELATIONS COMMISSIONN:, '26t1
January 10. 161
XII. THE Inia PRoLEIM, 19th February 1906 174
XIII. ENi-Li.n GOVERNMENTT IN IPRELAND, 12th Febru-
ary 1907 192
XIV. THE IRISH ClUNCILS BILL, 7th lay 11107 209
XV. DUBLIN CONVENTION, 21it May 1907 226
XVI. THe IRISH NATIONAL DEM.ND. 4th September
1907 237







x Contents


XVII. TII. Dr. October 1907 .216
XVIII. ExlRAv'. AANCF. or IRISH Ari.rNIE'NjrR, IoN, 27th
October 107 55
XIX. TIE .\DIINISKrRATION OF JUSTICE IN TRi.LAND,
10th N:,vember 1907 2. 21
XX. THE LOc.Ai GAV.ERN.MENT ACT, 189S, 17th
Nov ernlh.fr 1907 270
XXI THE C.\XN1,IAN PREC-EDENT FOR FHR iF. RULR.,
9th November 1907 71
XXII RO.E.r. RtLE R L':LUTI':N, 30th March 190S 2295
XXIII. TuE InRIsi UNvF.aSrir- BILL, llth Mlayl 1908 314
X XIV. C'r.iFE IN EN:LAN: A LANA AD ND, 23rd Fe-bruarv
1909 222
APPEND, IX 345
Is; x 347














INTRODUCTION

No one holds a more distinguished place, as an ora;tor,
in the English House of Commons of to-day, than lMr
John Redmond. His speeches are persuasive, dignified,
moderate in tone, skilful in arrangement, clear in ex-
position, logical and incisive in character. Had Mr
Redmond followed his career at the Bar. his success as
an advocate, would have been assured. Drawni into-
politics by' the patriotic impulses with which Ireland so
often inspires her sons, he soon won his spurs as a clever
speaker, and, when the opportunity came, gradually
developed into a prudent, tactful, astute parliamentary
leader. Quick of perception, courteoum in argument.
readily receptive ot divergent opinions and views: toler-
ant of differences, judicial, sell-controlled, sympathetic,
he has the faculty-not to be despised ii, a leader-of
avoiding everything in the Councils of his party ealeiu-
lated to provoke hostility or to excite irritation.
It has been said that Parliamentarianism is on its
trial. It has always been on its trial. It will always be
on its trial while Irishmen ,it in a foreign assembly.
Fifty years ago Irish Natio:nalitv was nearly killed
by Paraliaentarianism. It was saved by Fenianism
Between 1871: and 1874 Isaac Butt formed a Parlia-
mentary Party, which, however, gradually went to pieces.
Parnell came and made Parliamentarianism a vital force,
holding the Parliamentary Party together by a hand of
iron, and consolidating the nation at its back. When he
died the fate of Parliamentarianism hung once more in the






Introduction


balance. But, it will be allowed, that., during the past
decade, there has at all events, been a united and an active
Irish Party, led by a man of high Parliamentary reputation.
Let me take a rapid survey of the operations of Irish-
men, in the English House of Commons, since Mr Pitt's
union.
At the first General Election after the Act of Union,
Ireland sent a hundred MIembers to the English House
of Commons. Grattan w.as not among them. He came
later (in 1805). It would perhaps have been more in
accordance with the fitness of things had he remained at
bome. He had led the fight for legislative independence
in 17S2; he had led the opposition to the Union in 1SOO5.
The man who in immortal eloquence had enunciated the
principle that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland
could alone make laws fo.r Ireland ought not to have
sanctioned, by his presence in the English House of
Commons, the settlement which violated that principle.
Politicaly, he outht not to have survived the Irish
Constitution. He ought to have gone down with the
ship.
But in truth, Grattan entered the English Parliament
to serve the cause of Catholic Emancipation, which was
then the question of the hour. He failed in his advocacy
of the Catholic claims. His oratory electrified the House
of Commons, but his appeals for justice were unheeded.
The 9p:echli the hbc.n-urabl:, M.e-mnber [he said in 1S05,
replyin. to -n ,attack made upon the Catholics bv the renegade
Duig.enan, who had anandone.d both faith and c:utntry_] .uMtsists
of foi:ur partM. FiXrs An invective :Lagainst the religion of the
Catholics Se'ond. An invrctiv\ .,:aint. the present generation.
Third An invective against the pat : .irid ( atiirth) an in-
\eLtive against the future. Hiere the limits of creation inter-
posed and stopped the number. It ii to deifend t.hee diil:..reit
t-enerations that I r;-,:-- to r,.s 'I the Cithlolics tron his attack
and the Pr':t,:stants fr'nm hiis def:-enc:."






I introduction xiii

Pitt. said, Hear. hear, hear! and the whole House
cheered. The whole House often cheered Grattan, but
he died in 1821 without seeing the Catholics emancipated.
His last words were, Keep knocking at the Union."
Cromwell was the first Enghsh ruler who brought
Irish Members to \\estminster. In 1 659 one of his
Members said, I am not here to speak for Ireland. but
for the English in Ireland." The Irish Mlembers who
sat in the Engrsh Parliament from 1501 to IS29 might
have said the same thing. Of course they were Protes-
tants: they belonged mainly to the landlord class: they
represented the .arrison. In those times, to use the
words of Bright, The gallows was the great preserver
in Ireland." Force was the remedy; coercion was the
order of the day.
"The Habeas ColTpus.'" says Alr Lecky. which is
perhaps the most important part of the British Co'n-
stitution. was suspended in Irelaid in 1i.iO, from 102'
till IS05, fiom 1807 till IS10, in I 14. from IS22 till 1824."
The Insurrection Act was in force from IS00 till IS1(l,
from 15S03 till .1s04, from 180 till IS1.9, from 1S14 till
1816, from IS22 till 1823. The power of England was used
in wi-inging impossible rents from a starving peasantry.
in extracting tithe-, from Catholics in support of a Protes-
tant Church, and in stifling every cry for justice: in all
these things she found willing allies in the Irish "
Members. At length, in IS29, Emancipation came under
circumstances which have been well described by Peel
and \\'ellington. Peel wrote on 6th Febluary 129:

SIi tlh- cour.3c : of tIh: L,1t six months Engl:arnl, beins at a c. ,:.
with the -.\hole wori l, has in.i tivv-.sixtl h of tlit. inf rntry ft'rree
ctf ti;, Unitel Kingduom i.C'eupited in uitintaining pea.e :and in
police duties in Ir laiid. I .iu siili-, ti.. stat. of things which
requires su>lch aun a.ppicatiou of military fi,.ree much w,:ire than
open rebelliOn. . If thli be thet itate of things at present,






IX,' I introduction

what wr.uld be the condition of England in the event of war?
Would an English Parliament tolerate fotr .ine moment a state
of things in Ireland .which would compel the appropriation 4.f
half her mjihtity foice to protect, or rather to control, that
exp...ied part of the empire'?'

On 4th May 1829 W'ellington wrote:
"If you .lance at the history 4f Ireland during the last ten
years you will find that agitatiou ie.-dly me.ns something short
.:f rebellion ; that and no mther is the exact meaning of the
word. It is tc- place the country in that state in which its
government is utterly impracticablje, except by means of an
.:velawingr military force."

And again the Duke said:

'If we cannot gt rid :f th1 C.iatbo:li Aisoci.,ation viwe must
lo,:,k t:o eivil i'Tr in Iriiand It is quite *leal that the org.nisa-
ti.:.n of the disaflcn t:-d in Irelh-nd is mir'e perfect than ever. If
thiy .ini rise money they will have ,.:i:di aums and ammunition,
and then the contest mIay for a njm.iwtnt he serious" '

O'Connell had lashed thle country into fury, ani d the
English Ministers surrendered. Up to 1529 the Irish
iepresentation a\' a a farce.
\\'hat was it afterwards? \'e kn...w what O'Connell
ais able to do out of Parliament. He won Emancipation.
\\hat was hei able to do in Parliament? In 1s30. 1831
and 1832 the question of Reforn held the field in England.
O'Connell threw himnsel on the side of the Rcform crs.
Dr Do:yle. the famous Iri h bishop, had said to him in
effect Until Parbuament is refoirmned justice will not be
done to Ireland." The agitator believed it, and was a
Retormer ",i otnut 1a:T. The Enguhli Retform Bill passed the
Lords in June 1532. The Irish Reform Bill was read a
secondd time in the Commons in the previous May.
O'Connell proposed various amendments iln Com-
mittee. They were all rejected. O'Connell said the Bill
would be a failure. Ministers said it would be a success.






Introduction xv

Time justified O'Connell. In 1850 John Bright declared
that the Irish representation was virtually extinguiihed.
The first Reform Parliament met in January 1833. The
Liberals were returned with an overwhelming majority.
Earl Grey became Prime Minister. English Govern-
ments, whether Liberal or Tory. like to be independent of
the Irish vote: and Grey rejoiced that, as he fondly be-
lieved, the Irish agitator would be of no account in the
new combination. The Prime Minister counted without
his host. The first act, of the Government was the intro-
duction of a Coercion Bill, the fierce-t perh.lap of its kind
that was ever placed on the English statute-book
O'Connell blazed torth with charac:teristi energy. He
called the measure-whid the asre- c led the liberties of the Irish
people at the mercy of the English Viceroy- the Algerine
code denounced the Whigs as base. bIloody and brutal."
and in the House and in the country waged inc:essant war
against the Ministry. But the Bill was passed without
even a mitigating amendment. The day of retribution
came. O'Connell fanned the flames of agitation in Ireland
The Coercion Act did not put them out. No tithes! No
coercion was the war-cry of the peasantry. Around tithes
and coercion the battle raged in the House of Commons.
It soon became clear that the "sirong Grey
Ministry was drifting on the rocks. The Cabinet was
divided about Ireland. In Maiy 1S34 a crisis was forced.
Mr Ward moved that the Church Estal:ishment in
Ireland exceeds the wants of tile population, and ought
to be reduced. Althorp took retuge in a Commission to
inquire into the revenues of the Establishment. But this
compromise pleased neither the friends of the Chtuch in
the Ministry nor its foes outside. \Ward ssedprssed hi
resolution to a division. Althorp stood by his Com-
mission, and Stanley (Colonial Secretary), the Duke of
Richmond (Post master-General), Sir James Graham (First






Introduction


Lord of the Admiralty). and Lord Ripon (Lord Privy Seal)
resigned. The first breach in the fist Reform Ministry
was made. The second quickly followed. The Coercion
Act. was to expire on at., Auust. Wellesley the Viceroy).
Littleton (Chief Se:rtary), and Brougham (Lord Chan-
cellor) intrigued with O'Connell behind irey's back.
Althorp knew- what was going on. Littleton m U t O Connell;
a bargain was practically struck between them. The
agitator was to -upport the Government. and the Coercion
Act was to be dropped. Nevertheless on 1st July Grey
proposed the renewal of the Coercion Act in all its original
rig.our. O'Connell at once revealed to the House of
Commons what had passed between himself and Littleton,
and blew the Government to pieces. Littleton resigned.
Althorp resigned. OGey resigned. The first Reform
Ministry was dead within fifteen months of its birth. Ire-
land was the angel of destruction. On the lith July Lord
Melbourne became Prime Miti-ter. The ;:Government,
passed a moderate Coercion Bill, which the Lords reluct-
antly accepted; and a Tithe Bill, which they cheerfully
threw' out. Coercion which was not hot and strong was
unpalatable to the hereditary Chamber; remedial legis-
lation in any shape or form was abominable.
The King dismissed Melbourne in November. Peel
succeeded. Parliament was dissolved in December. In
Erngland the Tories won heavily at the polls. But Ireland
redressed the balance, and in February 1S35 Lord Mel-
bourne again became Prime Minister, with an Iiih major-
ity. O'Connell was master of the situation. What did
he do with it? The Lichlield House compact was made.
O'Connell suspended the demand for repeal to give the
Government a chance of passing remedial measures for
Ireland. "'I am trying an experiment." he said. "I
want to see if an English Parliament can do justice to
Ireland. I don't think it can. But I will give it a chance."






Introduction v

The experiment was a failure. The Government had
come into office on the Irish vote, pledged to appropriate
the surplus revenues of the Protestant State Church to pur-
poses of general utility. The proposal was finally dropped.
The payment of tithes was indeed transferred (by the
Tithe Commutation Act of 1838) from the tenant to the
landlord, but the landlord was able to reimpose, and did
reimpose, the tithe on the tenant in the peof rnt.
The Church gained by the transaction, for the parson
was saved from the odium of collecting in person a dis-
graceful impost. The landlord did not lose, for he took
from the tenant to give to the parson. The tenant alone
was the loser. He was swindled in the name of the law.
The Irish Munticipal Reform Act, 1S40. was Ito use the
words of Sir Erskine May) a measure of virtual dis-
franchisement." Of sixty-eight. municipal corporations in
Ireland fifty-eight were abolished, and a restricted franchise
was given to the remaining ten.* The legislative failures
of the Government were partly compensated for by the
successful administration of Thomas Drummond. He
was appointed Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle. He
became practically the governor of the country, and he
ruled on popular lines, with firmness and justice, holding
the Orange faction in check, and telling the landlords
that property had its duties as well as its rights."
Drummond died in 1840. The Melhourne Ministry fell
in 1841. and Peel became Prime Minister. O'Connell
immediately unfurled the banner of repeal, and flung him-
self heart, and soul into the movement.
He ceased practically to attend Parliament, and
urganised those monster meetings which rooted the idea
of legislative independence in the soil. hke repeal move-
nEi~, i1d because e O'Connell died, because famine
overspre-ad.-he land, and the peasantry, perishing by want
SSir G.ivin Dutly. lFoil Iridand.





xviii


Introduction


and pestilence, and unable in their sore necessity to pay
impossible rents, were exterminated by the hand of the
landlord and the power of the law.
In 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,199,853. In
1851 it dropped to 6,514,473. The fell work of eviction
went on and the tide of emigration flowed unceasingly.
It seemed as if the Irish Celt would disappear from his
native land. In a shot time," wrote the Tiicms, a
Catholic Celt will be as rare on the banks of the Shannon
as a Red Indian on the shores of Manhattan."
Ireland had now been sending Members to the English
Parliament for fifty years. It is impossible to point to a
single great measure of justice which was placed on the
statute-book by those Members. Of course Catholic,
Emancipation was passed in 1829. But it was not the
work of the Irish Members. It was the work of a great
revolutionary organisation founded and led by O'Connell
before O'Cormell entered Parliament. In Parliament
O'Cornell and his followers were not a legislative force.
O'Connell himself was, as the Timis called him, a Cabinet
maker and a Cabinet breaker," but Ireland gained little
by these Parliamentary manceuvres. In the end of his
days O'Connell expressed his appreciation of what Irish-
men could do for Ireland in the English Parliament by
withdrawing from active service in the House of Commons
and unfurling the banner of repeal.
There was a General Election in 1852. Sir Gavan
Duffy, himself one of the leaders of the new Irish party,
states the result: When the elections were over, the
Government [Lord Derby's] and the Opposition each
claimed a majority in the new Parliament; this was the
precise result. we had hoped and predicted, for now,
plainly, Irish votes would prove decisive."
There was a new departure. The Irish party of in-
dependent opposition was formed, pledged to act.






Introduction


indegndently of all English partieg.and to support only
whaver,,English party took up the Irish question. The
Irish question of the moment was the land question. It
had been brought before Parliament in 1835 by UIr
Sharman Crawtord, who introduced a Bill to secure to
Irish tenants on eviction, compensation for improvements
-prospective and retrospective-made by them on the
land. This Bill was thrown out again and again.
The party of independent opposition, supported by a
strong agitation-in which the North joined the South--
now resolved practically to force this Bill on the Govern-
ment. The Irish numbered fifty Members in the new
House, and had to be counted with. \We shall be glad to
support the Government," said Sergeant Shee (one of the
Irish leaders) to the Ministerial Whip. when we agree
with them." You arc very obliging," rejoined the
Whip, but we want men who -will be glad to support
the Government when they don't agree with them."
The Queen's Speech," says Sir Gavan Duity, an-
nounced that her advisers meditated a liberal and generouil
policy towards Ireland." Mr Napier, the Irish Attorney-
General, practically made Crawford's Tenants' Com-
pensation Bill his own. He introduced it. in the Hou-e
of Commons on 22nd November 1852. He said, The
whole structure of society in Ireland is in a vicious state."
The wretched tenantry were. neglected by absentee
landowners, ground down by middlemen," and left
without any security whatever for their industry and
enterprise." That was a condition of things befitting
the idle and improvident man. but altogether un-uited
to the honest and iindustrious occiipiet." It. was, there-
fore, the business of the Legislature to interpose, and to
protect the fruits of the tenants' exertions. It was the
tenants who, in the main, improved the land, and, in the
interests of justice and of property itself, the value of


v









those improvements ought to be secured to them. So
said Mr Napier. The Bill was read a second time on
16th December. Then a crisis arose. A combination of
parties in Opposition was formed to defeat the Govern-
ment on Mr Disraeli's Budget. The Irish were approached
and asked to join in the general attack. They declined
on the ground that they would await the action of Ministers
on the Tenant Right Bill. Sir Gavan Duffy tells us what
happened.

At this moment Serjeant Shee invited Lucas and me to a
consultation at his chambers in Serjeants' Inn on an overture
which was private at the momt:nt, but the lapse of a generation
has rendered it historical. A Cabinet Minister still living
requested him to ascertain on what condition the independent.
Irish party would support the Governmnnt on the coming
division. We set down in writing the concessions which would
justify our support, of which the chief was that a Land Bill
providing compensation for past improvements should be made
a measure on which the Government ,would stake its existence.
Others related to a Catholic University, ansl Ctholic chaplains
in the army and navy, prisons and workhouses. We received
back our paper after a day or two with the propositions noted.
Some were rejected, others postponed for future consideration,
but enough was conceded on the main question to justify us in
taking the responsibility of advising our friends to vote against
the Whi. amendment. The Conservative party at that time
distrusted nobody so rootelly as Mr Disraeli. They vere
always really to believe stories of Machiavellian subtlety and
bad faith against their brilliant leader. The solemn and
circumspect PWel had betrayed Conservative interest, and what,
wa- to be expected of a middle-aged dandy who wore a plum-
coloured velvet waistcoat and a goatee, and had written tragedies
and romance 'i Some otlfcial, to whom rent was dearer than
office, whispered among the Irish peerh that Dizzy had sold them
for the League vote, and a deputation was immediately sent to
Lord Derby to demand explanations and guarantees. Lord
Roden, Grand Master of the Orangemen, was put forward in
the House of Lords to question him on the subject. He
inquired whether the fact of reading for the second time a Bill






Introduction


identical with Mr Sharman Crawford's indicated any intention
of adopting the principles of that measure if they should be
approved of by the Select Committee to whom it was ab.Jut to
be referred. Lord Derby assured him that, whatever might be
the decision of the Committee, the Government would not under
any circumstances accept the principles of Crawford's Bill. The
discontented landlords were appeased, but th. Irish party, who
were pledged to support, no Government which did not accept
these identical principles, could no longer vote with Mr ri~iiaeli
without violating theii pledges and setting a fatal example. On
the division they v,.,ted against the Government, and it. fell by a
majority of nineteen in a very full Hou-e. Ten votes transferred
from the 'ayes' to the noes would have saved them, and
they would have had twenty such votes hut for Lord Derby's
declaration.'

Lord Aberdeen now became Prime Minister. In
February 1853 the Select Committee appointed to con-
sider Mr Napier's Bill met, and, subje:it to certain altera-
tions of detail, approved ultimately of the measure,
which was read a third time on the ist of the following
August. On 9th August it was read a second time in the
House of Lords without opposition, but finally dropped
by the Government for the session. Early in the ensuing
session it was again passed through the Commnon, and
on 28th February 1I51 read a second time in the Lord.s
SIt was then referred to a Select Committee, condtmunc.d
by the Committee, abandoned by the Government., and
lost. The party of independent opposition had made a
gallant fight. for the Irish tenant;: their efforts were
attended with a certain measure of success, but in the end
they failed to place any measure of redress on the statute-
book.
Between 1855 and 1870 the Iiish representation
reached its nadir. The policy of independent opposition
was abandoned. The Irish Members became part and
parcel of the English Liberal Party. The result was
disastrous to Ireland. The Irish questions of this period






xxii


Introduction


iere the Church and the land. The Church did not move
forward; the land went back. We have seen that in
1854 a Tenants' Compensation Bill not only passed the
Commons, but, was read a second time in the Lords
In 1858 practically the same Bill was rejected in the
Commons by 200 votes to 69, and L(t] l en"astm,.4hhen
Prime Minister, said: The leading principle of this Bill
is to transfer the property of one set of persons to another
and a different class .... A retrospective enactment.
% which transfers from the landlord to the tenant that which
by law has hitherto been the property of the former.
which I:,oth parties know, and have always known, to have
been the property-an Act which does this is, I conceive.
most ua4ust, and ought. not to be allowed." But the very
year that Lord Palmerston made this speech, and thought
no doubt that in making it lie had disposed of the Irish
land question for all time, a formidable organisation,
destined, by producing a political convulsion, to bring
both Church question and land question within the range
of practical politics, was founded. 'TH Fenian Society
sprang into being. Fenianism has been described as a
movement of despair. I know not how that may be.
but it certainly is true that the ranks of the Fenians were
filled by men who had lost all faith in Parliamentary
agitation. Fenia.nism aimed at separation from England,
and it kindled a flame of disaffection which gradually
spread all over the country and extended to Britain and
America. By the lurid light of the tires whicli Fenianism
had set blazing the Engllish Minister studied the Irish
question, and realized that Ireland was the danger of
the Empire." In 1868 an Irish Member, Mr Maguire,
gave a description of Ireland which thrilled the House of
Commons. He said in effect:
" the country presented the aspect of a nation i..n the eve of a
great struggle. It was occupied by a powerful army, 'such as






Introduction xxiii

we might expect to see in Poland under Russian rule.' Its
cities and towns were strongly garrisoned, it. barracks "ere
filled to overflowing, and detaihnientz of horse and foot were
quartered in districts where the face of a soldier had never been
seen before. Even the police barracks had been converted into
' semi-fortresses,' with stanchion-, iron shutters, iron d..urq, and
loop-holed masonry. Formidable fleets lay in the principal
harbours, gun-boate were to be. found in the rivera and rem,:te
creeks, and swift cruisers kept watch and ward round the coast.
The gaol; were filled with political prisoner, anid constitutional
liberty was on a par with that enjovyd by the subjects of the
Emperor of Morocco or the King of Abyssinia.'"

The Church question and the land question were now
brought within the range of practical politics. In ISC9
the Church was disestablished, and in 1870 the first im-
portant Land Act was passed. The tenants were given not.
only compensation for improvements, but compensation
for disturbance. The Land Act of 1870 was more extreme
than the Land Bill of 1852.
Fenianism had succeeded where Parliamentarianism
had failed. A few desperate men," said the late Lord
Derby, applauded by the whole body of the Irish people
for their daring, showed England what Irish feeling really
was. made plain to us the depth of a discontent. whose
existence we had scarcely suspected, and the rest followed
of course."
Between 1S01 and IS70 three important measures of
justice for Ireland were placed on the English statute-
book. But not. one of these measures was placed on the
ttatute-book by the action of the Irish Members. They
were all due to the pressure of revolutionary movements
outside Parliament.
It is more than doubtful whether the presence of Irish
Members in the English House of Commons during the
first seventy years of the last century was of the slightest
benefit to Ireland.






xxiv


Introduction


In 1870 the Home Rule movement, itself an expression
of distrust in the Irish representation at Westminster
was formed by Isaac Butt. It glew apace, and soon be-
came what it still is, the question of the hour. Other
questions were also brought forward-the question of
the land (which had not been settled by the Act of 1870),
and the education question. In 1873 Mr Gladstone tried
to settle the question of university education by a measme
which gave general dissatisfaction. He proposed to abolish
the Queen's University and Dublin University. and to
substitute in their places one central establishment, to
which the Queen s Colleges at Belfast and Cork, Trinity
College, the Catholic University College, and several other
Catholic seminaries were to be affiliated. The govern-
ment of the new University. which was to be a teaching
as well as an examining body, was to he rested in a council
of persons to be named in the Bill. Futtue vacancies
were to be tilled up for ten years by the Crown, and aftei-
wards by a mixed system of co-option and election, in
which the preponderating powers would ultimately have
devolved on the affiliated colleges. There were to be no
professorial chairs in the new foundation in theology,
moral philosophy, and modern history: and a portion of
the revenues of Trinity College was to be devoted to its
support. Irish. Radicals, and Tories opposed this meMsure,
and it was defeated by 2S7 to 2S4 votes.
In 1874 there was a General Election. The Tories
won, and Mr Disraeli became Prime Minister. leland
sent 59 Home Rulers to the new House of Commons.
Mr Disraeli took up the Universityquestion, and carried
a Bill abolishing the Queen's University. and establishing
an examining board with powel to confer degrees upon all
approved candidates, irrespective of their places of
education. This examining board-the Royal University
-failed to settle the Irish university question. Home Rule






I introduction xxv

made no progress in Parliament, and_Land Bill after Land
Bill was rejected with scorn by both English parties.
Then a crisis came. Famine once more visited the land.
Tenants, unable to pay exorbitant rents, were mercilessly
evicted. Parliament was asked to stay the hand of the
landlord, but Parhament refused to interfere. Then the
spirit of lawlessness was invoked to resist the tyranny
of the law. The Land League was founded. Fenianism,
which had been scotched but not killed, raised its head.
The neo-Fenians united with the Land League, not only
to obtain justice for the peasantry but to undermine
English power- in the island. A small band of Irikh
Members waged war upon the House of Commons itself,
and an unparalleled system of obstruction and disorder
brought contempt on that ancient institution. In line.
Charles Stewart Parnell appeared to ride the whirlwind
and direct the storm." Before the end of the year 1679
Ireland was, for the fourth time in the century, in the
throes of revolution. In 1880 there was a General Elec-
tion. The Liberals won, and Mr Gladstone became
Prime Minister. Sixty-one Home Rulers were returned.
under the command of Parnell. \'e have it from Mlr
Gladstone himself that no such party as the Irish party
of that day had ever entered the House of Commons. It
was an army made, disciplined, led by an incomparable
general.

"Parnell [says Mr Gladstone] had a most etlicient party, an
.extraordinary p.arty. I do not say extraordinary a an
Opposition, but extraordinary as a Goernment. The abkolut,
obedience, the strict discipline, the military discipline, in which
he held them was unlike anvthiug I have ever seen. They were
always there, they were always ready, they were always united ;
they never shirked the combat, and Parnell was supreme all the-
time."

Ireland throbbed with agitation, and the Irish Members






xxvi


I introduction


faithfully represented the spirit, of defiance and lawlessness
which animated the masses of the Irish people, rendered
desperate by injustice and oppression. The policy of
independent opposition was revived and perfected. War
Souttrance was waged against all English parties. The
fatal policy of pourparlers was abandoned. Parnell
treated only with Ministers across the door of the House,
or if he negotiated, he negotiated with shotted guns. He
came not to conciliate, but to exasperate; not to win,
but to force his way.
The Government began by trying to stay the
hand of the landlord. A Bill was introduced to
check eviction-i, but. the House of Lords would have none
of it. The failure of MIinisters to protect the tenants
against the rapacity of the landlords increased the dis-
order in the country, and intensified the hostility of the
Irish Members in the House of Commons. Then the
Government resolved to put down the Land League, and
to crush the Irish Members. Parnell and his followers
were prosecuted for conspiring to prevent the payment
of rents. The jury refused to convict, and Parnell came
forth from the trial stronger than ever. A Coercion Act
practically suspending the Habeas Corpus was next intro-
duced. The Irish Members fought it fercely, but it.
became law. Hundreds of political prisoners were flung
into gaol, but order was not restored. Under the Coercion
Act the lait state of Ireland was worse than the first, and
the power of Painell increased enormously. The Govern-
ment finally returned to the policy of '" concession." The
Land Act of 1SS1 was passed. It was a sweeping measure
of reform. It established a Land Court, to stand between
the landlord and tenant, to fix fair or judicial rents. It.
also recognized the tenant's right to sell his holding, and
provided facilities for the creation of a peasant proprietary.
I have said that Catholic Emancipation, the Church Act.






Introduction xxvii

and the Land Act of 1870 were due to the pressure of
revolutionary movements outside Parliament. and not.
in any degree to the action of Irish Members. I cannot
say the same thing of the Land Act of 18S1. It was duo
partly to the action of Irish Members and partly to the
pressure of a revolutionary movement outside Parlia-
ment.
In fact, it was due to the combination of Parliamentary
action andrevolutionary agitation-a combination brought
about by John Devoy and Michael Davitt, and directed
with matchless power and skill by Parnell. There cannot,
however, be a doubt that, the Act was due less to what-
was done in Parliament than to what was done outside.
Lord Salisbury, in his extraordinary speech delivered on
the second reading of the Land Bill. has made the point
clear. He said: In view of the prevailing agitation. and
having regard to the state of anarchy [in Ireland]. I
cannot recommend my followers to vote against the
second reading of the Bill." A wave of revolution had
swept over Ireland, and all opposition to land reform
went down before it..
The Land Act of 1881 was important not only for
what it. did at the moment, but for what it. rendered
inevitable in the future. It pulled the central brick
out of landlordism. and the system has been tumbling
to pieces since. Dual ownership established by it was
doomed to failure and destined sooner or later to end
in a peasant proprietary. It did not tranquillise Ireland
for an hour.
During the years 18S2, 1883, 1884 and 1885 the struggle
went on. The tires of agitation burned as fiercely as ever
in Ireland, and in the House of Commons the Irish Members
continued to show implacable hostility to English rule.
Further concessions were made by Parliament. An
Arrears Act was passed in 1882, by which the tenants'






xxviii


I introduction


arrears were on certain conditions cancelled. In 1884
household suffrage was established in Ireland. In 1885
another Land Act was passed, still further facilitating
the purchase of their holdings by the tenants, and in 1888
another Act on the same lines was carried. The Land
Acts of 1882 and 1885 were the necessary complements
of the Land Act of 1331; and the Reform Act of 188S
was essential, as the Liberals had determined to paas a
Reform Act for England, and they could not, consistently
with their principles, deal out exceptional treatment to
Ireland in the matter. I think it was also thought (strange
as it may seem) that the extension of the franchise in
Ireland would be favourable to the Liberal party-a
grotesque delusion.
In 1885 came the General Election. The i.ue
was Home Rule. Both English parties opposed the
Irish demand. The result of the election was, Liberals
335, Tories 249, Home Rule 86. Parnell was master of
the situation. By throwing his 86 men upon the side of
the Tories he could neutralize the Liberal majority.
By supporting the Liberals he could enable Mr Gladstone
to foim a majority of 172. MA Gladstone. who had been
partially if not wholly converted to Home Rule before the
General Election, now took the question up con amorne,
and carried the bulk of his party with him. In thesummer
of 13SG lie introduced a Bill for the establishment of an
Irish Parliament. It was opposed by the full strength
of the Tory party, reinforced by a strong contingent of
dissentient Liberals led by Lord Hartington and hMr
Chamberlain, and defeated by 343 to 313 votes. Par-
liament was at once dissolved. The elections were over
by the end of July, and the Tories and dissentient Liberals
combined beat the Liberals and the Irish Nationalists
combined, and Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister.
A Coercion Bill was passed, and the policy of twenty years






Introduction


xxix


of resolute government ito use Lord Salisbury's famous
expression was inaugurated. Nevertheless, another Land
Act was passed in 1887, another in ISSS, and another in
1891. The ball which Parnell had set. rolling in 1881
could not be stopped. Lord Salisbury again surrendered
to Irish anarchy."
Between 1SS7 and 1892 Home Rule held the field.
Coercion and evictions were enforced, agitators were
thrown into gaol, but the people stood to their guns and
defied the Government. In 1892 there was a General
Election, and despite the fact that a great cleavage was
made in the Irish ranks by the dethronement and death
of Parnell under circumstances to which I need only allude
here. Ireland returned 85 Home Rulers, and in England
the Liberals gained the day. Mr Gladstone once mor-
became Prime MIinister with an Irish majority. He im-
mediately introduced another Home Rule Bill. It. passed
through the Commons, but was rejected in the Lords.
The Government did not dissolve. They held on for
three years, passing English measures by the help of the
Irish vote but unable to do anything for Ireland; if we
except the appointment of a Royal Commission (asked for
by Mr Pedmondi to inquire into the financial relations
between England and Ireland, which, dominated by the
financial genius of Mr Sexton. proved the Irish case up to
the hilt. In 1895 there was another General Election.
The Tories and dissentient Liberals swept the board in
England, and Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister. The
Home Rule majority in Ireland remained intact. I have
said that between 1855 and 1870 the Irish representation
reached its nadir. It reached its zenith in the days of
Parnell. The storm of revolution which swept over the
country carried the Irish Members on with it. and under
the masterly guidance of Parnell they brought the English
Parliament to its bearings.






XXX


Introduction


Nor has the storm yet spent its force. All that has
been done between 1895 and the present day is nothing
more nor less than the back-wash of the Parnell agitation.
It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the Land Act of
1896, the Local Government Act of 1898, and the Land
Act of 1903 are as much the work of the great Irish leader
as the Land Acts of 'S. 'S2. 'S5. '87, and the Home Rule
Bill of 1886.
On the accession of the Salisbury Ministry, in 1895. a
strange era was opened in the history of the relations of
England and Ireland. The Tories were now sick of
coercion. The idea of twenty years of resolute govern-
ment" was given up. A policy of conciliation was actually
adopted by a Tory Unionist Administration. In 1886
the Tory cry was Kill Home Rule by coercion! In
1895 the cry was Kill Home Rule by kindness! "
At this time the Irish Parliamentary party was dis-
organised. The country was disorganised. Little pressure
could be put on Ministers. Yet they were bent on a policy
of conciliation. In 1896 another Land Act facilitating
land purchase, and amending the tenure clauses of the
Act of 1881 on lines previously laid down by Parnell),
was forced through the House of Lords; and in 1595 the
Irish Local Government. Act. was placed on the statute-
book.
\Why, it. may be asked, at this time, and under these
circumstances, did the Government move forward? The
answer may be given in a word-Parnell. The impetus
which he had given to the forward movement in Ireland
could not be checked. He had sown seeds which bore
fruit after his death, and which still continued to bear
fruit. The first answer which the Tory Unionists gave
to Home Rule was coercion. Coercion was a failure.
There was only one other answer to be given, namely,
local government, and accordingly the Local Government






Introduction


.xxi


Act of 1898 became law. It was the greatest. revolutionary
measure ever passed by the English Parliament for Ireland.
An Irish Member described it as the complement of
Catholic Emancipation. But. it was more far-reaching
than Catholic Emancipation. It took the local govern-
ment of the country out of the hands of the loyal "
oligarchy, and placed it in the hands of the rebellious "
populace. It has made Home Rule inevitable.
Still impelled by the necessities of the situation which
Parnell had created, the Government continued to move
forward. During the years 189S-99 the mischievous
effects of the divisions in the Irish ranks were brought
forcibly home to the Irish people, and they resolved that.
these divisions should cease, and that a united Irish force
should once more confront English parties in the House
of Commons. There were peace-makers among Parnellites
and anti-Parnellites alike. By establishing the United
Irish League Mr William O'Brien gave those men an
opportunity of coming together; and the work which he
had begun in Ireland was completed in London when,
in 1900, Mr John Redmond was elected the leader of the
Irish Parliamentary party.
During the years 1901 and 1902 the United Irish
League grew in strength and influence. The Government
at first pretended to treat the movement with contempt,
but ended by throwing several of the Leaguers into gaol.
Mr Redmond rejoiced at these coercive tactics. Coercion,
he said, is the only salt which is required to bring the
country into a healthy state. The central plank of the
League platform was the compulsory sale of the land to
the people. Outside the League there was an agitation
in Ulster, under the direction of Mr T. WV. Russell, practi-
cally for the same object. As a result of these movements
in Ireland the Government once more took up the land
question and introduced another Land Bill in 1903, still






xxxii


Introduction


further facilitating the purchase of their holdings by the
tenants. Ministers had no hesitation in declaring that
all this land legislation was made necessary by what Mr
Gerald Balfour called the agrarian revolution of 1SSI."
The policy of Mr Gladstone had been the establishment
of dual ownership in the possession of the land. The
Tories condemned that policy, and held that the only
remedy now available was practically the establish-
iment of a peasant proprietary an extraordinary
revolution in Tory opinion, made possible by the genius
and power of Parnell and the persistence of the Irish
people.
Having passed several measures of justice. the
Government crowned its work by trying to carry an in-
famous measure of injustice. In July 1905 Mir Balfour
proposed certain resolutions on which he intended to
found a Redistribution Bill, the effect of which would be
to reduce the number of Irish Members in the House of
Commons from :100 to 81) at least. In resisting these
proposals Mit Redmond won a great tactical victory.
He asked the Speaker whether it was not the practice that
resolutions of the nature in question should be submitted
to a Committee of the whole House, in order that the
propositions involved might be discussed in detail in the
,.:iie way as the clauses of a Bill in the Committee stage.
Mr Gibson Bowles followed up this question by asking
whether, a, Mr Balfour's first resolution contained not
fewer than eleven distinct propositions, it would not be
necessary to put each proposition from the Chair, and to
have each separately discussed. The Speaker said that
both questions were of great importance, and that he
would take time to consider them. He did take time,
and then ruled, first, that according to practice it was
necessary to submit the resolutions to a Committee of
the whole House; and that.second, it was further necessary






Introduction


xxxiii


that each proposition contained in the resolutions should
be separately put from the Chair and separately discussed.
This ruling was received with piolongedr Irish cheers.
M1r Redmond then a4ked Mr Balfour what course he pro-
posed taking in view of the Speaker's decision. Mr
Balfour replied that he would drop the resolutions and
proceed directly by 1-ill next session. But Mr Balfour'.
Govcrnmcnt was dead next session. A General Election
took place in January.
The Liberal Leaders suspended the question of Home
Rule and proposed the adoption of a policy of Adminis-
trative Reformi. Speaking at Stirling on the 23rd
November 19u5, Sir Heruy Campbell Bannerman said:

'* If he were asLk-e fr al-. ii.- I.y an *ir'r itu Iri-h Natio'nali r,
lie wi:.uld 3ay that hil- *I ir.- "a- t,:. -eo the- *--1'-_.thi,- n ann.R -
ment .,f Irilsh aill'irs in the h.,udiS of a ripr.re,? .ntati:*e Ir;-h
authority, and he fi-rther ai,.I that if ih. were an Irinh
N'-tic.n liti hte would take it in anr way that hI, ..,ulHl ,.-t it.
If an instalmen-t ..f representatives *.ontr-:l were :f'-r.-.ci to
Ireland, or any adJmini-itrative, improvit-ment, he %l:ould advi-e
the Irish Na'tionali~lt tliankfull to a.'-,ept it, prroviJded it rwa:
consistent and leI. up to the larger i.,p liy). To c,.ire -o::1 i
a.Iminir traction was :nre rhin_, l.but co.Cl goverrnrent ouiild ne\er
be a sulsrtitut:- ftor .:,'-Ternm.nt t by th'e Ipe, sp;- thi.m el.--'.

The Irish Parliamentary party generously supported
the Liberals at the polls, and Sir Henry Campbell Ban-
nerman came back triumphant xnth an overwhelming
majority at his back. On the 7th May 190-7 a Bill was in-
troduced (by a Minister who was not responsible for
its conception) to establish Administrative Councils
in Ireland. Mr Redmond in consenting to the first
reading, though dissatisfied with the details of the
measure, said that a Convention would be summoned
immediately in Dublin to consider it. The Irish members,
he added, would abide by the decision of the Convention.
C






xxxiv I introduction

The Dublin Convention met on 22nd May 1907 and
rejected the Bill unanimously and enthusiastically. No
more was heard of it. On the 13th March 190IS Mr
Redmond moved:
"That the pre-ent system of Government in Ireland is in
ippopuition to the will of the Irish people, and ieves them no
voice in the management ,,f their own alf.Lirs: that the system
is eCnuiequently inetllicieut and extravagantly costly ; that it. Jo: s
not enjoy the confidence o:f any section of the population : that
it i- productive itf universal diico:nti-ut and unrest, and is
incapable of sati-factorily promoting the material and intellectual
proe:res- of the people ; that the re'frrm of Irish Gov:'rnm:iint is
a matter vital to the interests of Ircland, and calculated greatly
tl. promote the weil-leing f:l the people c:.i Great Britain, and in
the opinion of thi; House the r-.lutiou of this problem can only
be obtained by giving to: the Irish peopl,- the legislative and
executive control of ill purely Irish affairs.'
This resolution.iwith the words "Subject to the supreme
authority of the Imperial Parliament." proposed by a
Ministerialist and accepted by Mr Redmond, was carried
by a majority of
Ayes, 313 Noes, 157.

In the same year Mr Birrell introduced and carried
(coni.: amorc) a. Bill for the establishment, of an Irish Uni-
versity in harmony with the wishes and demands of the
masses of the Irish people. In 1909 another Land Bill
iprac:tically amendment of the Land Act of 1903) was
passed for the purpose of still further facilitating the
creation of a farmer proprietary. Mr Birrell's adminis-
tration has been ju1t. sympathetic and courageous. On
the 30th November 1909 the House of Lords threw out
the Budget. Parliament was immediately dissolved, nnd
a General Election took place in January 1910. The
Prime Minister (Mr Asquith) raised the Home Rule flag
once' more. Speaking at a great Liberal meeting at the
Albert Hall, on the 10th December 1909, he said:







I ntroduction xxxv

"Speaking on behalf of the GoCerument in Mar.:h of last
ye:ir, a week be-fore my acceision to. the office of Prime Miniiter.
I described Ireland a, the one undJomable failure of Britidii
statesmanship. I repeat here to-night what I -.sird then, speal:-
ing on behal f of my c.:olleagues, and, I believe, of my party, that
the solution of the problem can be found only in one way-by a
policy ,hieil,, while: explicitly safeguarding. tlie f supreme and
indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up iu
Iroland a ,y-item .,If full -tlf-g..,Lcrnmr unt in regar,.l to purely
Irish affairs. There is not, and there cannot be, any ique-tion
of separation. There is not, anDl there cannot he, any que.trim.n
of rival or cumiientingg suprem.aie.. But, subject to these con-
ditions, that ij the Libera-l policy. For rneaons which I believe
to have been adequate the pre-ent P.rliamenwt was dis.li,,-J in
advance from plropoinig invy uih e.,lutiui, Jbut in he nth c II.eso
Vr'C.mmotins th /e Iads c 'ra Lit.:rail Gerc raa nt ad va' ., Li'.r!
miaj.'ritly ill ir, trh, i mitt 'r be t ntlolily r.; ."

This declaration filled Ireland with hope. but it. was
not the only declaration made by the Prime' MIilster at
the Albert Hall which buoyed the spirits of the Irish
people. Speaking of the rejection of the Budget by the
House of Lords, and of the hostility generally of that
chamber to Liberal measures he said:-

SI tell you quite plaliuly, and I tell my fetluw-countrymenu ..ut-
aide, that neither I nor :iLy other Libeial Minister supported by
a majority of the Houte of Commonr s is going to subiiit a'ain
to the rebuffs and the Ilumiliati.,ns .of tih last four year-. W,,.
shall not assfme q.cj ee, i ad ..'.i sh/altl .ct i. .id '. nal1 w ,1 clan
Secure /th si lgvazrds whiieli .~x.r r: ,:we ho'ne-S /. b e' i ase:: ei r
./r the .'gise i .ticc i, ,tility ..end it(I r LI' th e? rtiryl <(/ rogreis."

Only one interpretation was placed on these words-
only one interpretation could he placed on them, namely.
that if the Liberals were successful at the polls Mr Asquith
would promptly ask tho Sovereivin for safeviiard "
(everybody knew what. the satea.uards meant I to insu1ie
the passing into law of a Bill abolishing the absolute Veto






xxxvi


Introduction


of t.he House of Lords: and that if the safe.uards'"
were refused. then Mr Asquith would resign. On
the faith inspired by these declarations the Irish Parlia-
mentary Party once more called upon their cfllow-country-
men to support the Liberals at the polls. The General
Election showed the following results:

Liberals, 275
Un ioni.st., 273

Liberal Alajrity. 2

Nationalists. S2
Labour. 40

The Irish paity were mliters of the -it nation.

After the election doubts arose as to what 3h Aquithl
might do. Did he intend to a-k for the eafeuards at
once. or did hel intend to wait? Did he propoee to take the
Budget tirst or to take the Veto first? In this mronint of
uucec tainty r Redm.iond determined to make his position
and the position of hil patty clear. Speaking at banquet,
in Dublin on the 10th February 1910. lie said:

SI >d. n,:t ventur-:- t.:. suile't ny pllu to the G'veinmenit-
that w.:.ull l..e pie tiumpti .:.n n my par t- t I ai.y plainly that
if Mi A-,iiilh i. not in a p.i-Ati'n t.:. say that he ha., su.-h
Lust-tLit:'e- :is ale un?:eso arv t.,i ina.ille hir t, prn .1 Veto Bill
this: ear, .rLI it' in -pite *.,f that jie intend-s- to u:.- his owl
Iphra.e-.-t :, rIt:di ot-eli aud pt.:.p:-' es t-:- -. p .- the E'ludi.' into
law, and then to a,.:in u, I don't r.i.-, ft.r li .n In. or ho'w sh rt,
the ,-.:n;ideaiitio: t of the >iue-tio'i 'o-f tihe Ve-to of the Houu-e o
I,.:.rd that is a p,'liiy th it frelandl ,anin,.t. and 'ill n.:.t,
,q }_,! \,p-'i :.f '

John Brriht once said. I like those men bet who
write and peak so that you can really understand themm"







Introduction xxx\vii

There is no mistaking M1r Rdmiond's language at any
time. But. it. must be allowed that lMr Asquith has not
spoken with equal perspicuity since the Ceneral Election
on this question of Veto and Budget..
"They are complaining that your utterances are
.ambiguous," says the Priest in PaFir to the race "
(MAr Asquith).
\Wel, that's one of my 'safeguard-'l ""* quoth the
Oracle. One point, however. Mr Asquith has made plain;
he has received no safeguards "; in fact, he did not ask
for them. In Alarch be obtained a committee of the whole
House to consider resolution, affirming the necessity for
excluding the House of Lords altogether from the domainf
of finance, and asking the House to declare that in the
sphere of legislation the power of Veto. at present. poi-
sessed by the House of Lordc-, shall be so limited in its
exercise as to secure the pred-minance of the deliberate and
considered will of thii House within the lifetime of a single
Parliament." t
While these Resolutions were under the consideration
of the committee, and it seemed yet uncertain what action
M\r Asquith would take if they were rejected by the House
of Lords, M"r Redmond made the following statement, at
a. public meeting in Tipperary on the .rd April:
S'F-r my part IT nit \:-'t at tinii min'.nent i-iure..l i. to
what, -.ill h-.i..[en 'lfter the L,-r,.sl ha.ve r>icetu,., .ii thl.y will
reject, thi .tr, R--.:.liti.:.ns. Up t.:, this mormeni t no ha.v' n..t
yet hadi an explrii t :rni une- iiv:i,. 1 d.,.lar.i ...u tlt %" hi hen tlios
Veto E'-solutirons are d:liet.i.ted, in tihe L-.rd the Priri Mlinirter
w;II inliniditl elv g:. t., the Thron'- nind la k tor gurir.autL..-:, .ind
the R.-Iai prIe:rrcg tivt wiIl be at his .lispF.sil to overhk.:- thli
cll:.pp- ltion rt th,' L rnli W e lih. e n, 'r 4c.t an expliI. it iJeelar.i.
tin that it these uua-Lantlc-.o .r': Irtus,:i th[.- C( :iv.i.ruij.-:I t w"il
,:at rn the Alicrt. Hall pi-eec.h and refuse to, remain for one
single hnur in :fltici I wouldd like to s.iv, if -u,.h a stIterm nt


' Punch, -tid M ar..i, 19lii.


I .' .\t.[ l-1 l .







xxxviii I introduction

were made, if we were assured that the moment the Lordi
rejected the Veto the GrOvt-rnment would go and ask for thoe
guarantees, and if they were rt.fued would decline to retain
office, that that would ea-e the situation for ui in a very marked
degree. But le.t mt- a'k 'you what would the position of Ireland
and the National party be if we first agreed t- pass the Budget
through all it-i st.,i.es, and the Veto Resolutions were deteated
,b th Rouse of Lords, and the Gov'-ernmentt refused to Us.k for
guarantees or p.iltere::l on the question, .-r, having askel guaran-
tees and the guarantees haring .been ref.ireli, they continued to
cling ti:otlic" 'andl p,.tpOned. their fight againitt the Hou-eof Lor lh?
We would then hare abandlnel the one Lreat weapon by which
\we can force them to stand to their pledge. Now it may be
asked, Why am I so: distrustful and so suspicious 1" My whole
political experience hasi tau'iht m,? that Ireland'. only s.ifety is
to ic sl;ji.iciiou- anul diitrustiul of every English party. I
sincerely hope that. the explicit drclarLtlions to which I have
referred, I will be male, and I go further and I say that if I am
as,-urel that the G(overnment will honestly ask for the guarau-
tees when th- Lordl rejic-t the V.-to, and if they are refused the
g'ii.rantees they will refuse to hold tliee and procipitato a crisis,
ind if even the thir-l r-ailing of the Bud4get were held back
until we saw what i- going to, halppEn, if that t.ok place then we
could easily, with the uitmost safety to our cause, and quite con-
si.stently with our policy and pleiges, settlE down to discuss
su:h concessions on the Budget i would mak, the Dudget as
a,.ceptable or as tolerable, at anyrate, as any British budget
carn he for Ireland under the Act of Union."
On the 14th April, after the PRsolutions had been
passed by the Committee and agreed to by the House,
Mr Asi'.quith made the following statement:
It i. not usual for the G;:vernment to make a statemr-nt of
policy in regard to contingen:ies which hi\e not vet arisen, hut
we are- c.,nfronted to-d.y, I venture to think, vith an excep-
ti:onIl and perhaps a unique case.
"The three Resolutions which you, Mr Speaker, a few
monrrent ago. put from the Chair, have two special characteris-
tie.' In the first place, having been approved in principle by
the late House of Commons with an enormouIs majority, it will
not, I think, b.- anywhere denie'.l that they wrIr prominentlvy,-if







Introduction


XXXIX


not predominantly, b-rf.oro toh country at the recent General
Ekectiou; and they have, during the last fortnight, been sup-
ported in every stage of their progress in this ne.w Ho.use of
Comnons by majorities vbii.i LIve rarely fallen short of a
hundred. In the second place, to us, who sit on these Iencle-,
the passing of the principles .:of tlei; IE:soluti.:ns int., law I.y
means of statutory enac'tment is a condition not only o f our i;e-
fulness, but even ,f our eLt'eLtive existence. SpHakin.; at the
Albert HIll on Ib half of iny collyeaues and political friends in
Decmil:,r last, before the Election, I said-and I have :not .1
word t, withdraw or e..plLin-that it was iill for us here tl..
hold office unless w'- e ul.l ~Furr -.teguar ls-the gifegiards
which experience had shEown to be ni:.eiesary ft.:r tho, ,:.isilative
utility and honour :of the party e.,f pr..,iress. 'Thbie -aftegunrds
th-es R.,-.lutiorns, if th-y are put on the Statute E.:,.:., w.:.uld
provii.le. But until they take their place there, there is no
legislati'..n except the Eudget, and substantially norin-contoritiou.
matters which we ,.an without risk of futility, and C en of
ridicule, undertake.
'It is for the:-s: reasons, and on l.h.:alf of the G(ovvernment,
that I think it not .,nly convenient, but nc:.:esary, to gi\e
notice to the House and to the .,country, now that these Re-,,lu-
tions are passing into thl1 control of other people, of our future
intentin.m If tilh Lords fail to: ac' pt our policy, or le.:rlne t,.,
consider it as it is formally presented to the House, we shall
fiiel it our duty irnimeliat'-ly t,. tcndir advice ti: the Crown as to
the steps which will have to: be taken if that polhey is t*, receive
statut.ory effect in this Parliament. What the pr:ecie tcrmn of
that advice will be it will, :.f course, not lie nrht fi.,r me to say
nowv ; but if we do no:t find ourselves in p:ositi:o to:, ensure that
-tatutory eflct shlll be given to that policy in this Parli.um-rnt,
we shall then citther resign 'uruilt.eeior recorumiend the di-:-:suti.:.
of Parliament. Let me add this, that in n,. L.ae will wer r-cor,-
mend A. dissolution except under -uch conditions as will S-ecur
that in the new Parliament th- jud.-nient .:.f the people as ex-
pressed at the elections will be carried into law "
On the strength of this statement the Iri-h Memblers
supported the Budget, which became law on the 29th of
April. The Veto resolutions now await their fate in the
House of Lords. But Veto or no Veto, Home Rule ,:an
only be won by putting the Engfish Minister-be he






xl I introduction

Liberal or be le Tory-in a tight place. and keeping him
there until his conscie-n- is awakened to the
".Tustice of the cause. '- Unfinished Question-," said
John Bright quoting memorable words, h-- ave no pity
for the repose of nations." The Unfilnished Question
of Home Rlulk will. I hope, have **no pity '' for the Re-
pose of Engli.4sh Statesmen.















HOME RULE



THE HOME RULE BILL, 1S86

ON 8th April 1SS6 MIr (:la.i-st:rne moved the fir[t reading of the
Home Rule Bill. lie pr,,posid to estal.lish an Iridh Parlia-
ment and an Ii-h Executive for the management and control
to Irish affaire, r-eerving to the Imperial Parliament the
ft':.llnuM subin ltrt-:-The crown, ,pea:e or war, the arry,
Da-ivy. miliLia, voluintiers, defence, etc., foreign and '..lunil
reiations, di.nitit,, title; *..f houn..ur, treason, trade, post-
:thetic, coinage. Besides these "exceptions," the Irish
Parliament were forbidden to. make any laws re.-ptctiini
,. ,irr r!;,t) the end, went ...f religion, o:r in restraint tf
educational freedom, .:.r relating to the Cust.:mms or Excie-.
The Dublin Metr..-politan P[.liee were t, remain under
imperial control fr t wo years, and the R:yil Irish Constabu-
lary flr an indClinitt pt ri.d ; but eventually all the Irish
police were to be handed o-ir to the Irish Parliament. Ire-
land's :contributi:onI to the Impe-rial revenue was t, lie in the
pri.,purtion of onje fiftteretl, t.. the whole. All constituti: nal
questions relating to the powerrs of thc Irikh Parliament
were to lie submitted to the Judicial Committee of the
English Privy Counlcil. The Irish wicmbers were to be
excluded fr...ut the Imperial Parliament.
The Bill was read a first time with...ut i.ppiosition. On
the 10th of May MIr Gladstone mov,.-d the se,..nd r-iading,
which was rejected on thE: 7th of June by 34 1 votes to 311.
Mr Redmuud said:-

IR SPEAKEEn.-The House cannot have failed to notice
the (literence between the arguments advanced by the hou.
and learned gentleman who: had just sat down Mir' E.
Clarke, Q.C.) and those which were urged by the right
hon. nembe r for Bury iSir H. James). The right hon.
member for Bunr argued that. the Bill was so far-re-aching
that. it would be dangerous to pass it, and his argument, wa







2 Home Rule

based on profound distrust of the Irish people. The hon.
and learned member for Plymouth. on the contrary, con-
tended that the Bill provides so flimsy and worthless a
scheme that if the Irish people had any self-respect they
would not accept it. Perhaps the Irish people might be
allowed to judge for themselves, and to speak for them-
selves in this matter. I trust the House will accept with
readiness the statement of the representatives :of the Irish
people that, on the whole, they are satisfied with this
Bill, and that, so far as their judgment goes. it provides a
settlement of the question. No one could have failed to
note the bent given to the discussion now and on the
first reading by the enemies of this Bill. They have ex-
haustively criticized its details, but have said nothing
about its vital principle. I prefer to take a course more
suitable to the present stage and to argue on the general
principle of the measure. Wlat is its essential principle?
No dissent was expressed when the right hon. gentleman.
who has spoken from the Government bench i~Mr Cnmpbell-
Bannerman), described that principle at the establishment,
of a Parliament in Ireland with certain well-defined powers
for the legislative and administrative control of Irish
affairs. Arn-uing the subject from the standpoint of an
Irishman and a Nationalist, the first thing I a.-k the House
to consider is whether that principle is one which Ireland
has a right to have conceded to her. I am aware this
argument of right may not appeal with much force to some
classes of English members, but it will appeal with force to
the English masses, who are a justice-loving people, and
also, I hope, to their representatives in this House. (Grat-
tan. who, in addition to -bina an ardent Irish Nationalist.
was also a devoted adherent of the Imperial greatness of
England, argued thus upon this topic of riht:-
"Before Ireland g..e, into her title, let us hear their title o.E
Euglandi, for it is Lot a question -lwhether Ireland has a right to
b. free,: but whether Greait Britain h. s a right to .enlave her.
Whre the latter ':o.:utry aLsks what right have, the Irish to Lake
laws for thems:lv:-, Irelain -ill uot answer, but demands what.
richt ha. En-land to muaki las for Ireland. From nature she
has u,:n,-. Nature has uot giveu O'ne nation a right over







The Home Rule Bill, 1886 3

another. She has not that right fiom covenant. L,:t hlr diow
the covenaut : ill wlhat il Ist:lor i it rec'rdied ? "
Those who now arguedd against this Bill point to the Act
of Union as a covenant. The answer of the Irish repre-
sentatives to that argiunent is to point to, the character of
the Act. of Union, and above all to the means by which it
was passed. It the Act of Union is to be held to ble a bar
to Ireland's right to .self-'overnment then those who so
hold must regard that Act as a Treaty freely accepted lb
both nations. Those were the grounds on lwhic.h 31r Pitt.
recomnuended the Act of Union in his great speech on
31st January 1799. He said it would be a
"Union by tree icomenuut on jut and equal t,:'rms-the free
and v,,luntary a; s ociatiun of tv,, g'ir:t couuttrie-, which j':.in for
their common benefit in otce Empit. whber,:e racli will retain its
proportional weight .ndi irmprtiance undi.-r tbh -,-curity :tf equal
laws and rieiprocal at.:.etion."
And he quoted the l'nes:-
"Paribu- s,: l;-g'ibus ambx Invicta gent',- a:.trna itl ftird'.ra
mittant."
Is that. a correct dscicription of what the Act of Unijon
has proved to ,be? "Equal liws! \ly, the whole
history of Ireland since the Act of Union has been one of
exceptional legislation. Volunttary ass.-oci:ntion oi two
great, countries! Every historian acknowledges there
had not been free consent by the Irish people. The Union
was carried in opposition to the will of almost the whole
nation, as the Premier h'is said, the entire of the unbi ibed
intellect of Ireland w-as against it. l, Grey afterwards
Lord Grey) spoke on the matter of Ireland's consent in this
House, and he said:-
"There are in the Ii sh Parliament 300 members; 120 of
these strenuousuly opposed the Union; 16-' minn-ebers voted in
favour of the Union, and of theie 116i were placemeni."
William Cunningham Plunkett also spoke on this point and
his testimony was exactly the same; and while I do not
desire to trouble the House by reading a number of quota-
tions to enforce a point which I think nobody can deny-






Home Rule


not even the hon. and learned gentleman who h.s last,
spoken-I nill read, for the benefit of some of his new
friends of tlh Loyal and Patriotic Union. a few words by
MAr Letcky. In Volumle II. of his Hisory. Mr Lecky
wrote:-
-Thei year, between 177'1 and 17'98 were pi:,bably the most
prJopeious in Irish hisit.rvy, andl thIe generation which fitllowed
tho Union was one of tie most miserable. The sacrifice of
nationality w s extoitel lby the rim-Ot enormous .i..rruptii.n in
the history of reprir'-entatiiv institutionS. It was demandedd by
no coinidlerable- porti,..n of the Irih people ; it was accompanied
by no signal political or material benefit that cuulil mitigate or
counteract its uril..Ipularity an. it was -ffecpteil without a
di--olution-, in lopploitLn to the immense rmaj,:,rity of the repre-
cEntativer ,f the i.ountie- andl -toriir-derble towns and to the
innumerable .a-lddrei-ses from every part of the country. What-
ever may he thought of the abstract merits of the Ai:t of Union
as it wat carrieI. it wa- *i crime of the ileep-st tu pituile, which,
by impo'ing with A-veiy circurnumstine if infmyv a new form of
,verunment on a reluctant and protestl.g nation, ha- vitiated
the whole courPs of Irish opinii'.'r"
On this question of right theli right hon. member for West
Birmincham iMr (Chailberlain appears to be (Livided from
the Irish representatives by at wide gul. Last. autumn
lie made a spec-ch which attracted m uch attention and gave
nii. little offence in Ireland. He co introverted Ireland's
right. to sclf-governmreut. Iby the estraordinarv statement,
that five millions of Irishmen in Ireland had no more right
to govern thcms-lvcs than five millions of Englishmen in
London. That was regarded by Ireland as a very feeble
and very insulting misrepresentation ot her ease. If he
cold hiive shown that London vwaz a country distini:t from
EnLland, with lditinct historic traditions and lditinct
national characteristicss; that Lo:ndon has possessed, as
Ireland has, distinct Parliamentary institutions .of her own
for 61.1) years: that those Parliamentary institutions had
been r:oblbed from London by means such as I have de-
siribied against the will of the people, and that an over-
wiheLhing majority of the people tu-day demand their re-
storation. then indeed he would have some title to institute
a comparison between the cases of London and Ireland.







The Home Rule Bill, i886 5

But no such analogy exists. The fault at the bottom ot
the right hon. gentleman's argument i- that he pre-sup-
poses a pertict identity between Ireland and England Is
there any such identity? There is not geographical
identity-the countries are divided by sixty miles of water.
There is not historical identity-no two nations in Europe
have histories more diLsimilar. There is not identity of
character-it is actually part of the argument of our op-
ponents that there are deep and ineradicable differences
of character between thli two peoples. There is not iden-
tity of condition-England is rich-Ireland is poor. Eng-
land isa manufacturing country, Ireland is an agricultural
Ione. What identity is there? The identity imparted by
the Act of Union!
The only argument in support of this idea of identity
must depend upon that Act, and some gentlemen go so
far as to say that the Act of Union is a fundamental
and unalterable law. Many hlon. members will remember
Sydney Smith', remark, that the man who tal ku about.
an unalterable law proves himself to be an unalterable
fool." Lord Beaconstield, at any rate. did not come with-
in that. sweeping statement, for in a speech made by him
in the House in ISbS on the Irish Church Disestablishmuent
Bill, he said:-
I take no exa'.'reratrl view ,of even the article' of Uinion.
I hare not for a moment pretended that the articles ,ot Union
between the two nations are irreversihl-. I hare not for a
moment pretended that the articles of Union, and the zreat
Acts of Parliament which were passed to carry them into eftrect.
cannot by the co:iisent of the So'ereign and of the estates of the
realm be changed or modified."
Shortly after that speech the Act of Union was rnodiied.
All the Prime Mini-ter now proposes, and all the Irish
representatives ask, is that the process of readjustment
which was commenced in ISO should be carried to its
logicalconclusioin,so that the Government of Ireland should
be brought, into sympathy with the will of the governed.
and into harmony with the ideas and conditions of this
period of the nineteenth century. So niuch on the argu-


I






6 Home Rule

ment of right. I come now to a lower, hut, perhanp, a
umoe potent atiument, namely, that of expediency.
Apart altogether from Ireland's inherent, right let me
a.-k, is it not manifestly expedient that this conce-sion
should be made? ihat is the hi-tory of England's effort
to rule Ireland from \Westminster? No. EngliLlhruan, who
loves the tair fame of hi., country, can contemplate without.
-hame the miserable iceord of eighty-five yeaCn ot coercion,
disaffection. a nd cver-inrea,,in i poverty. How Qtands
the re.ord':. Eighty-five year- of Engli'h leislatiou for
Irel-nd has resulted in acts that speak volumWes. In evi-
dence at promised contentment. older, and peace. there
have been twelve Acts or the -,rIpenlion of hab,:ts cofr1/.s
19 Penice Pre-ervation Act-, whether vo-called or other-
wi-.e : 10 Ac.t ts-r limiting and controlling the pos-ie-.sion of
niriuw 'nd il gunpowvder; 17 tor the prevention ot resistance
to tlie law by lmeali- ot outragiie- against per-sons and pro-
perty; 2' i against unlawrtul and dangerous societie-. onim-
:inatio-,ls, a ..embliet. and ,pioce,-e ion I: i 1 tor the suppies-
-ion of rebellions, in-'rrection- aiid diturlbanles; and 2
tor CUtailine i h the reed: ot t he Pres--or a Coercion Act.
of -oonle -ot. or other for every year since that in which
the Act of Union wal p1 a-red. In evidence of the antici-
pated pro-perity, there have hben 11 Acts for the direct
relief. othrwi.e than by thn e ordinary poo r law, of excep-
til:nally extreme poverty. -nd con-equent distress; 10
for the indirect relief i: poverty by means of advancing
money for publlie work 4 fok: r giviin the extremely poor
employment at the public expense: 4 for contending with
tfaiine lever: 4 floor -avin fn perishinu by starvation the
thousands ot clhikhen deserted thrrou:.h the abject poverty
ot their parent; 3 tor the rel;t and assistance of railway
coiupanies otherwise unable to proceed with their works: 4
for the artificia-l a.sitance t bannk .-,and for siusta ininjcom-
mercial credit: and 4 tor the rescue of encumbered estates
from hol!ele.s insolvency-making in all 13 Acts in acknow -
ledgment ot the ruin and des-pair that have haunted all
:ort- and conditions i't mten. I listened with -urprise to
the speech ot the lhon. and learned gentleman who spoke






The Home Rule Bill, 886


last. (.Mr E. Clarke). He spoke of the Parliament of Giat.-
tanhavingchecked the. commercial development of Ireland.
The hon. and learned member is a high authority. no doubt,
but. I think even he will himself admit that Lord Clare was
quite as high an authority, and he is in dhiect conflict with
him on this point. I will not pursue that. fluther, but will
quote a few figures to show how the development ,f Irish
industries has been atfected bince the Union. I find that
in Dublin in the year S100 there were 01 master woollen
manufacturers, employing 418S hands; and in the year
IS40 the industry was practical dead. There were, in
1800, 30 master wool-combers in Dublin. employing 2310
hands: while in 1S34 the industry was practically dead.
There were 13 carpet manufacturers in Dublin in 1'S0,
employing 230 hands, and in 1S41 there were none. In
the town of Kilkenny there were to be found, in 1800., 56
blanket manufacturers, employing 31000 hands: and in
the year 1822 the industry was dead. Then. again, I find
that in Dublin, in the year I00I, there weie 2500 silk loom
weaver, at work, and in 1S401 the industry was gone. In
t.he year 1799 there were 21500 calico looms at work in Bal-
llriggan; in 1S41 there were Iut, 228. In Wicklow, in 1.S00,
there were 1010 hand looms at work; in 1S41 there were
none. In the city of Cork there were at work in the year
ISOO the following industries, which had since declined:-
1000 braid weavers, of whom only 49 remained in 1534;
200) worsted weavers, of whom only 90 remained in 1S34;
3000 hosiers, of whom only 25 remained in 1834. There
were also 700 wool:, coibers,, 21000 cotton %\eavers, and Oll
linen check weaver,. each of which industries was dead in
1834. You have, therefore, the fact that all these in-
dustries which had been in existence at tie time of the
Union have either totally disappeared or have been parti-
ally destroyed before the year 1841. Now. I ask the
House, do they seriously believe that it has been to the
advantage of England. or of the Empire, that all these in-
dustries in Ireland have died out, and that the entire popu-
lation has been compelled to fall back upon agriculture as
its only means of living'. The answer is to be found in the






Home Rule


agrarian troubles that have occupied so much of the time
of Parliament and baffled all the efforts of your ablest.
statesmen to cope with or remedy. The right hon. member
for West Birmingham has another argument, and it. was
thi--that the Bill will lead to separation. He said that
the Bill would change Ireland into a foreign and hostile
country," and the hon. member for Bury followed with the
same argument. It would be well for them, however, to
con-ider whether they could make Ireland more foreign
and hostile than it admittedly is at. present. But in
almost the same breath in which he spoke of this Bill mak-
ing Ireland a foreign country he said it would put her
in the position of Canada. Is Canada, then, a foreign
country? The idea is almost preposterous. But. why
.should not Ireland be put in the position of Canada?
" Because," replies the right. Lon. gentlenlan. Canada is
Friendly to the Empire and Ireland is not.." But was
Canada always friendly? The hon, member for West
Birmingham had quoted from certain passage.f in tlie
speeches. of Mr Butt on the subject. I will, however, quote
another passage from a speech of Mr Butt, in which, speak-
ing of Canada. he said:-
"In 18.'.9 Canada was with ditiiculty held by force ,of armn
fi':r the Dritish Crown. ('anada wauS in open rebelliion. Canada,
was at a distance fi,:w En.lani-- cl, -e t, a rent republic,
..rhih was certainly not iunr llin-. to ino:irp.:ra.te the Canadian
pr..,virce, with their Stitc's. The experiment .ais tried of
,ivin, Canada Hovme Rule. It has n,:t disinteer-ited the
Empiree"
But it was argued the cases were different because in
Ireland there were two nations. Well. I may say by uway
of parentheses that we (Nationalists) detest the idea ot
there being two nations in Ireland. There has been too
much bitterness between Irishmen, and we have always
looked forward with hope and some confidence to the day
when these bitter feelings would cease, and nen of all
creeds in Ireland would be able to join in an effort for the
elevation of their common country. But were there no two
nations in Canada? On the contrary. Canada had two






The Home Rule Bill, i886 9

provinces differing in race, in religion, in language, and in
law. Lower Canada contained a great French population
hostile to England, alienated from her by the memories of
recent conquest, and Catholic in their religion. Upper
Canada was chiefly peopled by EngliAh Protestant settlers
-by Puritans from Scotland and Irish Orangemen from
the Bann. Home Rule wa3 granted to Canada. The two
provinces were united under one Parliament--with all
these elements of distraction, and disaffection, and danger
-is the Empire disintegrated? Has Canada flung herself
into the arms of the Untited States? Is Canada torn by
domestic dissensions?. Canada, in-tead of being, as it was
in 1S39, the most disaffected and rebellious dependency of
Britain, is now the most attached to the Englislh c,-nnec-
tion, the most loyal in its allegiance to the English Crowun.
Provinces that seemed arrayed against each other in hpe-
less antagonism and discord are now united together.
With the differences, and the passions, and the party strifes
that agitate all con-titutional governments-the French
Catholics of Lower Canada, and the English Puritans, and
the Irish Orangemen of Upper Cajna:ll, meet in one Parlia-
ment to serve the interests of that common country, at-
tachment to which is no longer at. variance with a true
allegiance to the British Crow n. The right hon. gentle-
man says Canada is only held by a voluntary tie." But
does the right, hon. gentleman, who is regLarded as a leader
cof democratic thought in this country, mean to say he pre-
fers a Union based upon force, as the present Uumon with
Ireland, to a Union which rests upon the will of the people?
Edmund Burke said--" A voluntary tie is a moqre secure
link of connection than subordination borne with grudging
and discontent.." So say we, and so also we believe will
say the democracy of Englanrl. even though some of its
so-called leaders refuse to trust the people of Ireland.
But the argument of the right hon. gentleman may be
rumet. in another way. I utterly deny' that this Bill will put
Ireland in the position of Canada. No colony pays any
portion of the National Debt. Ireland under this Bill
will pay a. portion of the National Debt. No colony






Home Rule


pays any portion of Imperial taxation, while Ireland
would do s:o No colony pays Custom duties imposed by
the Imiperial Parliament. Ireland would do so. The
colonies fix their own electoral law, but the electoral law
for Ireland was to be fixed by the Imperial Parliament.
Then the colonies could have an army ind navy of their
own, lbut Ireland would not. have either an army or navy
of hei own. But we weie told because Irish Members are
to be withdrawn from Wes-tminster, Iieland will become
a *-olony. On this much-vexed question I have a word
or two to say. As a Nationalist, I may say I do not.
regard as entirely palatable the idea that foi ever and a,
day Ireland's voice should be excluded from the councils
of it, empire which the genius and valout of her sons have
done .o much to build up. and of wlhiclh he i to remain a
pait. I conceive, however, that even in the Bill as it,
stands the permanent exclusion of Irish Membcrs is not.
contemplated, and the Premier. by one ot the modifications
which ie he as announced, has provided that by addre:-- the
Ilish Parliament can :-obtain the light of being heard at
Weatmin-ter whenever it desires. Beyond this at present
we do inot desire to go. \We look at this matter as practical
men. If %we get our Ii i:h assembly, heaven knows we will
have a task heavy and weighty enough in the eftort to bind
together the (distuited fragments ot the nation, and to re-
pair the shattered fo tunes of otu- unfortunate rouint r-a
task which will tax all the resources, all the talent, and all
the industry of Irishmen. I do believe that if that work
is to be satisfactorily performed we cannot stand the ad-
ditional drain rendleied necessary iy representation in this
Hou.-e. Father th thntl li-, I do not. see how such lepre-
s.ent action is under present conditions practicable. The
Federal idea I understand and sympathise, with. I look
forward to thl day when it may be applied to England,
Secotland, and Wales, a, well as Ireland. Then the char-
acter of the so-called Imperial Parliament would be
changed. It would be then only an Imperial Parliament,
and all the kingdom, having their own National Parlia-
ments, might :be represented in it. But if Ireland alone






The Home Rule Bill, 1886 ii

has a Parliament of her own, I do not see how .lie can I.be
permanently represented in what is not only the Imperial
Parliament but the Legislature of England and ot Scotland.
If such repre-erntation were admitted. you must either
allow Irishmen who had sole control of Irish affairs to in-
terfere in and probably decide pmuely Englihh and Scotch
atfairs-an obvious injustice, or elke you must do what the
Premier declared it. surpassed the wit ot man to accomplish,
namely, make a definite and permanent distinction be-
tween Imperial and local affairs. The hon. member who
last spoke said he believed that. the conces-.ion of autonomy
to Ireland would lead to separation. I would ask. how
Ireland was held now?
Lord Arthur Hill-By force.
I thank the hon. member for the word. It is now
held by force: I.,ut does the present Bill prl'opojse to take
away that force, which I presume means the Etunglih army
and navy. No; it still left thee- force- under Imperial
control. But in addition to physical force you would have
working on the side of connection and against -lepa ration
the moral force springing from justice conceded, which the
English Government of Ireland has never yet had upon
its side.
I now come to what, after all, seemed to he the chief
objection to Home Rule, in the minds of tmo-t Englishmen,
and which might be summned up in the worid Ulster."
Ulster, they say, is a Protestant and anti-Nationaia-t
province, and could not be put under the dominion of
a Nationalist Parliament in Dublin. But let me ask, is
Ulster either Protestant on anti-Nationalist? First, i
Ulster Protestant?' Last year a return was issued by
Parliament giving the religious denominations otf the popu-
lation of Ulster. From that it appeared that forty-eight
per cent. of the whole population was Catholic, and re-
mainring lifty-two per cent. was made iup of all other ereeds,
and leaving Belfast out, the Catholics %were to-day fifty-five
per cent. of the whole population. But their case was
stronger even than that. It had recently been pointed out
that Ulster might well be divided into two distinct portions






Home Rule


-one portion consisting of Antrim and portions of Down
and Armagh, containing a majority of Protestants, they
being three-fourths of the population; the other portion.
consisting of Donegal, Tyrone. Derry, Fermanagh. Cavan.
Monaghan, and portions of Down and Armagh. containing
a majority of Catholics, they being t.wo-thirds of the :po:pu-
lation. The exact figures were-in the first portion
Catholics. 1. S,259: Protestants. 542,S62. In the second
portion. Catholics. 645.279: and Protestants, 316,647. In
the face of these facts, can Ulster truthfully be termed a
Piotestant. province? The right lion. gentleman, the
member for \West Birmingham. speaks of the necessity of
a separate Parliament for Ulster. His object is to protect
the Protestants. But surely if any Protestantz wanted
protection, they were, no-t those in Ulster, but those in the
South and 1\'est who were in such a miserable minority.
But would a Patliament in Ulster fulfil his ..vbject even in
that province?' \Why. unless the entire basis of representa-
tion be changed, such a Parliament must inevitably con-
tain a majority of Catholics. Now, let me ask. is Ulster
anti-National? The answer is -upplied by the rettuns at
the last elections. Out of the nine counties of Ulster only
one, n.]mely Antrim, went sold against Home Rule, and
if nmy hon. friend the member for Sligo (Mr Sexton) had
secured tiirty-eigiht. more votes in BelfaIt, not even one
solitary county in Ulster or in Ireland would have declared
against Houme Ru le. Four entire counties-Donecral
Fermanagh. Cavan and Monaghan-went solid for Home
Rule. The remaining four counties-namely, Derry,
T*ione. Armagh and Down-were so divided that the
net, result was to give the Nationalists a clear majority
of the Ulster seats. while Belfast and Derry were only lost.
by thirty-seven and twenty-seven votes. In the face of
these facts it is the utmost folly to speak of Ulster as anti-
Nation:tJ. There is one somewhat frivolous matter to
which I would wish to refer-the war-like intentions of a
.-eitain party in Ireland. I hold in my hand an interest-
ing statement from a well-kno\wn gentleman in Ireland.
Writing on this subject, he says:-






The Home Rule Bill, I886 13

If the men of Ulster fi.:ht at ill it will not be with tie rest
of Ireland, but with each other. The men of Antriu, Down
and Armagh, before con,.quering Leinster, Connaught and
Muster, will have to take in hand the subjugati,,n of the six
other Ulster counties. Ditches will have to be lined, not merely
north of the Boyne, but v.eit of the Bann-not merely frort
Belfast to Dublin, but from Belfast to Donegal, and from
Armagh to Derry. In short, tihe idea of the Pr.-.testant portion
of Ulster conquering the Catholic portion is as abourrl as the
contention that Laneahiire (told conquci the northern counties
of England. Although there are Orangemen and Protestants in
every one of the nine Ulster countie-, it i, only in Antrim,
Down and Armagh that they could a-.s'mhle in sut-icient
strength to overawe the local Catholics. IHov c\:r, slthlouh it
is the wildest on-,nen-e to imagine anvthin. of the kind, let it
be understood that the Orangemen in the nortih-eat of Ulster
have taken up arms under the command of Major Saund. rson
and Mr Johnson, of Ballvkilbeg, with a view to: the reduction
and occupation of the remainder of the province as the re-ult of
the Repeal of the Union. To begin with, on enterirn:z lona-han
the ('range army, or rather mob, would find itself in 'i country
inhabited by 27,000 Prote-tants and 76,(100 Catholics. On
pushing forward into Cavan tle- Oran-',mnjen would Ibe amongst
-5,0)00 Protestants and 10)5,i00 Catholi.n. In Ferman3ah,
their task of subjugation would be comparatively light, aE the
Catholic. in that county are only fifty-sis per cent. ; but in
Donegal the Orange army or mob, or rather what remained of
it, would be simply swallowed up, for in that wildly remote and
exten-ive and inhb.spitalle region, possessing admirable facilities
fo.r a defensive warfare, the Protestant- are .'nl 4I-,000 in
number, the Catholics beinri 15S,000."
I ought to ajtolopise for even alluding Aliortlv to this
matter, hut I have done -, for the putr'l' ose of enliveingi
the somewhat tedious character of my remarks. I deeply
regret having to spe.ik of Prrotcstants and Catholics in
connection with the matter at all. Ours is not a sectariaii,
hut a National movement. If Home Rule were Lranted
the Protestant minority would have equal right' and
liberties with their C'atholic fellow-countrymnen. The
truth is, the Catholics of Ireland entertain feelings of deep
respect and affection for their Protestant fellow-t.otintry-
men. Protestants led the National movements of Ireland
for generations. A Protestant Parliament, in 1793, struck
the filst blow at the Penal Co'de and commenced the work






Home Rule


of Catholic Emancipation; Protestant. patriots shed their
blood on the scaffold and in the field in defence of the
liberties o-f their Catholic countrymen; and there is not ai
single one of the Catholic leaders of the people to-day who
would not reject with scorn and derision .'nv settlement of
the National question which did not secure for the Pro-
testants of Ireland full civil and religious hlierty. Some
hon. members in this House-Radicals in principle--ob-
ject to the tiret order which, elected on a higher franchise,
is to form part of the Irish Legislature under this Bill, as
bIeiLn contrary to democratic ideas. Do they think that
we aIre less democratic than they are, and do they wonder
why we accept such provisions? I will tell them. It is
because. altholuch we know the fears of otu Protestaut
fellow-rountrymien are unworthy and unfounded fears.
at the same time we retcognise those fears, and we desire
by every means in our power to ive guarantees s to every
section and every creed amoncn-t oau' cotuntrvymen, that. our
sole object in think movement is to build up: a united and
a pros:perou- Irish nation. On the details I will not speak
further than I have done, and I have only a few more
words to say in conclusion.
A passing allusion was made by the Prime Minister in
hi. great. speeh in introdicintg think measure to the historic
mission of Lord Fitzwilliam to Ireland in 1795. It seems
to me that there are many circumn-tances connected with
the present situation similar t tthe circumstances which
attended the mission of Lord Fitzwilliam. At. that time
the Irish Parliament had commenced the work of Catholic
emancipation, and at last Edmund Burke and some others
had induced the English Cabinet to adopt a policy of
conciliation and emancipation, and Lord Fitzw\illiam was
the bearer of a messa._e of peace to Ireland, as the right
hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary (M\r Morley) was the
bearer of a mes-ave of peace to Ireland the other day. The
hopes of the IriNh people were raised high, and it would he
difficult indeed for any man to say how entirely different
the whole course of Irish history miliht have been if Lord
Fitzwilliam had been allowed to carry his policy into effect.






The Home Rule Bill, I8S6 1s

but evil counsels prevailed in England-the policy of con-
ciliation, that policy which has since been acknowledged
as a policy of justice, was wrecked. The policy of justice
was reversed. Lord Fitzwilliam was \withdrawn, and a re-
turn was made to the old, old policy of repre- sion. Then
followed the rebellion of 'OS. and the many disasters which
have marked the connection of the two countries. I don't
wish to be a prophet of evil-I don't, believe that similar
results will follow from the wrecking of this Bill. but re-
member the words of Henry Grattan when he said:-
'Lord Fitzwilliam i.? offering to the Enipire th,. affection of
millions of hlearts."
I ask you. is the offering of the affection of millions of
hearts which the Prime Miinister is to-da'y wakino to the
Empire to be rejected as was the offering of Lord Fitz-
william? One thing English politicians must make up
then minds about, and that is that this question must be
settled, and every moment of delay increases the ditfi-
culties and dangers of that position. Eveiy speech con-
ceived in a bitter spirit, by either Irishmen or Englishmen.
mus-t tend to increase the evils and dangers of the moment.
The spirit in which the Prime llini.-ter has addressed him-
self to the question, the spirit of large-hearteduesz and
justice which he exhibited, has called forth a responsive
feeling in the breasts of the Irish people right round the
world. If that be the spirit in which Englishmen address
themselves to the consideration of this question, then I
have some hope for the near futtue of Ireland. But if
passion and prejudice, if forgetfulness of the history of
Ireland and impatience at her faults are allowed once
again to sway the public mind and to influence Parliament.
I confess I camiot look forward to the near future without
the gravest apprehension. Should calamity follow an un-
wise and hasty rejection of this Bill. we, at any rate. will
not be responsible, for we will allow no act or word of ours
to intensify the dangers and difficulties of the situation.
We make our appeal to-day to the newly-enfranchised
democracy of England. Eternal will be its honour through






16 Home Rule

all the ages, and priceless will be its recompense, if its first
great work, after achieving its own enfranchisement,
should be to fill up the gulf of hatred and distrust which
for so long a time has divided the two nations, by a just
nnd a wise concession to that national sentiment in Ireland
which, however much some Englishmen may affect to
deride it, ha. yet dominated Irish character for seven
centuries, and must be recognized and respected if Ireland
is ever to become, as I fervently pray she may soon be-
come, a peaceful, free and contented nation.












IRISH NATIONAL CONVENTION IN
CHICAGO

An Irish Nati.-nal Conventio n wais iill in Chicqic:.. iu Au-uiI t
1 '513. Mr Re':-diiondl atteud.-'d and add]rcsi.te, the rl.:-ting
on the IS.th Auuui.t.

THE duty Iwhie (c1Oh dClevolve Up1'1 my llluies 1and my-.elf
of representing the Ii'sh nation at home, at thi g teat
gathering of the Liish nation abroad. is one inl which the
honour is great and the respotjsibility bhealv. Perhaps
the greatest rlory of our nation is to be fo'.ind in the fact
that our people, hdiven by mis'frturne ,and mictlule ftiom
thlie land of their fa the ts, and coming to this land rude,
ignorant and pool, ha\e yet been ablle to hear an hono:ur-
able part in building up the f'otitines. of A \neriica, a nd to
give to the world nrldenia.ble proof that, in additional to the
qualities of filelity and honesty, Ir'mlinen, under a free
constitution, can I.e worthy sons andl toold itizent of their
adopted country. The Irish Ileople in this gieat republic,
no less as. Americ,.an citizens than as Irish Nationalists,
have aTrested the attention and commanded the ad-mira-
tion of the world. The assemilly of this dlay is a proot ot
devotion to a gteat c-au-.Se, p.lerhla:lp unparalleled in hliitory.
The hardsilps, the oppress-ions, and the miieries which
drove you or y:our father-, fr,-in Ireland. havre wedded your
hearts to Ireland's cause by ties which neither prosperity,
nor distatwce, nor time can destroy or weaken. No selish
interests urge you to support the old c-aule, devotion to
which brought, ruin and death upon your forefathers and
exile upon yourselves. Selishne s and worldly interests
all point to another coiurs-e -s the best.; but it is the un-
dying glory of Ireland that her exiled sons, in the inid't, of
prosperity, and in the light, of liberty, have yet found time
to absent themselves from felicity awhil t to tell her story,





Home Rule


and have made it, a part of their daily life and nigLhtly
dream to help in working out her redemption.
The Irish :soldier, whose sword was ronseeraoted to the
service of America, dream eud, a-. he went into battle, of t he
day when his arm. skilled in the service of his adopted
country, Nidrht strie a blow for Iri-sh liberty. The Irish
business man, who found in one of, your gigantic cities
scope for his enterprise and for his industry, looked for-
ward to the day when fromr his store help might g,-i aero-s
the:- Atlantic to sustain Ireland's champions :on the old sod.
The Irikh lIabourer, whose lirawny arms have built your
railroads and reared 'Ayour stately paIlaces, in the midst of
his lab:'urs laid aside his daily or weekly mite to help those
who v~ere fighting, tilue after time wilh one weapon or
another, in the old cause agaiist the old enemies of Ire-
land. Rich or poor, high or low. alike, the Irish in
America have never fore.:otten the land whence they
spr;anr,. and otu- people at home, in their joys and their
-sorrows, in their hopes and in their fears, turn ever for
help and ercorai,.'elmc lit and conidcnrice to, thlj great re-
public. upon whose fortune,, ind %\ hose.e future test to-day
the bIlesslncs of the Iri-h race. To -iassi t at. this great.
convention of the Irish nation in America. es-.peclly to
stand here : s we do:. a, the amba--ador --ent here to Irepre-
sent the Irish nation at home:, is indeed a supreme honour
which we t'an never over-estimate and can ne-ver forget.
But it is alo anr honour which Iears with it indeed an
overwhehniing sense of respeons.ibilit'y-the re-pon-iililty
,,f sho:,wing to you that we n ho arec conducting this move-
ment at lhome are worthy of your confidence, and have a.
right to claim your continued support: the lespon.ibility
nlso or clearly placing. Before you the conditions upon
which alone we can accept that support or value that con-
fidence. Let me dwell a mome t upon these two points.
Are we worthy of your confidence. and have we a right to
claim your continued support? In order to answer this
question satisfl.-torily we must show, first, that we are
guided by the same principle and animated by the same
hopes as yotuselves; and in the second place, that our






Irish National Convention


movement is conducted on a wise and honest. policy.
What is the principle underlying this movement? It is
the unquestioned recognition of the nationality of Ireland.
We are working not simply for the removal of grievances
or the amelioration of the material condition of our
people. Nothing. I think, is plainci than if Ireland had
in the past abandoned principle, she could easily have
bartered her national rights to England, and in return
have obtained a certain amount ot material pro-'pcity.
If only our forefathers had meekly accepted the yoke of
an alien rule. Ieland's fetters would have been gilded, and
the hand which for centuries has as sotuged her would have
given her, as a slave, indulgences and favors which
would have perhaps saved her from sufferings which ale
without a parallel in the history of oppression. If. at the
bidding of England, Ireland had zges since abandoned her
religion, and consented to merge her nationality, we
night. to-day be the sleekest of slaves, fattened by the
bounty of our conquerors. Scotland, by even a smaller
compromise of her national existence, has ec'ured for hel-
self comparative prosperity. But Ireland has preferred
rags and an unco:nquered spirit of liberty to favors won
by national dishonour.
The principle embodied in the Irish movement of to-
day is just the same principle which was the s'oul of every
Irish movement for the last seven centuries-the principle
of rebellion against, the rule of strangers; th, principle
which Owen FRoe O'Neil vindicited at Benburb; which
animated Tone and Fitzgerald. and to which Emmet.
sacrificed a stainless life. Let no man desecrate that
principle by giving it the ignoble name of hatred of Eng-
land. Race hatred is at best anr unreasonuing pa.ion I,
for one, believe in the brotherhood of nations, and bitter
as the m-mory is of past wrongs aind present injustice in-
flicted upon our people by :,our alien rulers, I assert the
principle underlying our movement is not the principle of
revenge for the past but of justice for' the future.. Vhen a
question of that principle arises there can be no such thing
as compromise. The Irish leader who would propose to






Home Rule


compromise the national claims of Ireland, who would
even incline for one second to accept as a settlement of our
demand any .concession short of the unquestioned reco~'-
nition of that nationality which ha. ,Come down to us
.sanctified I.iy the blood and tears of centuries, would Ibe
false to Ireland's history and would forfeit all claims upon
your eonfidenee or support. Such a corntmgeney can
never arise, for the man who would be traitor e-ntiouh to
propose such a course would find himself no longer a leader.
No man can .barter away the honour of a nation. The one
great. principle of any settlement of the Irish question
must be the recogiition of the divine right of Irishmen. and
Irishmen lone, to rule Ireland. This is the principle
in support of which you are assembled to-day: this is the
principle which guides our movement in Ireland. But
eI:nsisttently with that principle we 1.melieve it is prisihle
to I.,rin- al:bout a settlement honourable to England and
Ireland alike, whereby the wro ngs and nmi.eeries of the past.
may he forgotten; whereby the chapter of Etirlish wrongs
and of Irish resistance. may be ,los-ed; and whereby a
itu re of freedom and of amity between the two nations
may be incumuit-urated.
Such a settlement., we believe, was offered to us hy Mr
Gklastone-, and quiite apart from the increased strength
whielh r Gladstone's proposals, ev.-en though temporarily
(defeated. have given to our cause, we have, I think.
rea.,on to rejoice at the opportunity which they afforded to
our suffering andn exaqserated people to show the mag-
nanimity of their natures andl the unalloyed purity of
their love o:f liberty. What a spectacle Ireland afforded
to thle world, when a-t last one great Englishlman arose
bold e.noug'h andl wise enough to dro justice to her character!
Ages of heartle.-s oppres'ic.ln and bitter wrong, huni:'eds
of thousands of martyr, to Irish freedom. aes of stupid
religious persecution. ages of depopulation and state-
created fminie,: never-ending insult, and ruthless calumny
-all in that one moment were lorrotten, aurl the feelings
uppermost in the e.arts of the Iri-h race at home and
abroad were gratitude to the aged statesman who simply






Irish National Convention 2r

proposed to do justice, and anxiety for a blessed oblivion
of the past." Who, in the face of the reception given to
the Bill of M1r Glndstone, cramped and deformed as it was
by himuiliating safeguards aind unnecessary limitations,
will ldare to say that the principle of our movement is
merely race hatred of Enla-ind?
No! Last. April Ireland was ready to forget and for-
give. She wis ready to saeritice many things f:or peace-,
as long as the one essential principle for which she struggled
was conceded. She was %willing, on the day when, the
portals of her aniiient senate-house were re-opened, to
ha ik': hands with her heredity ry foe, .ind to procla im peace
between the democracies of two natioi-;s wihomn the
Amighty pla :ed side hy side to he ft'iend, but who had
been kept .apart by the avarice, the p-i'siois, and the in-
justice of a few. \1Val cent u'ie. o:f oppression had failed
to do seemed about to bo? accomplished l.y on.e word of
conciliation hby one act of justice.
Almost olle hundred years before a similar r opportunity
arose. The Irish people thcn demuranirded Catholic o-man-
cipation llnd Parliaimen taly ryet'fori, and in 1795 Lord
Fitzwilliam came to Irela nd to carry out :i policy of justice.
Then, just as last April, the Irish question was on the very
brink of settlement. The passion of revenge died out,
ancient wrongs were forgotten. faction faded at the ap-
proach of liberty, anid for one brief moment th' clouds
lifted over Ireland. But the moment was brief.
Lord Fitzwilliam was recalled, arnd Lord Canmdcn went.
to Ireland and dehlbrately clommeineed the lpoliy which
culminated in the rebelblon of 179_. Fiaally alike in
almost all its details was the- crisis of that day to the crisis
of to-day. Once agairi the policy of conc J iliation has been
cast. aside by England. The English Viceroy who repre-
sented the policy of liberty, and who was the first English
Viceroy since 1795 who was greeted with the ncclamations
of the populace in Dublin, has left our shores, and in his
place has come one bearing the hated na me of Castlereagh.
Once again all thought of amity with England has been
banished from the minds of Irishmen, and to--day we are






Home Rule


once more face to face with our hereditary foes. The
storm cloud has descended once more upon our land. but
we have a right to call on the world to remember, when by-
and-by it perhaps shudders at the darkness and gloom and
horror of the scene, how brightly and peacefully the Irish
landscape smiled during the brief sunshine of the last few
months.
The duty of the moment is clear. \Ve have given
England the most convincing proof that on the concession
of liberty we can be trusty frienj-.l: it now remains for us
to prove for the thousandth time that as slaves we can be
formidable foes. I assert here to-day that the c.-overnment
,of Ireland by Einland is an impossibility, and I believe it
to be o:ur duty to keep it so. Were our people tamely to
submit to the yoke which has been once aisair placed on
thehu necks they would be unworthy of the blood which
they have inherited from fathers who preferred poverty to
dishonour arnd death to national slavery.
But there is no dancer of such a disgrace. The national
movement is in the hands of a man who can be bold as well
as cautious, and I claim the confidence and support of the
Irish in America, not only because they are aniimated by
the same principle and the same hopes as we are, but be-
cause oIu movement at home is conducted on a wise and
honest policy. Judged by the test of success how does
that policy stand? Has .our cause for one instant stopped
iii its progress toward triumph? When last you assembled
iii convention, two years ago, the Irish party in Parliament
did not number more than forty; to-day we hold five-
sixths of the Irish seats. and speak in the name of five-
sixths of the Irish people in Ireland. Two years ago we
had arrayed against us all English political parties and
every English statesman: to-day we have upon our side
one of the great English political part ie,. whichh though its
past traditions in Ireland have been evil, still represents
the party of progress in England, and the greatest states-
man of the day who has staked his all upon winning for
Ireland her national rights. Two years ago England had
in truth, in Mitchel's phrase, the ear of the world. To-






Irish National Convention 23

day, at last., that ear. so long poisoned with calumnies of
our people, ik now open to the voice of Ireland. Two
years ago the public opinion of the \orld-ay, a-nd even
of this free land of Ameri.a-was doubtful as to the justice
of our movement; to-day the opinion of the civili-ed
world, and of America in particular. is clearly and dis-
tinctly upon our side. Has the policy which la- wrouguht
this change been a su,:cets, and a.re the men who have
raised the Irish cause to its present po ition worthy of your
continued confidence and -support?
Well. but for the refuture what is the poUcy and who are
to be the framers of that. policy? Here I come to the
second point. I mentioned at the Iegiiming-namely, the
condition upon which alone we can value your confidence
:or accept your support. So long as we are true to the 2reat
principles of Irishi nationality, resolutely refusing either to
be bought or coerced fr.-m a rigid adherence to the full
measure of national right, and so long a, we are able to
point to our past. policy as hone-t and -u,:cessful, we ?ay
we, and no other-, are entitled to decide for omr-elves upon
Irish soil and upon i:ur own responsibility what our policy
for the future ik to be. This i- the condition upon which
you have givcn your -upport. to ui in the past. and it i- the
condition upon which alone we can accept, your -upport for
the future. Of one thing, however, you may rest a-.sured
-the policy in Ireland in the near future will be one of
fight.. The chief of the pres-ent Ering;l Gvernment
recently pre--.rilied aq a remedy for Irish discontent
twenty years' coercion. He florg:it the hiiitorical fact that
since the Act of Union there had been eighty-~iix years' co-
ercion, and that the spirit of the people is sterner and
higher to-day than ever it wa-.s before. For coercion he
was quite prepared, and to coercion Lord Salislury will
most assuredly be forced to come, although the policy of
the new Government seems to be to: try and stave off stern
measures for awhile. They will, however. soon find out
their mistake.
To the concession of justice and hblrty there is no
alternative but coercion. To imagine that. Ireland could






24 Home Rule

jog along peacefully for even six months under the rule of
the new ('a-stlerealgh is to set down our people a.s ctaveins or
fools. In the comiri winter the i laws of w nature itself will
forl,id the poi.sil:'ility of peaie. For the !.-t six months
the tenant farimeis of Iieland have play~I. a part too little
known and allpprleciated here. They submitMted t-o untold:
pliv.tions and - tierings arind exactions in piatiel-:c an.iii ill
silence, lect bly oIne wotd or a:rt of their b tlhe should ein-
li.ulass theil leaders in Parliament, o-r retard l;.y one
nlomeiat the eor',e--ion of Home Rule. The landlord'ls' of
Ireland noted. Ijut to.,tally nmii1nder-too, d thie meaniing o(
the .-haline of attituide.l They mintook forljbea aine and
patii,-,tism for (co 'waI:lice. aind the cowul.,ar brigade o'-nce-
mwore set to work. Still thb tenants .s uffierl in silence.
Mr (la',t.one piopoeal ia Land Bill which would have
bioueht out. the landlolrd.s nt an extravagantly lhivih figure,
yet tie Irish tenants were rc aly. beiua- e it vw,-is coupled
with the I:cnccssi on of Htouie Rule. to :pay this exorbitant.
qurn a;s the pri-e to b1e paid for national freedom. f-lut all
motive fo.r Til.ie.- .m eoni thth 1 i:ut i now ronle, the saliIds
hai r isn thion-.h thi e honi-llass., andl the old tilit bI:etween
Ianind lo:l auid tenIant micust tleivIe if tih:- people alr.- not to
be -swept out of exiten-et while they ale waiting for Home
Rule.
Once more Iri-hl lain.dlord- have I.,ehaved with nui-
accountille folly .ind stupidity. They have once mr,'n
stood betIween Iihland andill her freedom, anid have ieftiIed
even .in extravagant pric' for the land n-because the offiler
was -oi-pl':d nwith the A:oncesiont of an Itiihi Parliament.
So be it. I li-eve tlie la:it oflei has- b-e-n made to Iiisli
landlo..rdisrm. Til. ultimate Iettli-ment, of thi- question
mnitst now ipb res.ved foi the Parliam'ent 'ot Ircland, and
meanitime the:- people iu-i-t. take c-ie t.o protect thli -.elves
and their biildren. In many paits of Iielanid, I assert,
rent is to-day ain impoi-ibility, and in ev,.-ty part of Ireland
the rents demanded ate exoi liitanit, anid will not and cannot.
I:c paid. ThIe old sotrg.le will be revived, and before
t hiee month .ni c over the new Gove nm nt will Ie forced,
as ot old, in defence of the rent, of the landlords, to attempt,






Irish National Convention 25

to forge anew the fetters of coercion. The process n- il not
Le an easy one, and even if suc:-cessful we have no reason
to fear the worst they can do. For my part. indeed. I
think it but right and fitting, that o.- long as Englishmen
rule Ireland they should lie forced to do so by coercion.
We have to-day no, constitution, and it. is welU that the
mask of constitutionalimin should be torn from the faces
of our rulers and the fact made patent to tlhe world. In
this coLini- strui.,r le,, ~whi:-li we hoine:etlvy ipelieve will he
the final one before victory, we claim the a.- istancie of our
fellow-coiutr ymen and the symiipa thy of all the citizens of
this great. Republli. Gentlemen. I have rn.w done. The
memory of this day will live with me while memory lasts.
The effect- of the work upon which you ha ie been eng.iLed
will., I believe, live and be felt ;o lone a- thi -;tru-ii!2e con-
tinues. Your wisdom wilU tiude ou' policy, your colrage
will inspire our hearts your marvellou~s unii on will excite
our emula tion. You have ood reason, indeed. to be
proud of the proceedingr- f this day. You are. in truth,
engaged in a noble anrd i sacred work--nothing less than
ch-impioning the weak against thel strong, the i--lple-.
against the powerful the afflicted against the ploisrerouis.
You have longo since e.uned for yotu-elves and yAour
adopted country the I.le-inels.' of the poor, and rest a suired
when at lat.t victory -its upon our cai nu and freedom is
again enthroned in Ireland, you alko will reap a reward.
for the God of the poor and the oppres-sed, thie God of
justice and of mercy, wiiU also increase your prosperity
and watch eternally over your l:brtir-.












IRISH PROTESTANTS AND HOME RULE

A Lecture delivered in the Rotunda, Dublin,
29th November 18S6.
IN choosing a subject for my lecture to-night I have been
guided by a consideration which ought. I think. to be
present to the mind of everyone who properly appreciates
the position in which the National cause is placed at this
moment. That cause, which in the time of our own
fathers appeared to be a losing one, associated, as it was,
with memories of almo-t unbroken disaster and defeat,
has suddenly experienced that turn of fortune which is
ever in store for a cause founded upon truth. W'e have
sc-en the cause of Irish liberty advanced in our day to the
very' threshold of victory. \e have seen our friends
multiplying and our enemies disappearing: we have seen
the heart of the civilized world touched by the spectacle
of Ireland's constancy and devotion, and iunds and ears
thl.t were lone. closed by prejudice and ignorance against
the demands of Ireland are now open to the voice of
reason. Up to the pre-ent it has been a blind struggle
of might against right. Force, and rnot reason, has been
the guiding principle in the government of our country;
but to-day Engrland. if she has not conceded our demand,
has, at any rate, laid aside the sword and consented to
listen to argument. When once, to a cause founded upon
right, the test of argument is thus applied the triumph
of justice is assured. The last elections in Great Britain
showed Wales and Scotland in agreement with Ireland,
and showed England not so much hostile as perplexed,
hesitating and doubtful. She wai willing to listen and
to learn, but. she knew not whom to trust, or whose stoly
to believe. Her doubts and -perplexities alone stand
between us and the final triumph of our cause to-day.
These doubts and perplexities are, in my opinion, for the
26






Irish Protestants and Home Rule 27

most part, sincere and honest: and the one great dity
of the moment for Irish Nationalists is to explain them
away or to satisfy them.
In fulfilment of this duty I have selected my subject
for to-night, and inrt.ead of seekingg simply as a Nationalist
to an audience of Nationalists. I pref r to addres- myself
to the task of rnappling with one of those difficulties which
many Englishmen do honestly see in the way of a concee-
sion of IHome Rule to Ireland.
The charge made against the mass of the Irish people
of religious intolerance i perhaps. the most insulting
accusation which could be levelled against a nation
struggling to be free, and, it proved, would go far, indeed,
to justify the refusal of free institutions to a people who
themcelvcs had not conceived the fundamental ideas of
freedom. Such a h.a ie again-it any nation at this time
of the nineteenth century to ordinary person.- -would seem
a little exaggerated bhut coming from the people of
England against the people of Ireland, s-iuch a charge miust
seem to anyone who knows' the fac:ts. ind has read the
pages of history, little short of absurd and ridiculous.
Still, the accusation w-as fr- eily made against our people
during the last ele,:tions. The English people were told
by statesmen, who well know the contrary to be the truth,
that it would not he safe to give Home Rule to Ir:land,
because Ireland was made up not of one nation .,ut of two,
and that the Protestant Irish nation being in the minority
would suffer perse-ution and injustice at the hands of a
National Plrliament in Dublin containing a majority of
Catholics. Absurd as this accusation is there is reason
to believe that it had considerable weight with mn:ny
Englishmen, and it undoubtedly constitutes ont of the
difficulties which still stand in the way of the concres.-ion
of seli-government. to hreland. It consequently becomes
our duty to expose its fallacy, to show its inherent im-
possibility, and to appeal to the pages of history in sup-
port. of our argument.
I propose shortly to prove-first, that there are no
two nations in Ireland to-day, and secondly, that all the


r






28 Home Rule

history of the past dispilove. the amsertiou that Catholic
Irishmen ever were guilty of religious persecution, and
all the experience o:if the present shows them to be incap-
able either of inte:lelance or big,:try. I assert that there
are no two nation in Ireland to-day-that ill the people
of thiJs land-Catholie ,ntd Protestant and Presbyterian-
of Celtic, or Norman, or S. ixon extraction-are all children
of one nt ion bound together not only bIy ,cowmon intere-st
I.ut by cotuuion traditions, memories and history. In
order to prove my assertion it is necessary briefly to lance
at the history ot Protestant patriotism in Ireland, and to
show how the English Protestn it colony became, in fact,
and in substance incorporated with the native Irish, as
the Normans had been incorporated with them bef':re,
and hol, whvat was e.,t,ilFlish,:.d a-s an Enlish garrison n
in the end Ie.e:a.ne converted into the g.ul'ison of
the national rights td liberties of Ireland. In tracin,
tli-, story I will at oie and the ,amc- time lshiii how mnuch
Ireland owes to lher Protestant patriotic,: and (how I tron.'
are the bonds wLnIh ulite into one nation Irishmen of
every reblious perIl:.lsion.
From 1-91, for nearly one hundred years, the native
CathoIlic wa-Ses were penalized and ouItla\ved. They wete
hanisei-d frol: P.'.rliimient and deprivedr of the franchise;
they :could not po.,sse"s property. or )ractise their religion,
or edua:-te their j :children. Their leaders were in exile.
fglhtin n undetl the standards of foreign monarchs, and those
at honme il Irelandl beaten to the ground 1were hopelseaI nind
help Curiously enoiiLh.'l what went by the Ina.e ,of
" the Irish nation was the colony of English Protcstants
who had undertaken the government of the o., iint v, wiho
had ,beciimie poi:sese'ed -,f the land:ls -f the Catholics, and
who were .,o divided ftorn thie ima-Oes. of thle people by re-
li.i'n .111 n sentiment that they seemed. to think their ouly
safety lay in forginu- penal clhinis for the native Irish.
I think no history in the world attords a parallel to the
exti.iordinary leult which speedily followed.
Native, and Colo nists co:alecred. The latter, as Burke
said, at length discovered that they had a country and



a!






Irish Protestants and Home Rule 29

became as Irish ras the Irish themselves. The nation
was consohdated by the fusion of the Irish of En.,idsh
blood with the Irish of Irish blood. The manner in whii:h
this happy consumlniat.i'm was brought albot ,was charac-
teristic of the treatment \\hieh Ireland had ever received
from the government of England.
The Protestant colony was expected by England to
enslave the Irish nation; but having done ,o,, it was
expected also to submit to slavery itself. Your ances-
tors,'" said John Philpot Curran to the Irish Parrliment a
hundred years niterward.--" your an-ces-tors thought
themselves the oppressors of their fUllow-countrymen,
but they were only their jaiilors; and the justice of Pro-
vidence would have been frustrated if their own slavery
had not been the punishment of tli-ir vice and tolly'
The Protestant colony hiid succIceedd in completely sip-
pressing t he native Irish. It had absolutely -excluded
the Carholics from power. It had mlde tlhe executive
of the country excleively Prl' test.iit; but. when it
aspired to freedom for itself, it was speedily taught that
it. was nothing more thin the agent of England, and that
the only freedom it could claim wvas the freedom to oppress
and trample on the ancient Irish nation. In point of
fact. as sooln .is the colony had succeeded in enAltivin! the
Irish, England set to world; to enslave the colony. The
colony had deprived the Catholics of a share in Parlia-
ment. England thereupon rolbbed the Parliament of its
independence. The colony hadli condemned the Catholi:si
to poverty, England thereupon restricted the trade and
destroyed the prosperity of the colony.
The claim of the EnglihR Parliament to control, direct
and bind the Irish legislature was of old origin. Poyning's
Law, which. enacted that no Bill could be originated in the
Irish Parliament until the headIs of it had Ibeen anctiioned
by the English Privy Council, was, it is true, p:. ied so.
early ao 1495. But repeatedly the Irish Parliament had
endeavoured with more or less suc-cess to free itself from
the fetter. In 1640 it asserted its rirht toi le -islative
independence. Later on, the Corifederation of Kilkenny


Wn






30 Home Rule

asserted the same right in a still more unequivocal manner.
In 16S9 the Parliament of *James II. repealed Poyninug's
Act, and again asserted the legislative independence of
Ireland. But after the triumph of William III. the Irish
legislature definitely sank to the level of a committee
of the English Parliament. and the more the colonists
suppressed the hherties of the Catholics, the more England
suppres-ed their own privile .'es and degraded their own
Parliament. In 1 ;9. a fatal blow was struck ,by England
at the commercial prosperity of the colony. The woollen
trade was practical .uippressed. All exports of woollen
cloths were prohibited except to England and Wales, and
even this exception was delusive. for heavy duties, amount-
inv to a prohibition. prevented Iri-h cloth being imported
into England or Wales. All trade between Ireland and
the c'uoloniefa was prohibited by the Navigation Lnws.
Mr Lecky says in his Hi.lorti of Irtnd in Iith Eilghtttntl
Coittl',r :
"ProtL. tntr: thin -:l-gan to find thit they were -s little
thoiicht of za the C thtoli's. The :jfppre--:ion nf thb. w'..iill:n
trmal bir..',ht rkin utpoil t welve thloua:Lid Pr,.t--tarnt families in
Dul:iin, nrd.l thirty thousand. in the rest of the country. Dv her
commercial laws- ELi.uiauil idelieriate-iy cru-h,-:l the prosperity of
thi Proteitint colony of Irel'ndi, drove thous nilds then into
exile, arre-te-.l the ir.luxi of Pr,.tte:taut population itrom ('Gr-,tt
lrit-iin, nil ini-pire.l t.lh Pres..vterii as .,f the ii rtl with a
bitter hatred of her rule."
In 'point of fact a deliberate system was established
to put down alike the political pretensions and the com-
mercial prosperity of the Protestants of Ireland, who then
found themselves in this extraordinary situation. They
had, supported by England, practically enslaved the Irish
people. and in return they were expected t)o calmly accept.
the position of leavess thems-elves. Then there was born
in the breasts of those men the tf'st spark of that sentiment
of nationality which was destined to win for them and their
country commercial freedom and legislative independence,
and eventually to weld into one nation Irisluuen of all
creeds and of all bloods. This spirit at flrst was very






Irish Protestants and Home Rule 31

timid, very narrow-minded and selfish. It never seemed
to occur to these men that to constitute a nation, and to
assert. its independence, the concession of liberty to all
Irishmen was essential.
At first their ideas orf nationality included only the
Protestants of Ireland. \Ve shall see by-and-by bow thia
idea fructified and developed, until in the minds of
Grattan and his colleagues, the Irinh nation for which
they had struggled included their countrymen of every
creed. The first evidence of this growing spirit of revolt
against English oppression was furnished by the publica-
tion of the celebrated C'..s' of Irelwld Sti.71'., which was a
book written by Mr William Molyneux, Member for Dublin
University, in which he :onclusively proved that England
had no kgal or equitable right to interfere in the legis-
lationi of the Irish Parliament. It uas, in truth, as a
voice crying in the wilderness Men were amazed at
its audacity, and Envghsh statesmen were horrified at
what they called its revolution.iry doctrines. The book
was burned lby ordcr of the English Parliament by the
hands of the comimorn hangman, but the spirit of which it
was an evidence survived, and from that d.ly forward the
patriot party amongst the Protestants of Ireland may be
said to have existed.
It was at this period of Ireland's history, when the idea
of nationality was slowly developing in the nminid- o:f the
Protestant colony, that there appeared upon the poUltical
stage the striking and eccentric ig ure of Jonathan Swift,
Dean of St Patrick's. Swift was one of the strangest
characters in Irish history-an o-dd mixture of patriotism
and narrow bigotry. of genius and eccentricity. He never
made the slightest effort to miitigate the persecution of
the Catholics; he never for an instant included them in
his idea of L'ish Nationality; yet he did is mu :h, probably.
as any man in history to consolidate the Irish nation;
and he not only paved the way for, but he rendered
absolutely inevitable, that fusion between the Protestant
colony and the native Catholic- which, in the end, won
independence for the country. HIe urged the people to






32 Home Rule

meet the restrictions placed upon their trade by boycotting
foreign goodnc, and advised them to burn everything
English except their coals." He seized upon the question
of supplying ielaind with a new copper coincage. as an
opportunity fo' r vindicating the independence of the
co-untry, and in the D-rapicr Letters he boldly asserted the
idea- which were rapidly maturing in the mind-i of the
Protestant;s. He asserted the legislative independence
of Ireland. and the nullity of those mea.--ures which hiad
not re.:eived the eancution of the Itish Legi-latture. He
avowed his entire adherenc:-e to the doctrine of Molyneux;
he asserted that Iieland Ivwa rightfully a free nation, which
imphld a right of .-elf-gov eriuent, for government. with-
out the (onsent of the -gove ned was the very definition of
slavery." In vain England :ought to insist upon Wood's
halfpence. Swift, in fighting this i,-ue. wIa fighting the
battle of Iish independene. He persevi-ercd: lie waited
the lipeIople of all eree.ls at ljs back, and in the end he
carried his point. Speaking of this contest, Mr Lecky


"'Tbis contest .tleierves to be Iplared in the f.:.rem,.,t ranks in
thlP iond-i- of the Iri-li race. Thr:-re i- uni moire mru.tu:ntou- epioci b
in the hi--tory :'. a nation than that in which the voice of a
p-.:ple hI.-: i6rt spoken, andi pken ith -u.ch. It m.rrL-- the
trardiit:Ion f m an acwe .If srmi-lj.b rb.aii.n to an atirc of civili-a-
tion, fr'imi thi'e ,_.,v\rnm fnt itf f'irce t,:, the government, of opinion.
E-f,',ore thii- time rel.elli:on '.ras the natural i-ue O:f e i el V t i.tiC.
etof rt in Ireiand ; -incc- thI-n irlt.llion hbar Ihen an a.ri.,ichronism
an.. a mistal-e. T ahe a of Dreim:ind and O'Neill had passed;
tbe .ge ':,f Grattan and Oj Coinuill I,a, lo.iun."

Swift now l..-acame the idol and leader of the, Irish
people. He taught them their first le-sons in self-reliance.
He led thrl i to victory when oppres -ioii had well-nigh
broken their spirit. rid wl hen the exile of all their own
leaders had robbed them of hope; he held up before their
eye- the possibllitty--ooni afterwards to be in part realized
--of a fusion of the two sections into one nation; and
consequently, in spite of his well-known intoleranee and
ligotry, he became the most universally popular man in







Irish Protestants and Home Rule 33

Ireland. His ending was singularly tragic. The greatt
controversialist. the energetic patriot, the brilliant wit,
sank into his grave in a hopeles: state of idioy.
-' List ,ci.ne of all.
That nls; rhi, strange:, .' entfiil history
Is e -cond chlir-hnea s and mn re ...bliv i.:m

Swift passed away, but the cause of Irish intionality
which he had championed never afterward:l pa.-sved au ay
from the minds either of the Protestants or the C'atlholie-
of Irtland.
Flood then i.-ame forward as the leader of the patriotih.
party: and at one stel' \e may l.ss on 1o t the history of
the Volunteers. In 177S the Irish Parliament sanctioned
the enrolment of a volunteer force for the defence of the
country. Mr Lecky thus deseibei-s what then ocu.lirred.
He says:
S'"Tl, n .aro'.: oCLe f thlioe, ui .vt-ruWen'ts of 'tntlt usiar that
oci:.r two or tlihr'. tineai in the histolsy :if a nation. The .ry :to
arms passed through the lainl, andi was spe,':diy r.:-p':,.nded to, by
all parties auil by all tre'r.l. Eeginlngn with the Prote-tants
of the N, ith, thi, rnmov.rrentjs ,:o:,rn sr.reid t..L, tht-r [.a'rt.- of thie
isl nd, and the war of r:ligi:ins awi of cr:ed-,. thiLt ha.l so IsOn.
li\ilde.. the 'people, vanished as a direain. The io':tneqr pr,-
duced by centuries of oppres-.r.i:,i woas spe:':dily f..:.rg.:tte:an, and
r'plac'?d 1by the C.uIOn.L.iousOies of iecoverid strength. Frona
RHojvth ht Connerlnar-r frini the Giant'a C''.t uw;va tu Capl,: C' l:-r,
the rnthusiam haid pansei anl I he creation of an army had
begun ."

The Irish Volunteers were at ih'rt an exeluriv-ely
Protestant organisation. but ..o anxious were the Cath:lics
from the first to participate in the movement, that in the
C'lty of Limerick. when forbidden to bear arus themselves.
they subscribed S00 to purchase arms for their Protestafnt
fellow-countrymen. It was now that publi. spirit itn
Ireland began at last to be truly National. Henry
Grattan Raw in the Voluntuers a means of uniting Irish-
men, and, owing largely to his exertions. Catholiucs were
at last. achnitted into the ranks of tlhe National army.
Shoulder to shoulder, Ca'tholi- and Protestant. Irishmen
C






Home Rule


united t, demand free trade and a free parliament. In
the words, of Flood:-" A vice from America shouted
Liberty,' and every hill and valley of this rejoiicing land
answered Liberty! In 17S0 the V, volunteers obtained
for this country a first installment of liberty in the con-
cession o:'f complete free tracle-tlhat is. the freedom of
their trade from nil restrictions placed upon it by any
authority other than the legislature of Ireland. The next.
step was. the assertion of the independence of the Irish
Parliament from interference Iy England. Day lby day
the fusion ot tile Einglish Colony and the Irish nation wvias
bec-o:,ming moe pertc-:-t: da by l day the tell spl:itit ot
sectarian hate was dying out. The Volunteeis declared
at Dunganno:n, in Convention a.--eiibled, that.:
W,- hold tih- right o private juiiglimnt in matters of
rliigion t i t.. Ie 'lualliy wa'rl in utlwr-r as in iijr-el es, ua d e
i,<:r iv\ e thin- i t.'uri- .:,f re.-lnvation of the Penal L a.i a gaiit
the Roman Cath.-li,:s t.:, be irauLht with tlih happi,'-t ci.ine-
qun ii'es of the rui.jn rind pro.i-prity .f tit, inhabitants .,f
Ireland."

And Grattan repeatedly voiced the detcitmination of the
leaders of the patriotic: party to, base Irish liberty upon tlie
recognition of the cntle people. In one of his speeches
he made this remarkable declaration:
"So !O:,n a- ti,- Peill Cio.rle r:mainiD- e can neviter be a great
nation. .. I wr.ul. not Leerp tw' o millioii -.f rmy fEll,-,i -
.:,irntsl ren in ra -tae .t slavery. I le-ire nut i Pritestant
settle mlrn t, It ut an Irilih nation."

How Le-isl.itive Indepeendence was ion in 17S2 every
,one know;:s. and how the Protestant. Paliliament.. having
broken its owni fetters, set themr.elvee instantly to tlhe
task :of admitt.ine Catholiic to their full rights will never
lie forgotten. The work of eumnneip-ttion was slow. but
sure. In 17'3 Catholics were admitted to the franchise.
the grandI juries, the prfole.-ions, and the Univers.ity;
anid when. two years later, Lord Fitzwilliam arrived in
Ireland we have that nobleman's own authority for the
statement. that the Protestants of Ireland had generally


I






Irish Protestants and Home Rule 35

accepted and approved of a policy of complete a.nd im-
mediate emancipation."
IUnrortunately, English statesmen had at tlii time
determined to torce a srlcheime ot legislative union ipO:n thie
country, and they kneu that such ia policy iould he im-
possible if once tle Catholics were admitted within the
constitution. Primate Boulter. moie than half centciii
before, had s.id. \h'len Plapist andl Piotestant unite.
good-lbye to thle English interest in Iheland." Engli'sl
ministers detcrmiirned tlihat this union shlIould not take place.
Accordingly. tlhe- policy of emancipation \iwas i-r.-kel,
and an intolerant Irish lactioin \was' utilised for the I pipose
of -ctirring up religious alimosities and d ivingi the people
into ini-TM.e-tion. The diabolical plan succeeded only
too nell. and Ireland was robblled o f her Parliament.
But Irishmen do not forget that Pr,:'te.tants w:on the
Parliament of 'S2: Protestant, origaniied the Soriety of
United Iriihmen. and filled its ianks both bcfo:re and after
it bec-amei a revolutiona-ry body; Piotestants gave the
franchi.-e to C'athiolics in 1793; Protestant.- led the rebel
armies in 179S: Protestants gallantly, Ibut vainly deftend-d
Irish constit tional liberty in 1 I .
It is true that all ti ti the had bIeen nn intolerant
anti- and ti-ri'a and thoic faction in Irela-nd. The men
i ho in 1793 opposed the c:laimiii of the Catholies, bho
bIl:tught about the Iecall of Fitz\\illiam in 1795, whose
bigotry and fanatical oppresesion dlJrove tlhe people into
aruin in '98., whole posed a.s the Entlish garrionii in Il.i .
and sold their country'v Ijblirty. and vlwho from that day
to this hour have ever been the despised tools of Engli-lh
misgovernmient in Ire-landc-tliese men have neve-r rienl
above the tactics or the aspirations of a faction. The
Irish nation,ignoi in! faction, is Iound together by devotion
to the land that bore them, by hatred of oppression ind
love of liberty, and by the tmeumoy of the scenes \then
their foretathers, Cathlolies and Prntestants alike, shed
their blood in defence of religious toleration and national
freedom.
I now pass to the statement, or rather thi.- prophecy.






36 Home Rule

that. under a Home Hule Parliament tlie Catholic majority
would persecute and oppress their Protestant fellow-
countrymen. Grattan rnce said:--" You cannot argue
with a prophet, you can only disbelieve him." In the
case '.f this evil prophecy we can happily in addition apply
to it the test of experience anrd history.
\lhen and where anti how have Catholic Irishmen
evinced a lsirit of religious persecutiion and intitleranrce?
It it he p.'issiible to show. as I contend that it is, that Iris
'atholieis are almost the only people in the world's history
who have never persecuted tor c-orieience' -:al;e, that lien
they had the supiremacy in the past they never oppr:essed
their Pri.-testant fellow-cr-ouintrymnen. and that in matters
in whichl thio hold power to-day they make nr,, dit.incti-,n
between men of different creeds1-if it is possible to prove
all this, what becomes of the evil prophecy :of o:ur enemies?
There are f:,tLr distinct times in tlie history ,f Ireland when
the Catholices pi-ss s: 'sed ;upremiaL-y and had the pewer
to persecute and presss their Protestant fellow-c.ountry-
men. Tlie-e periods were I ) in the rein of Queen Mary;
12) in 10;41: (3) at te time ti thle Catholic Parliament of
ItSO: and 1 4 at tlhe pre-ieit time. when Catholi es have
sul~riient po-wer in the comnnerianl, social and muilicipal
hie iif Ireland to make a man's creed a disability to him
if thle spirit of religious iintolerance were abroad. Lit me
briefly deal with these four periods.
In the reizn of Mary thle Catholies were suditdenily re-
stored from persecution to power. They crw re fresh from
oppre-s-iorn, for cons:-ieince' sake. of the most horrible
character. In England the change from persecution to
power was marked iby oppre:.ssiion of the Protestants by
the Catlholies. MIary burned t:, death her Protestant.
-subljeets; but tlie Irish Catholics did not persecute a
single individual. a;nd. on the contrary it is admitted that.
the Corporatio'n of Dublin of that day rented seventy-focur
houses and invited over Engdlish Protestant merchants
from Bristol, and when Mary's pler.ecutiron ceased, sent
them an d their families back safely to t heir homes. Lelanid,
a Protestant historian, writing on this subject, says :







Irish Protestants and Home Rule 37

"Such was the spirit of toleration that many English
families, friends of the Reformation, took refuge irt Ireland., and
there enjoyed their opinion: without molestation."
And a Protestant writer, Taylor. in his Hi..toryi of tlh
Civil Wars of Ireland, testifies as follows:
"The restoration of the ,uld religion W'a3 ellectd without
violence; n., persecuti'.,n of the Protectant6 "as attempted, and
several of the Englikh, who flul from the furious zeal .,f Marvy'
inquisitors, found a -afe refuse among tlie C'tholrls of Irelt ni.
It is but just: e tu this n.mlignedl boly to iadd, that on, thrte
occasions -f their obtaining thi, upp-r han i they never inlured.l a
single person in life or limb ft'r pIofe'sin4 a religion, n ditllereit to
their own. They hall sufllred persecution and learned mercy,
as they showed in the rein of Mary, in the wars fr.otIu 1641 t.
14.S, arid during the brief triumph .f James II "

I pass now to the second period of the Catholic power
-namely. 1641. As a sample of what the British electorate
were indticed to believe last July. it will be interesting
to you to hear a few words on this sul.ijject from a leaflet
issued from LMr Sidebottom, the successt'ul Tory candidates
for Hyde:
*'Q. Have the Irish ever had Home Rule, and how didI they
behave i
"A. They murdeerd every ErInlihman and, Protestant they
could lay their hands on in Iitl. They were set oni by the
priest-, >who said that Pritea..tants w~.re devils and served the
devil, and that the killion of them was a mneritoriou- act.
Altogether they killed in that, year 150,000 Prote-:tants-men
an.i women and children "

This puts in a somewhat exaggerated form :t very
common accusation in the mouths of your enemies. The:
story of a wholesale massacre of Protestants in the rising
of 1i41 has been repeatedly proved to be utterly ground-
less. Mr Lecky, who\.e hias cannot be said to be in favour
of either the Catholics or Natioinalists of Ireland, speaks
of it as follows:
The rebellion only assumed its general character in cone
quence of the resolution of thf English House of Commons, that
uo toleration should be henceforth granted to the Catholic
religion in Irelundl It was this policy that droe the Cath.lic


PF







3s Home Rule

gentry of Ireland very reluctantly into rebellion. The rebellion
w'as a d.tfenshite vvar, enter-.] into in order t)o eeure a. toleration
of the religion of the I ish p -'ple. . It imzy bol'dly be as.ated
thai th' s't.t'men t of' ,o ;I r.d and or.antise d massiar.-' is utl'rly
,ii, 'l ,soluittcy nI.ura, As is u -'udll th' i:aSe with popular
risings, there were in the first outbreak of the rebellion some
murder-, but there were very few, and there was n.tthling what-
ever in the nature of a massacre . The rebellion was not
*:one du,; to any single cause, but it represented the accumulated
wronv'3 and animosities of two generations. All the long train
of agrarLau wro)u'.s from Mullaghmast to the latest inquiiLiti:un
O:f Wentworth, all the long niiucesion of religious wrong fr.nm
the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth to the Co:.nis..ation of the
Irihl C',.lle~d e uudFr Charlei, contributed to the result."
The Prot.e.,tant historian, Leland. sa.s:
"The Clitholi.: priest, laboured zeilou-ly to moderate the
exce--- .:,f war, and' fre-quently prot',',ted Protestants when
dan.-'ei threatened them, by concealing them in their placcs of
w,:,rship, and even 'undi:I theil altai r ."
And the history of Dr Bedell. the Protec-tant Bishop of
r)romore. who during a considerable portion of the rising
enjoyed the respect of the insurgent-s, and on his death
was followed to thi- L.rave by one of O'Neill's regiiments, is
proof enough of the absurdity and nuntruthifulness of the
:tory of a general nmasa:-re of Prot.et.ants.
Tlie reel.llion cuhiinated in the as.-embling of the
Confederation if Kilketmy, which was really a Catholie
Parliament. and our enemies will search its records in
vain for any sirvile measttre evincing a spirit of persecution.
I pass n.ow to the third period, that of Jame3's Parlia-
ment of 10uS9. In this Parlament there were only six
Protestant. members of the House of Commons, and some
ten or twelve in the House of Lords. Yet, so far were the
CatholiJ.s from excluding' Protestants as Protestants from
Parliament., that six Protestant Bishops eat. in the House
of P ,rs, and no Catholic prelate was admitted at. all.
This Parliament consisted then for the most part of
Catholi.:s aiimated by the memory of the most. bitter
wrongs. They were the sons of men who without t.ial
and without compensation had been robbed of their
estates. The confiscation: of Ulster, the fiaud of Charles,






Irish Protestants and Home Rule 39

tie atrocities of Strafford, were to them recent .nd vivid
events. At las-t. power had changed hands and rested
with them. How did they use it? To persecute and
oppre's?' To retaliate for old. wrong.c- No! The first
act of that. Parliament wa.- to establish perfect religious
equality, and to guarantee to Punte t rotestants full liberty of
professing, practising. and teaching their religion. (n
the eridences of religious toleration in the past history
of Ireland, MIr Lecky siys:

** Iridh lhist:-rr v ':,:nt iin- its full shaie tf illilnce: an,.l mias.i a re.
but whoever wili exanirne tht-'e epi-':,ic with impart illty v mny
ea ii; ot nvi'ne,- himself that thlir e,:.nn'.r-ti.:,in with rtI!K i,:.n has
be'en mor -t uperfl ial R'lig;.,u-- cri.t- liav b. i-n tiime r.i iel,
rli._ious enthusiasm i.i b-.ii :-ft-n appe.iletl t., in thi .'.gony
.-f a trugi-e : hIt tih- r,'-al causes lit ... u:ii ally I.I:,- the ci ntli:t
,f r:i q i and cl a.z'-, tliih stru,-.l- of nat'i.:na. ity a.aLia1Jt a ni il- ii l-
tiou. A r ,n-.- .t th.- Catil:.ic at I1-..a t, r ii' u- iunt,,lera rC,,. Ia-
never bIeeu a Iprevailin.. x;c. anii tlhi :i--e Ah, ha e stuJdi-l :!. :.t!s y
the hi't.:.ry and chari t :ir of th: Irisuh p -l[..- LI lidr.lly fail t,.,
be itrui k "ith the itelyp leirpec f,,r sii.-iere r:.ligi.:.n in -'i.ely ft,,r
whiii they Iha C-:':ii.:inly ,'vinfled. TIh.ir ..rir inal -.:. er:i':n
t Chlitiaitv ws probi ly acormpanii..i Iv l.yi:- i-lenr.e- irn
tl.an:,,11,.,1 tha. :l-at ,: ar, y equally c',n'-ide, aI.bl,- .,ti, ,n in
Eur,.p.-: ; anl in ipite ft' the fearful icalaIiiic,- vhicld f,:li.:. e.
the Ret'frui.titj, it is a trn.imr.jhl.: fact thal t L'.,t : -inia l
Protc-tant suffered f,:,r hiu r,:ligion n Ir:l-.n.l duringi. all the
period .:.f the Marian) pleriscut:,iin ir EI-I an..dII]. Th'.i tn-atimet t --f
B d:-ll, a Pr-.testant prelati-, ilurin.- tlie outhre.lI: of 16l41, and.
the act e-tstabliihiun lil,,rty otf t'.,usi i-i :-, I'-"'] hb thet Irili
Parli' ieniit ,f' IG 9, in the full dti-hi .t th: brit ('C tl:lit:- i-e.-iiiJ
ancr undQ r ,l'me-s II xli'ilit v't'ry r:i- rkLahly tlii- niasi-ct or tll
Irislh dcaracter."

The saume spirit was displayed by Iri-h C'atholics t, the
first Quaker mission; andl it i.s recorded that in 171-'
Jameus Hoskins, accompanied by Peveral Dublin Quakers,
went preaching ,hi- doctrines through ConrnemLara, which
\was exclusively Cat.holic,-ithout meeting uith the slightest
molestation. The experience of Wesley. half a century
later, was similar. He haIir recorded in his journal that lie
found more respectful hearets amongst the C'atliol-es of
Ireland than in moot ,pairt. of Englandl; and he -ieaks






Home Rule


in warm appreciation of "the tolerant spirit, of the
Catholichs of Ireland."
One word now as to the present and I have done. At
the present day Catholics have not. the power of perseciutiotn
by fire or sword; Iut. they possess a supremacy in muany
directions which, if guided bI. a spirit of intolerance, could
effectrally harass and oppress the Protestant population.
All the world knows how that power is used. When. in
1S73, the representative. of the Irish people met in con-
fetence in this room to assert their demand for Home
Rule. a resolution was unnuimonsly adopted, and I am
.lad to remember it was prop:osedl by my own father, in
these words:
While v.. beliiee that in anl Irish P-:rliameint th.- rights
and: libel ti--s of all c l.aei-- u.t t.ur couiitrvyn o.i would liul] their
I.,e .t in..I suirert protecti.'n, we ire willing that there ,.'ul' l 1"?
incorrp :irat l', in the: F:.1-erai C:,nstituti.'n articles uIpplyiing th..
amnpl t guarantee-, that n.:, le.-iitioni shall be a.l1.:pte'l t.
e-it.,ili'h ariv religiLous as ieud.l i.a v in Iiclalii, *r th: -iubject anY
pers'.-n to ,rliial.,iliti- *n acee.unt 4., hi9. religious .pili..n'."
From that day to this the Catholic majority has acted
upon that principle. The most Catholic con_-stituencies in
Ireland return to-day Protestant meinbers to Parlhiument.
Catholic cities elect Protestants to the highest civic
honours. Catholic Corporatior. employ Protestant
officials; and last, but not least, the leader of the Irish
race, to whom his Catholic fellow-countrymen are bound
by the strongest links of personal affection and political
devotion, is a Protestant Irishman. No! we C'atholic
Irishmen repudiate this accusation of intolerance with
scorn and indignation. We do not even understand the
meaning of the words religious bigotry. By the Irish
nation we do not mean any class, or sect. or creed. By
Irish independence we mean liberty for every Irishman,
whether in his veins runs the blood of the Kelt or the
Norman, the Cromwellian or the \Villiamite. whether he
professes the ancient. faith of Ireland, o0 that newer creed
which has given to our country some of the bravest and
purest of her patriots. We are handed together in a






Irish Protestants and Home Rule 41

struggle for our National rights, and, as a Catholic IriLh-
man, I assert my belief that never agiin would the
Catholics of Ireland lift hand or voice to obtain an Irish
Parliament did they nut know that the edifice ol National
freedom which it. would raise would be based upon the imost.
perfect civil ind religious liberty of every Irishman. of
every class and creed.
In conclusion, it only rema:ini for me to say that I
tru-t I have establli-hed my propositions to:' your satis-
faction, and to thank you for the indulg'.nt ,patience I ith
which you have Iheard me.













THE HOME ILULE BILL, 1893
Mr Cli Jstjn introdri.u.ed hise eon-nd H:,mii:. Rule P.ill un 13th
February 1. '.3. It wni -ubtaritially tie amnie as the first.
,ithi tli- difference, that while Iri'h Ldiiil I r.*r vit T : I X- I Lidted
r...ni the "Imp:-rial P.arliaumet 1.,y the one, they w.rn.
retained by the either The Bill pa.-ed thI Curamwuos, but
A.I rIAj:-cted by the Lrrd,. On the c.:-.:ni rendiiin 14th
April 16'J. IMr Ri:dm.lmnd, th-n tli leudc.r of the Irikh
nmemrlir- .wh.o had i -mined faithful ti, P:Lrnr-ll after the
crii ctf IS'1, .pl, e -, follows --

p'RE SPE.KER.-Tliere was one -tateni(ent in the speech of
the rigit lion. _rentlenimn (Right Hon. Hur:iuy (ihaplin)
%\itll which I m-i.-t :ordically zi.tree. He dc-scril:,d tlis as a
great roccasion, and sr p okeL of tlie gravity of tlie issi- ,it
stake. But I venture to s-ay tlint no right hon. gentlt-mlan
oceuLIping the po:-ition of ex-C'albinet Minister ever made
uiloi, a great and historic occasion, u11pon tlie discussion ,f
a giCeat issue. a s-leeclh s:, absolutely flat, stale and un-
pirofitalle. That speech catrcely touched upon the great
i-suc- at stake. That isue is whether this Parhamuernt. will
,onfer uporn IIrlc:-al the uianaemlenit of lher own affairs
whether it will ent ust to th:he people of Ire'land a repres-en-
tative constitution. and in a speech occupyin-. the time of
the House for an hljor and a half the right bon. geintleman
never did mote than read from quotations the opinion of
otI'ers on the a,.tretact question. Tli,? right lion. gentle-
inan is a type of the En likh governors ot Ireland-tlhe
men wh:i, have made Irelrind disaffected. and who have
made the concesion of Home f- ule alJolutely inevitable.
\\'as there, from I.,en nninin- to end of the speeeb, a single
statement to show thlit the right hon. gentleiiman was
acquainted with the p;iast government or with the history
of the country whose riiht to self-c,vernment lie ventured
to deny Was there one generous thought in his speech
4-




w


The Home Rule Bill, I893 43

or one spark or glimmer of hope for Ireland? The right
hon. gentleman opposes the concession of Home Rule to
Ireland, but what is lus alternative? It is -imply a con-
tinuance of the principle- of government that have made
the name of England a by-word and a. reproach among the
nation ot the world. I do not desire to pu-rsue the speech
of the right hon gentleman. I did hope that it would not
be necessary for me in the fullilment of duty to myself
and to tho-e whom I replre-.ent to take part in the debate
at this -t ge of the Bill. The -peechesr that have been
made in the cou r-e ot the debate have ibeen of two distinct.
classes. We have had on one side those who have criticized
the details of the Bill which should be more properly diis-
cussed in Committee, and on the other we have had those
who di r-eused the hioad principle of the Bill. This Itter
class -of speakers have. been liampered by tie consideration
that they Ihriv been merely repeating, for the hundredth
time every argument with which the co-untty las been
rinLingr f:or the la-t seven years. I do not desire in the:
obJ.ervationr have to make t m o anticipate the Commiittee
stage of the Bill, nor d, I want. merely to utter platitude-
on the principle of self'-government; a nd, indeed, I shliould
have Ieen content to: remain silent, altogether but tor the:
duty east upon me by -tatementp made in this House and
out of it. It. is -said that \we have refused to accept thii
mea-ture-that we di-pute the supremacy ot the Imperi.l
Parliament; that we will make no eompromi-e between
what we con-ider the full measure of right that we are (n-
titled to, and the conces-ion which one of the grreat parties
of the State is willing to make to us. Now, that is a corn-
plete misrepresentation. Of course this Bill does not con-
cede to Ireland all that we a-k or all that. we are entitled
to. Thii- Bill is a compromise between the full demand-
which Ireland has made in the past and that which you are
willing to concede to u-. The constitution offered is a
compromise, and is accepted as a compromise. The right
ion. gentleman the member or W\Vest Birmingham com-
pl.ins that we do not say that this is a tinal and immut-
able constitution. I would ask the right lion. Lenltleninn






Home Rule


what right this House, or what right. England has, to ask
any such guarantee from us. I say candidly that I do not
believe that this measure, if passed into law. will be final
or immutable.
I believe this constitution will be a success, and I be-
lieve it %will be a success because I believe-that will be the
reason of its success-that it will develop. In t ie future,
in the working of this constitution. the bonds of freedom
will be made wider still for Ireland. arnd tiht with the con-
sent of England. as a direct result of the reasonable use of
the powers obtained under it. If Ireland shows, as she
will show, a real capacity for self-government. this con-
stitution must develop. He would be a rash man. indeed,
lwho would say that the written constitution you now seek
to codfer is for all time, or is to remain a final and immut-
able constitution. Let me test this matter. Suppose
you put into the Bill a clause saying- that it is to be a final
and immutable settlement, it would not be worth the paper
it would be written upon. The very fact that this Imperial
Parliament is, and will continue to he, Luprenme, if the Act
of Union is valid, makes it utterly impossible for any law
that it may make to be final and immutable. And. again.
suppose that every Irishman alive were to join in giving
in undertaking that he would regard tile con-titution as
final. of what value would that guarantee be? No, we
cannot bind the future-the future, with its new interests.
its wider opinions, and its higher aspirations in the genera-
tions to come. In that sense I absolutely decline to give
any suLIh guarantee as the rihlt lion. gentleman the member
for \est Birmingham thinks necessary from those who
commend this Bill to the consideration of the country.
But that was not what the right lion. gentleman meant.
He meant that we, in saying that we will accept this Bill,
will do so in bad faith, and with no desire to ind in the
working of the measure a solution of the Irish question.
and that is for the purpo-e of showing that this measure
has designs liho.tile to the Elng li-h Government and the
Empire. That. is what lie means For my part. I dj-
: laim any su: h inattention.






The Home Rule Bill,


IS93 45


It is true we decline to pledge otu'selvee that this must
remain a tnnl settlement. It is true we regard this Bill
as a conipromi:e and not as a full conce-sion of all we are
entitled to obtain, but we wish to accept the measure in a
fair, honest and candid spirit; and to work it for all it is
worth in the hope and belief that. it may put an end to the
old chapter of English oppression and Irish resistance.
But the right hon gentleman. tlie member for \\'est
Birmingham, says there is the question of the Imperial
Parliament. It is not. necessary for me to dwell a moment
longer upon that point. I challenge anyone in this House
to quote a statement of mine. ,r any of those associated
with me, that so long a;s we remain partners in the Empire
at alnd so lone_ as the Act of Union remains unrcrepeal-d.
the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is to 1'e. ,: can
be. abrogated. \\'e have maintained that the concession
of free institutions in Irelind means that you have put
trust in the Irish people. and that thlie interference of this
Parliament in the working of those institutions would [ie
absolutely inconsistent. Representative institution? ex-
ists in other portions of the Empire. How many of them
would exist in six months if this House took into its head
to exercise its right as a supreme legislature? The con-
cession of representative institutions to Ireland means,
that you have made up your minds to let us manage our
own affairs,. ree from the interference of the Imperial
Parliament. It is true that hon. gentlemen anticipate
that the necc-.ity for interference by this Parliament will
cease. That may he. I think it will. for I am one of
those viho agree with Mr Parnell's opinion, that the rLish
people under Home Rule will be shrewd enouL'h to know
that any violation of the constitution or opplies;ion Iy that
Parliament will be so many nails driven into the coffin :of
the constitution, and I do not, therefore, think that the
occasion for interference will arise. It it does arise nothing
we can sa-y, nothing we can do, nothing that you can put
in an Act of Parliament now so long as the Union remains
unrepealed, can deprive you of the right to control the
Irish Parliament, as you can control the Australi.an and






Home Rule


Canadian Pailiaments. and to r hetk the growth of oppres-
sion and injustice.
I do not intend to dwell, even for a molnlcnt. on the
questio-n of hnance. I ha\e nothing to add-I have not
been able to add-to my source, oct information. and there-
foie I lave nothline to add to whatt I -said on the tirst read-
in. of the Bill on this. p-int. But the longer thc-se finanm iol
clauseS- have been studied, the more they have been dis-
trusted. It is right we should be perfectly candid in a
matter tf this kind I have met no me luber of any 1--political
'party whatever in ILeland nho has been able ti tell tue
that Iieland c-ould be successfully looked and successfully
governed under the finainiale.i clau c-s of the Bill as they
now stand; and I would add that if the clauses ase to
remain in their present form the CGverrunent and their
suppollrter-c in thisl H-ou-e will have to reco'nriise the fact
that it will beconimel a horri lle responsibility tor any ITish
representative to accept this Bill as a settlement. No
iepreeintative 'a-n (doI s'o unless the Bill iconltains in the
financial portion provisions to enable thlie Governient ot
Ireland to lie uricessfully carried on. Leaving details on
thi-s head aside for l discussion in Committee, I pass on to
what I take to he the real issue at stake.
Thel real i-sue is whether you will make pl y our minds
to cnil'er upon Ireland a representative (Gove nment-a
Government whilc-h will give con.-.titutional expression to
the will and the voice of her Ipeople. There are two ways
in wli,:h tliis cr.eat and rital print:il:le might be irearded.
There is thle Iiish way and tlere is the English way. We
look upon the principle as one to be conceded to u s as of
right. W\e dro not entirely or mainly rest our claim for
free rt-prctsentative institutions on giie'iances. \We rest
our claim on right. The right, lion. gentleman, the member
for \'est Birminii,-ham. thinks that if rli Pitt had been able
to carr C'atholic EmanLipation the Urnion wo-mld have
been p-opular, an.d that the pas-sage of remedial measures
would have been of equal service in cementing t.he Irish
and English peop,'les. We look at it fioi a different
standpoint. We do not rest our claim solely or mainly on






The Home Rule Bill, 1893 47

grievances. If the government of Lmy country by' English-
men were the- be.t- that could have been devi-.ed by tLe wit
of man. I would be an strong a Home Ruler a- I am to-day.
Without exaggeration I believe this-that Irish National-
ists would rather lie badly gov rned by their own count ry-
men than live under the best English governuenlt you
could rive them. \'e say that Ireland is a distinct and
separate Nationality in point ot historic importance. It.
was a nation long before England. For over (60 years
Ireland had her own Parliament. w\iichl had an exclusive
right, to legislate tor the Irislh people. That Parliament
wan rmo.n:,lld Itom Ireiland by violence anld corruption, and
against. the will of tile people. Do English members
always recall that fact?
In 1799 \\hen the (overnlment of thl- day Lpropo'.0.vd tlie
Union. that l:asli.Lre would not have been a*ariid had that
Parliament Ibeen disolved after the defeat of thie (overn-
nient. But it was not di.lss-:olved. ThIe Catho:lic:- had been
enlflanchised years before. but thIty \ere not allowed to
exercise the tranchise. The richt hon. ren tleiman referred
to armed insurrection, and said that Ireland wa., deficient
in the qualities that would suLstalin sucI inurrection. It.
is impio-,sible for a county like Ireland, with all thh ad-
vance- ot military scieni e, to be rteadCy for armed insulr-
rectioln. but I assert the spit of retistane still live, as it
ouglit to live, atnd i, as much alive now a; at any tilii in
the last century, and my most fervent prayer is that it will
meet with no provocation in i t.he tleje.tioll A:of meaul'Sres ot
conciliation or in unworthy tauntsl suchl as th:io.e oi the
member fr West. Birmninghaml. So much for the Irish
way. I know it i. of tar greater minomlent to dwell on tilt
matter from an Enalish point of view. Fioma the point
of view of most Irishliien this matter i- looked at from the
standpoint that they are entitled to: it by right. How did
tho fact stand from the other point of view?' Here arc
two counties politically united, yet distinct in listoryN and
in nationality. The present Prime Mlinister s-poke sime
remarkable words on this subject in this House even so
long ago as 1866. What is the relatio-n w which has existed






Home Rule


between these two peoples? It cannot. be denied that. it is
a record o,:f shame on one side-of resistance on the other;
of bloodshed, of wasted treasure, of national dishonour.
Has your government of Ireland succeeded? I don't wantl
to go back into history. I won't go further thnthe Act of
Union. You have had families. You have had armed
inwurrections. You have been obliged to keep a standing
army in Ireland equal to that you had at. the Crimea.
D)urin. the whole of the century you have had a Coercion
Act for every ear. The right hon. gentleman who ad-
dressed the House to-night spoke lightly of coercion, but
coercion means the abrogation more or less at different
times ,of the full benefits of the British Constitution. It,
therefore, means that during your ninety-three years' rule
of Ireland you have had eighty Coercion Acts. each one of
them abrogating more or less the full rights of the British
Constituti on. Ireland's population has diminished. Her
inaterical prosperity has disappeared. Your government.
of Ireland has become a Iby-word amongst the nations;
and inall[y. at. t he end of this nineteenth century, which ha.
seen the blessings of liberty slowly but. surely reaching
almost every subject race in the world, a.t the end of that
century a great English party has been obliged by the Bill
no\w before the House to condemn that union, that system
of government which has so utterly failed, and which can
only be preserved by the permanent suspension of those
rights of constitution stuch as the right of trial by jury.
which it is your boast that you desire to see extended to
even the Eastern races under your sway. It seems to me
that all this Loes to show conclusively that the old system
has been tried and has failed-that it has hampered and
almost destroyed this Parliament-that the whole world
has called Shame on it "; and \whether it. he amended .Iy
this Bill and Iby this Government. or by another Bill and
another Government I know not, but every far-sceing man
must admit in his heart that. the day is almost dawning.
when that system will be replaced by a system based on the
affetions, the will, and the confidence of the governed.
I notice that the oppo nents of the Bill have kept them






The Home Rule Bill, 1893 49

selve? clear from Ibroad considerations and principle- such
as these. Theyhave taken up rat her a policyot ta stedingi on
particular difficulties. and Umanifyiing them enormously. in
order to frighten public opinion. but they forget that if all
the difficulties. probably many. which may follow f rom
Home Rule were increased a hundiedfold, tlhe could not
by any possibility create as bad a state of t hingis a-, exists
in the relations between the two counttiest at the ,re-ent.
moment.. The right lion gentleman, the member tr \Vest
Birminiham. fears that atter Home Rule Ireland will he
disaffected. Doe.- he believe that Ireland i- well affteted
now? H; helvees that Engr-l find's difficulty will be IrIe-
land's oIppituNiity after H-ome Rule. Doe' he not know
that if you reject this measure of conce'--on it will I'e the
darling wish oft every Irishman to use all your ditlieulties as
opportunities for advancing tlie Nation.-I caun.:s Has he
ever considered what will happen if thi, Bill is rejected?;
Heaven forbid that I should indulge in what mi.niht Ie con-
strued hy our enuemien( into nimences. But can any man
contemplate with eqlouain ity what conseitences may
follow if you reject that which ha, kept Ireland tranquil
and crimeless fo:r seven years? We ar told that if thi-
Bill passes there will lie disturbance- in Ulster. Cai' hon.
gentlemen on-ider the possibility of (dlt tu'lba ncesm in other
parts of Ireland if the Bill is rejected? Reject this Bill.
wreek the hopI:- upon which the hish peoplile have been
relying, reimpose coercion and w ieih of iyou will under-
take the government of Ireland by any form of Conistitu-
tional Gov-ernment whatever? Thle alternative to the
policy represented by the Bill would he not only a ('oereion
Act, but it would inevitably be a dsfraiiehi.nement otC Ire-
land and the c-stablishment ot a military des-pot il-m.
The argument about Ulster is false and uiisleacdiong.
The v\-ei name of the Ulster que-tion itself is -i false one.
There is no Ulster question. There may bIe a Belf-t.
question-there may be a question of a small ctrn-er of
Ulster, but it is false to peak of thi- que-tion as an Ulster
question. The present population of Ulster. including
Belfast, contains forty-sis lpr cent. of Catholics. Leav-
D






50 Home Rule

ing out. Belfast, it shows a fair majority of Catholics over
Protestants. I deny altogether that every Protestant is an
anti-Nationalist. I know something of the means that are
used in Ireland to keep up this agitation again-t Home
Ruide. You talk of lbovcottine in the time of the Laud
League. I say that boycotting has been brought to a fine
art by the Unionists of Ireland against any Protestant who
is independent enough to declare himself on our side.
There are in Ulster. including even Belfast, f:rty-six per
cent. ot Catholics. and admittedly the Ulster Catholics are
Home Rulers. and with a maigin of Protestants in favour
of Home Rule I am convinced that at least one-half o:f the
entire population of Ulster is favoiurable to this Bill But
suppose there are only for ty-six per cent. of the population
of Ulster favorable to: the Bill, how falke to speak o:f this
as an Ulster question. Besides that. Ulster is not, as is so
often said. the only pro-perous province in Ireland. I
nwih Ulster were as prosperous as Unionlist memlbeis
endeavour to depict her. Belfast is prosperous, and long
live her prossperity; but as Bellast lhas grown in prosperity
Ulster has declined. There are nine counties in Ulster,
and within the last rifty years x~hilt the population of
Belfast has increased the population of these nine cowuities
has diminished by one million of people. In face of that
fact, catn it Ibe pre-tended that the population of Ulster is the
only prosperous population in Ireland?' That diminution
of the population of UlstCe is .r'keater than the diminution
of the other provinces, and the strange thing is that the
decrease in ulatin l ulati not greatest where the people
are thriftle-s Catholic Nationalists-the diminution is less
in the Catholic C'ounty of Donteial than in tho-:, ecountiees
which contain a large propio itio:n of prosperous Protestants.
I say, that this agitation against the Bill is promoted by a
small minority of the Protestants of Ireland. Large masses
of the Protestants are, no doubt, frightened by the Bill.
I do not vwo:nder at it. They have hlad in their hands for
cenerationsan absolutemonopolyof all powerand place and
patronage. To: be born a (hild of this favoured race in
Ireland is to be provided for Ib some place or position of





1






The Home Rule Bill, 1893 51

emolument from one's cradle. No wonder. then. that larIe
masses of them are against a system which would distribute
this patronage, power and inrfueunce Iamfonist the people.
But whilst these feelings are prevalent amuone.st Pro-
testants generally, the men who have fomented and in-
stigated this bitter and violent agitatio..n in Ireland against
Home Rule are not the general body hut a mall section
comprising the Oran,_e Society.
I would recall to the House the origin of the Society. It
sprang into existence in 1795-a fateful and terrible ye-ar
for Ireland. At that time the Prote.taint Parliament of
Ireland had iconmenced the world of Catlihliie Emaneip:a-
tion--couili-neced it thirty years I-cfore you- enlightened
Enghsh Parliament carried it out. That Prote-tant Par-
liniaent of Irelarnl had at its back in support of Catholie
Emancipation the far larger part of the Pro.testant. o:f the
country. Lord Fitzwilliam ha- declared that at the ti me of
lir- recall the Protestant.s of Ireland generally v ele favour-
able to Emancipation. But tlhe minority-the unreason-
ing and fanatical minority amongst the Protestants-used
their influence with Englind, and the beneficent policy of
Lord Fitzwilliam was reversed. Lord Fitzwilhi.n was
recalled. Thi- urtreason:,ing minority of Protestants at
once formed t lemselves into tlie Orange Society, and then
by their esxsei, their fanaticisim, they drove the Irih
people to arem-. I have here abundant proof of my state-
ment. Lord Cornwallis. writing to the Duke of Portland
in July 179S, said:
"Thli.- p incijril p i-oiu u(.'., thi. C iu.l -inJlll).ir,- in L u,-ral
ad.ltrse to all tets of ': lei n.-'y, .i l .i l ith':,u Fh thi-vl do not rx-prfe
it, ind1 i.-e'rlips ar t .ir t .i u:u h h'-, -i, rt o h,: t ultir matt elf t-i
which thEir vioi-nce mu-t lpro-inu.i:e, wv ull puf-u u Li'.:i-ur, th-it
could c.nlv t-rmiuate in the extirpation of th :- ,i-ar nu jl:,er ,:.f
the inihal itqnts,, arni in tih- uttei ,.le-tru:ri.:-, ...t the c-:'u itrv.
Thi words Papiist- and Pric-sts ar.:- for-:t' r : ini their mouths, and
by this in:c.-':.untatble f,..llv they .vu.:uld .hli i-e tut. fitths of tho
couniuuity into irieecn- ilalile ii:-l- elli':i."
Ill the smie year Lord C'orInwilli, also wrote:
"The principal petrsu.nag'- ( i.c., Lie Ct'e .:ri-l, etc.) ihl, halv.e
Io s-; bh n il the habit of .llr-".tin.. th, C-iur.;-il- of the L'.iJ






Home Rule


Lieutenants, ar.- blinded by theii pjs.i.ins and prejudici'---, talk of
nothin-. hut -tron:.' ureasi'ul're, an rrate t th:-m s tel t tiie
cxclu.ir- krnowle'.,.e ...f a eu.urtry of which, from their mn-die of
goov'rning it, they ha.i- in my opinion pnI: O d] tlhemiceicl- totally
ignorant. Rli-iou. .uiii.:it.e< ii,.r,.iac, and I am s.,-rry to,) ay
are encuoaura-'ed by tl'- f.oJli,:h viol&ne,: of all the principal pit.onD,
lwho have l.,. i itn theu h:abiotof' overrlin-' thi" island."
I .av thi,:t- ate ab.iundalut pr1.jofs of my statement that
this uI-IIla]fl.,onl.lEe linoit it y com:riisiinI the Ori'anze Soc iety,
(trov:, the ?pe,:opl: into in-urrerti,-n. Mlr (i:ldwin Smith,
who is now a Unioni-kt, and .il hosi. voice is r.-c-eivedl aa the
voice :of a prophet, vrTOt.e in his Il ih Hi-,lory litnd Irit.4
Ct'l erh. r :
"The pii ,iaitrv, thi.'u-.g unJ.:ubt:-djlv in a disturlibedl tare,
mi-.it ha\': V'be-n k.:,pt qlui.t by lenity, but they w-:r: g'a.-tuitou-ly
.t.oureled a*nd. torture,' int. opri r,.-'llioi.:. Theni v i-ee Irimi:s
not Id indivildu-il rufi.,nii lbut of fact ion--a fact i.'ii which mu-t
tik, it- pila.n in hi t.:.ry be-i'.le that .tf a R .bI.:-pFierre, Cout.hun,
and' Carri.e.:-. Thi uu rl'- l by thit J:a.ai:c'bmri lia- have exit.:'d
rmor'- indi.na'titi and pity, because th ,-ia:timu' W.3ri'. of high
ritnkl:, but it thi?- us': :,f tortiur- the Ora.tzim:i-n li *:e'rUme to )hI\.-
rei':lh.. a pitch to ilendish cru-ltv, v.-hi[ -h ta r'car':ly altiitied
I-Y the .T.-.:-ilac . The ,.Jrt dt'ul Civil W ar .:.f 179. was the
,ri:,-as- a :. lid' :tudIy of it; hi-tory will pr...ve-uuot .of th-
Iri:.h F.po.[pl, but of the Ora:ti.ne tei r.riLt-, vwl. literally failed
the p,'op'l int... in-urrittion."
Thi- i. thbe Ft'-i.- l wti i h: in Ireland to-day are the in-
;.tiAIat or-,i antd the promoted'; oit the more violent an(d tn-
lesorinn- feattue- oi t hi Protestalnt agitation against
Home Rule. That factions instigated religio:u-, differences
-oIne of tc I 1'reitet.- Utcrimes that a man conih. bI:)- guilty
of. Tley invoked rcli.,ions. liatr-ed', iini order to, de-trioy
the: ParfitllIment of Ireland. arnd tro-day pi'eei.-.:ly tihe same
at-.ciescm ar. .it work. PRe[lion-us fearc arn.l diffelreinic'S- are
availled oI iin uppcort of the, Union meni wlhi s-- fathel -'
lbiiotry and intoli-ranre- brought,. aloit t he Union.
It has be-'?:n -aid that Grattani's Parliament was a failure.
I denu it. Grattani's Patlamlent in 17,:3 *-tinlitt-d the
(C'atlic-, ti tithe franchi-.i, to nerve on jurir--, tor the pro-
tessioncs, and to the universities amid it was not till thirty
years afternvad.s that this Imperial PatlJamrent completed






The Home Rule Bill, 1893 53

the work of Emancipation. That Protestaint Parliament
was killingg to extend liberty to their Catholiic tellow-
countrnmen, ard it was the ha :ind ot En.nglandi that inter-
posed between the Protestant Parhnment and the ima--es
of their counrtrymen. The minority of Protestants w ho
opposed Catholic Enr-nciplation in 1793. who got Lord
Fit.zwilliam recalled in 1795, anid whose l':iotry and
fanntic-i-m drove the tpeoplle into, arms in 170S-tlhee are
the men whoel: lineal I:esciendri.nti to-lay are plromo-tert
of this unreasoning and violent agitation arailnt Home
Ruleh. TIiee are the ier, of whom Mr Jcohnl Bright,
-peaking in thi I- H:oue. used tlhe-e words:
"Thet-e Ul- teIt.i i'mit halve -tood, in thFe w- v y : iulipl .: -i\'leut in
the franchie, in the Chui:ch and in tlhe L-i'.i qu..-ti.:.n. They
have puriha-.eJ PrMite-tant ,i-(-nlitrt an- I th.e- ptie paid f': it
is. tIle ruin an: i d:.-ra.:Liti.:.n of their e.-:uutry'."

WInt. I ask, is the meanini ofi thli- Belfast sc-are?
Do hon gentlemen really think that the Iri-h ParLiaument
\ill at once set itself to the task of destitoyin'. Belfast?
lWhy, it is too altbl'd to arigue. Do they really think that
the Catholic mliajority ini that Parliarneit n ill at onue set
nl.aout per.e,-h-utigj the Pro:testant minority A more
insultingn aln humiiliatinil celarage was never IrEr,:tiht
against the people. \e are entitled, wien that large
iS made. to a-k our oplpoents to point to a -ingle period
of Irish Ilistory hlien the Ihi4h Catholic- were .guilty of
those ants of oppllression which Enigligh Cartholi':s were un-
doubtedly guilty of. There were periods when the
C'athoUii- ot IfIrel hnd had in their hand- the power t:oopres'4
their Protestanit tello:w-countr ymen, butt these periods
were marked Ly a spirit of tolerance d-splayed by tlhe
CatlioLi-s towards the Prtestants. The reign of Mary
"as marked lby the oppre-n ion of Protestants liy CatihohUli
in England. ilnc-ludling the bluiing ot several Protestants
at the stake, but we have it on tlie authority of the Pro-
testant historians, Leland and Taylor, that in the reigni
ot Mary the Dublin Croporation rented seventy-tour
houses for the shelter of refugees fr on the perse:'.ution of






Home Rule


Catholics in England. The Protestant write, Taylor, in
his history of the civil wars in Ireland, testifies as follows:
"*Tl r~to:.rat ion of the rtli'on ,wai ffl;ctet-d without violence.
No p-:rs.-cution of the Pr.,t,.stant-. was attemrnpte.l, andl several of
the Englibh who tiel from the furious zeal of Malry' i(nquisitu:,rs
found a safe refuge aminn the Cath-:lic- .of Ir'-lail. It I.s I.ut
justice to this iimali.ned body to add that on thioe occasiloiis of
their :btainin the upper han'l they never injured a single
person in lit:' r lim ib for prlf's.-siing a religion diffe-rent to thlir
own. They had suffered persecutlon and learned nmrcy as they
-howel in the r,:ign of Mary, in the wars from 1611 to 1618, andi
during the brief triumph of Jiauei II."
The Sec.retary for S,:;otland in his spceli the other night
told u.i that some very horriltle \\oode:tst, by George
Cruiklijonl.k, dh.-pieting ho:,trible ol-c.urrences in Irelr and,
were l.:eing ciretlated throughout England. The same
policy was alopted in 155:'. The mo'-,t atto.:ious false-
hood-s rLad CI ialnuniles again ist the peoplleof Ireland, pictorial
and other wise, were circ-uilaed terloughr:out this country.
I hold in my hand a pu.lircatioii isued:l by Tory candidate
and t Tory association, aind I will read on extrac-t from it
to show the kind of calumny that is being palmed otff on
the people of England. It is in the form of a niteebistm,
with questions and answers:
"Qut-tion--Have the Iiish ever had] H,'mc Rule, anl how'
di'd they l:.have?
AnDwer--h'b-y ruur'iered every Eilishmain and. Protestant
thev co:,ul'l lay th.ir banudi .:.: in G1ll. TI.hv wer' e set. :,n by the
prriest, who sai'l that Prt,:te-tants ware dJevils andi served the
devil, ainl that the killing of the- '1 .-a, a r:ritoriout act.
Alto,:,;ther they killed in that ye:ar 150,000: Protestant men anld
wowen andu childlrcn "
That i- the kind of caulumny that is spi ead 1:,y our
opponents. throughout English constituencies. But \lihat,
does Mr Lecky say on this question of Catholic: oppresslon
-and surely hon. members will listen to lMr Leeky's
words as the words of an impartial witness? He writes:
Ir;-h history contains its full ,hare .:.f vi.:.l-unce arind umasacre,
but whoever will examine th:-.e ':piod.:i with impartiality may
easily convince hims,:lf that their connection with religion has




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs