IRELAND
IN THE NEW CENTURY
BY THE RIGHT HON.
SIR HORACE PLUNKETT, K.C.V.O., F.R.S.
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1904
_Printed by_ BROWNE AND NOLAN, LTD., _Dublin_
TO THE MEMORY OF
W.E.H. LECKY,
I DEDICATE ALL IN THIS BOOK
THAT IS WORTHY OF THE FRIENDSHIP
WITH WHICH HE HONOURED ME,
AND OF THE COUNSEL WHICH HE GAVE ME
FOR MY GUIDANCE IN IRISH PUBLIC LIFE.
PREFACE
Those who have known Ireland for the last dozen years cannot have failed
to notice the advent of a wholly new spirit, clearly based upon
constructive thought, and expressing itself in a wide range of fresh
practical activities. The movement for the organisation of agriculture
and rural credit on co-operative lines, efforts of various kinds to
revive old or initiate new industries, and, lastly, the creation of a
department of Government to foster all that was healthy in the voluntary
effort of the people to build up the economic side of their life, are
each interesting in themselves. When taken together, and in conjunction
with the literary and artistic movements, and viewed in their relation
to history, politics, religion, education, and the other past and
present influences operating upon the Irish mind and character, these
movements appear to me to be worthy of the most thoughtful consideration
by all who are responsible for, or desire the well-being of the Irish
people.
I should not, however, in days when my whole time and energies belong to
the public service, have undertaken the task of writing a book on a
subject so complex and apparently so inseparable from heated
controversy, were I not convinced that the expression of certain
thoughts which have come to me from practical contact with Irish
problems, was the best contribution I could make to the work on which I
was engaged. I wished, if I could, to bring into clearer light the
essential unity of the various progressive movements in Ireland, and to
do something towards promoting a greater definiteness of aim and method,
and a better understanding of each other's work, among those who are in
various ways striving for the upbuilding of a worthy national life in
Ireland.
So far the task, if difficult, was congenial and free from
embarrassment. Unhappily, it had been borne in upon me, in the course of
a long study of Irish life, that our failure to rise to our
opportunities and to give practical evidence of the intellectual
qualities with which the race is admittedly gifted, was due to certain
defects of character, not ethically grave, but economically paralysing.
I need hardly say I refer to the lack of moral courage, initiative,
independence and self-reliance--defects which, however they may be
accounted for, it is the first duty of modern Ireland to recognise and
overcome. I believe in the new movements in Ireland, principally because
they seem to me to exert a stimulating influence upon our moral fibre.
Holding such an opinion, I had to decide between preserving a discreet
silence and speaking my full mind. The former course would, it appeared
to me, be a poor example of the moral courage which I hold to be
Ireland's sorest need. Moreover, while I am full of hope for the future
of my country, its present condition does not, in my view, admit of any
delay in arriving at the truth as to the essential principles which
should guide all who wish to take a part, however humble, in the work of
national regeneration.
I desire to state definitely that I have not written in any
representative capacity except where I say so explicitly. I write on my
own responsibility, with the full knowledge that there is much in the
book with which many of those with whom I work do not agree.
_December_, 1903.
CONTENTS
PART I.
_THEORETICAL._
CHAPTER I
THE ENGLISH MISUNDERSTANDING.
Fidelity of the Irish to the National Ideal
Disregard of Material Advantage in its Pursuit
Home Rule Movement under Gladstone
The Anti-Climax under Lord Rosebery
The Logic of Events and the Dawn of the Practical
The Mutual Misunderstanding of England and Ireland
The Dunraven Conference produces a Revolution in English Thought
about Ireland
The Actual Change Examined
Future Misunderstanding best averted by considering Nature of
Anti-English Feeling
Illustration from Irish-American Life
Importance of Sentiment in Ireland--English Habit of Ignoring
Historical Grievances Still Operative
The Commercial Restrictions--Remaining Effects of
Irish Land Tenure--Lord Dufferin on
Defects of Land Laws--Their Effect on Agriculture
Right Attitude towards Historic Grievances
Plea for Broader and more Philosophic View of Irish Question
Simple Explanations and Panaceas Deprecated
A Many-Sided Human Problem
CHAPTER II.
THE IRISH QUESTION IN IRELAND.
Misunderstanding of the Irish People by the English and by Themselves
Anomalies of Irish Life
The New Movement--Position of Nationalists and Unionists in it
North and South
The Question of Rural Life
Economic Side of the Question
Grazing versus Tillage
Peasant Organisation to be Supplemented by State-Aid
Uneconomic Holdings too Prevalent
Remedies Proposed
Salvation not by Agriculture Alone
Rural Industries and the Irish Home
Reasons for Arrested Development of Home Life
Inter-Dependence of the Sentimental and Practical in Ireland
Outlines of Succeeding Chapters
CHAPTER III.
THE INFLUENCE OF POLITICS UPON THE IRISH MIND.
Legislation as a Substitute for Work
Political Shortcomings of Unionism and Nationalism Compared
Action of the Unionist Party Reviewed
Two Main Causes of its Lack of Success
The Contribution of Ulster
The Nationalist Party
Are Irishmen Good Politicians?
The Irish and the Scotch-Irish in America
America's Interest in the Problem
Part Played by English Government in Producing Modern Irish Disabilities
Causes of the Growth of National Feeling
Retardation of Political Education by the One-Man System
And by Politicians of To-Day
Defence of Nationalist Policy on Ground of Tactics Considered
The Forces opposed to Home Rule--How Dealt with
Local Government--How it might have been utilised
After Home Rule?
Beginnings of Political Education
The Irish Parliamentary Party
CHAPTER IV.
THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION UPON SECULAR LIFE IN IRELAND.
Influences of Religion in Ireland
What is Toleration?
Protestantism in Irish Life
Roman Catholicism and Economics
Power of the Roman Catholic Clergy
Has it been Abused?
Church Building and Monastic Establishments
Clerical Education
Responsibility of the Clergy for Irish Character
The Church and Temperance
The Inculcation of Chastity
The Priest in Politics
New Movement among the Roman Catholic Clergy
Duty and Interest of Protestantism
What each Creed has to Learn from the other
CHAPTER V.
A PRACTICAL VIEW OF IRISH EDUCATION.
English Government and Education
The Kildare Street Society
Scheme of Thomas Wyse
Early Attempts at Practical Education
Recent Reports on Irish Systems
The Policy of the Department of Agriculture
The Example of Denmark
University Education for Roman Catholics
Maynooth and its Limitations
Trinity College
Its Lack of Influence on the Irish Mind
A Democratic University Called for
National and Economic in its Aims
Views of Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics
The Two Irelands
Lord Chesterfield on Education and Character
CHAPTER VI.
THROUGH THOUGHT TO ACTION.
A Word to my Critics
The Gaelic League
Compared with the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society
Objects and Constitution of the League
Filling the Gap in Irish Education
Patriotism and Industry
Nationality and Nationalism
A Possible Danger
Extravagances in the Movement
The Gaelic League and the Rural Home
Meeting with Harold Frederic
His Pessimistic Views on the Celt
A New Solution of the Problem--Organised Self-Help
English and Irish Industrial Qualities
Special Value of the Associative Qualities
Conclusion of Part I.
* * * * *
PART II.
_PRACTICAL._
CHAPTER VII.
THE NEW MOVEMENT; ITS FOUNDATION ON SELF-HELP.
Distrust of Novel Schemes often well justified
The Story of the New Movement
Necessitated by Foreign Competition
Production and Distribution
Causes of Continental Superiority
Objects for which Combination is Desirable
How to Organise the Industrial Army
Help from England
Doubts and Difficulties
Some Favouring Conditions
The Beginning of the Work--Co-operative Creameries
The Social Problem
Early Efforts and Experiences
Foundation of the I.A.O.S.
Its Present Position
Agricultural Banks
The Brightening of Home Life
Staff of the Society
Philanthropy and Business
Enquiries from Abroad
Moral and Social Effects of the New Movement
Unknown Leaders
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RECESS COMMITTEE.
After Six Years
Opportunity for State-Aid
Combination of Political and Industrial Leadership
A Letter to the Press
Mr. Justin McCarthy's Reply
Mr. Redmond's Reply
Formation of the Committee
Investigations on the Continent
Recommendations of the Committee
Position of the Nationalist Members of the Committee
Chief Reliance on Local Effort
Public Opinion on the New Proposals
Adoption of the Bill to give effect to them
Mr. Gerald Balfour's Policy
Industrial Home Rule
CHAPTER IX.
A NEW DEPARTURE IN IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
Functions and Constitution of the New Department
How it is Financed
The Representative Element in its Constitution
The Right to Vote Supplies
Consultative Committee on Education
The Department Linked with the Local Government System
Successful Co-operation with Local Government Bodies
And with Voluntary Societies
The New Department and the Congested Districts Board
The Reception of the Department by the Country
Some Typical Callers
A Wrong Impression Anticipated
CHAPTER X.
GOVERNMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
Summary of Previous Chapter
The Attitude of the People towards the Department
Method of Co-operation with Local Bodies
State-Aid, Direct and Indirect
The Department and the Large Towns
The Department's Plans for Developing Agriculture
The Industrial Problem and Education
The Difficulty of Finding Trained Teachers
How Surmounted
Difficulties of Agricultural Education
Decision to Adopt Itinerant Instruction
Double Purpose of this Instruction
Relation of the Department with Secondary Schools
Importance of Domestic Economy Teaching
Provision of Teachers in Domestic Economy
Miscellaneous Industries
Competition of the Factory
The Department's Fabian Policy Justified
Its Support by the Country
Improvement of Live-Stock
Best Method of giving Object Lessons in Agriculture
Sea Fisheries
Continental Tours for Irish Teachers
Cork Exhibition of 1902
Things and Ideas
Concluding Words
INDEX
PART I.
_THEORETICAL_.
"It is hard to say where history ends, and where religion and
politics begin; for history, religion and politics grow on one stem
in Ireland, an eternal trefoil."--_Lady Gregory_.
CHAPTER I.
THE ENGLISH MISUNDERSTANDING.
Whatever may be the ultimate verdict of history upon the long struggle
of the majority of the Irish people for self-government, the picture of
a small country with large aspirations giving of its best unstintingly
to the world, while gaining for itself little beyond sympathy, will
appeal to the imagination of future ages long after the Irish Question,
as we know it, has been buried. It may then, perhaps, be seen that the
aspirations came to nought because they were opposed to the manifest
destiny of the race, and that it should never have been expected or
desired that the Dark Rosaleen should 'reign and reign alone.'
Nevertheless, the fidelity and fortitude with which the national ideal
had been pursued would command admiration, even if the ideal itself were
to be altogether abandoned, or if it were to be ultimately realised in a
manner which showed that the methods by which its attainment had been
sought were the cause of its long postponement. Whatever the future may
have in store for the remnant of the Irish people at home, the continued
pursuit of a separate national existence by a nation which is rapidly
disappearing from the land of all its hopes, and the cherishing of
these hopes, not only by those who stay but also by those who go, will
stand as a monument to human constancy.
The picture will be all the more remarkable when emphasised by a
contrast which the historian will not fail to draw. Across a narrow
streak of sea another people, during the same period, increased and
multiplied and prospered mightily, spread their laws and institutions,
and achieved in every portion of the globe material success which they
can call their own. Yet, although Irishmen have done much to win that
success for the English people to enjoy, and are to-day foremost in
maintaining the great empire which their brain and muscle were ever
ready to augment, Ireland makes no claim for herself in respect of the
achievement. It is to her but a proof of what her sons will do for her
in the coming time; it does not bring her nearer to her heart's desire.
Although the nineteenth century, with all its marvellous contributions
to human progress, left Ireland with her hopes unfulfilled; although its
sun went down upon the British people with their greatest failure still
staring them in the face, its last decade witnessed at first a change in
the attitude of England towards Ireland, and afterwards a profound
revolution in the thoughts of Ireland about herself. The strangest and
most interesting feature of these developments was that in practical
England the Irish Question became the great political issue, while in
sentimental Ireland there set in a reaction from politics and an
inclination to the practical. The twentieth century has already brought
to birth the new Ireland upon whose problems I shall write. If the human
interest of these problems is to be realized, if their significance is
not to be as wholly misunderstood as that of every other Irish movement
which has perplexed the statesmen who have managed our affairs, they
must be studied in their relation to the English and Irish events of the
period in which the new Ireland was conceived.
In 1885 Gladstone, appealing to an electorate with a large accession of
newly enfranchised voters, transferred the struggle over the Irish
Question from Ireland to Great Britain. The position taken up by the
average English Home Ruler was, it will be remembered, simple and
intelligible. The Irish had stated in the proper constitutional way what
they wanted, and that, in the first flush of a victorious democracy,
when counting heads irrespective of contents was the popular method of
arriving at political truth, was assumed to be precisely what they ought
to have. A long but inconclusive contest ensued. At times it looked as
if the Liberal-Irish alliance might snatch a victory for their policy.
But when Gladstone was forced to break with the Irish Leader, and
Parnellism without Parnell became obviously impossible, the English
realised that the working of representative institutions in Ireland had
produced not a democracy but a dictatorship, and they began to attach a
lesser significance to the verdict of the Irish polls. Their faith in
democracy was unimpaired, but, in their opinion, the Irish had not yet
risen to its dignity. So most English Radicals came round to a view
which they had always reprobated when advanced by the English
Conservatives, and political inferiority was added to the other moral
and intellectual defects which made the Irish an inferior race!
The anti-climax to the Gladstone crusade was reached when Lord Rosebery
in 1894 took over the premiership from the greatest English advocate of
the Irish cause. The position of the new leader was very simple. In
effect, he told the Irish Nationalists that the English party he was
about to lead had done its best for them. They must now regard
themselves as partners in the United Kingdom, with the British as the
predominant partner. Until the predominant partner could be brought to
take the Irish view of the partnership, the relations between them must
remain substantially as they were. And not only must the concession of
Home Rule await the conversion of the British electorate, but before the
demand could be effectively preferred, another leader must rise up among
the Irish; and he, for all Lord Rosebery knew, was at the moment being
wheeled in a perambulator. This apparently cynical avowal of the new
premier's own attitude towards Home Rule accurately stated the facts of
the situation, and fairly reflected the mind of the British electorate,
after Irish obstruction had given them an opportunity of studying the
bearing of the Irish Question on English politics.
If the logic of events was thus making for the removal of Home Rule from
the region of practical politics in England, an even more momentous
change was taking place in Ireland. Whilst the Home Rule controversy was
at its height in the 'eighties and early 'nineties, some Irish
grievances were incidentally dealt with--not always under the best
impulses or in the best way. The concentration of all the available
thought and energy of Irish public men upon an appeal to the passions
and prejudices of English parties had led to the further postponement of
all Irish endeavour to deal rationally and practically with her own
problems at home. But during the welter of contention which prevailed
after the fall of Parnell, there grew up in Ireland a wholly new spirit,
born of the bitter lesson which was at last being learned. The Irish
still clung undaunted to their political ideal, but its pursuit to the
exclusion of all other national aims had received a wholesome check.
Thought upon the problems of national progress broadened and deepened,
in a manner little understood by those who knew Ireland from without,
and, indeed, by many of those accounted wise among the observers from
within. Was the realisation of a distinctive national existence, many
began to ask themselves, to be for ever dependent upon the fortunes of a
political campaign? In any scheme of a reconstructed national life to
which the Irish would give of their best, there must be
distinctiveness--that much every man who is in touch with Irish life is
fully aware of--but the question of existence must not be altogether
ignored. At the rate the people were leaving the sinking ship, the Irish
Question would be settled in the not distant future by the disappearance
of the Irish. Had we not better look around and see how other countries
with more or less analogous conditions fared? Could we not--Unionists
and Nationalists alike--do something towards material progress without
abandoning our ideals? Could we not learn something from a study of what
our people were doing abroad? One seemed to hear the voice of Bishop
Berkeley, the biting pertinence of whose _Queries_ is ever fresh, asking
from the grave in which he had been laid to rest nearly a century and a
half ago 'whether it would not be more reasonable to mend our state than
complain of it; and how far this may be in our own power?'
These questionings, though not generally heard on the platform or even
in the street, were none the less working in the depths of the Irish
mind, and found expression not so much in words as in deeds. Yet though
the downfall of Parnell released many minds from the obsession of
politics, the influence of that event was of a negative character, and
it took time to produce a beneficial effect. That fruitful last decade
of the nineteenth century saw the foundation of what will some day be
recognised as a new philosophy of Irish progress. Certain new principles
were then promulgated in Ireland, and gradually found acceptance; and
upon those principles a new movement was built. It is partly, indeed, to
expound and justify some, at any rate, of the principles and to give an
intelligible account of the practical achievement and future
possibilities of this movement that I write these pages.
For English readers, to whom this introductory chapter is chiefly
addressed, I may here reiterate the opinion, which I have always held
and often expressed, that there is no real conflict of interest between
the two peoples and the two countries, and that the mutual
misunderstanding which we may now hope to see removed is due to a wide
difference of temperament and mental outlook. The English mind has never
understood the Irish mind--least of all during the period of the 'Union
of Hearts.' It is equally true that the Irish have largely misunderstood
both the English character and their own responsibility. The result has
been that their leaders, despite the brilliant capacity they have shown
in presenting the unhappy case of their country to the rest of the
world, have rarely presented it in the right way to the English people.
There have been many occasions during the last quarter of a century when
a calm, well-reasoned statement of the economic disadvantages under
which Ireland labours would, I am convinced, have successfully appealed
to British public opinion. It could have been shown that the development
of Ireland--the development not only of the resources of her soil but of
the far greater wealth which lies in the latent capacities of her
people--was demanded quite as much in the interest of one country as in
that of the other.
Here, indeed, is an untilled field for those to whom the Irish Question
is yet a living one. If I could think that each country fully realised
its own responsibility in the matter, if I could think that the
long-continued misunderstanding was at an end, nothing would induce me
to trouble the waters at this auspicious hour, when a better feeling
towards Ireland prevails in Great Britain, and when the Irish people are
fully appreciative of the obviously sincere desire of England to be
generous to Ireland. But an examination of the events upon which the
prevailing optimism is based will show that, unhappily,
misunderstanding, though of another sort, still exists, and that Ireland
is as much as ever a riddle to the English mind.
Now this new optimism in the English view of Ireland seems to be based,
not upon a recognition of the development of what I have ventured to
dignify with the title of a new philosophy of Irish progress, but upon a
belief that the spirit of moderation and conciliation displayed by so
many Irishmen in connection with the Land Act is due to the fact that my
incomprehensible countrymen have, under a sudden emotion, put away
childish things and learned to behave like grown-up Englishmen.
Throughout the press comments upon the Dunraven Conference and in public
speeches both inside and outside Parliament there has run a sense that a
sort of portent, a transformation scene, a sudden and magical
alteration in the whole spirit and outlook of the Irish people, has come
to pass.
I feel some hesitation in asking the reader to believe that a great and
lasting revolution in Irish thought has been brought about in such a
moment in the life of a people as twelve short years. But a lesser
number of months seemed to the English mind adequate for the
accomplishment of the change. And what a change it was that they
conceived! To them, less than a year ago, the Irish Question was not
merely unsolved, but in its essential features appeared unaltered. After
seven centuries of experimental statecraft--so varied that the English
could not believe any expedient had yet to be tried--the vast majority
of the Irish people regarded the Government as alien, disputed the
validity of its laws, and felt no responsibility for administration, no
respect for the legislature, or for those who executed its decrees. And
this in a country forming an integral part of the United Kingdom, where
the fundamental basis of government is assumed to be the consent of the
governed! Nor were any hopes entertained that the cloud would quickly
pass. During the Boer war the prophets of evil, in predicting the
calamity which was to fall upon the British Empire, took as their text
the failure of English government in Ireland. When they wanted to paint
in the darkest colours the coming heritage of woe, they wrote upon the
wall, 'Another Ireland in South Africa'; and if any exception was taken
to the appropriateness of the phrase, it was certainly not on the
ground that Ireland had ceased to be a warning to British statesmen.
I believe, quite as strongly as the most optimistic Englishman, that
there has been a great change from this state of things in Irish
sentiment, and my explanation of that change, if less dramatic than the
transformation theory, affords more solid ground for optimism. This
change in the sentiment of Irishmen towards England is due, not to a
sudden emotion of the incomprehensible Celt, but really to the
opinion--rapidly growing for the last dozen years--that great as is the
responsibility of England for the state of Ireland, still greater is the
responsibility of Irishmen. The conviction has been more and more borne
in upon the Irish mind that the most important part of the work of
regenerating Ireland must necessarily be done by Irishmen in Ireland.
The result has been that many Irishmen, both Unionists and Nationalists,
without in any way abandoning their opposition to, or support of, the
attempt to solve the political problem from without, have been
trying--not without success--to solve some part of the Irish Question
from within. The Report of the Recess Committee, on which I shall dwell
later, was the first great fruit of this movement, and the Dunraven
Treaty, which paved the way for Mr. Wyndham's Land Act, was a further
fruit, and not the result of an inexplicable transformation scene.
The reason why I dwell on the true nature of the undoubted change in
the Irish situation is not in order to exaggerate the importance of the
part played by the new movement in bringing it about, nor to detract
from the importance of Parliamentary action, but because a mistaken view
of the change would inevitably postpone the firm establishment of an
improved mutual understanding between the two countries, which I regard
as an essential of Irish progress. I confess that my apprehension of a
new misunderstanding was aroused by the debates on the Land Bill in the
House of Commons. As regards the spirit of conciliation and moderation
displayed by the Irish, and the sincere desire exhibited by the British
to heal the chief Irish economic sore, the speeches were, if not
epoch-making, at any rate epoch-marking; but they showed little sense of
perspective or proportion in viewing the Irish Question, and little
grasp or appreciation of the large social and economic problems which
the Land Act will bring to the front. Temporary phenomena and
legislative machinery have been endowed with an importance they do not
possess, and miracles, it is supposed, are about to be worked in Ireland
by processes which, whatever rich good may be in them, have never worked
miracles, though they have not seldom excited very similar enthusiasms
in the economic history of other European lands.
I agree, then, with most Englishmen in thinking, though for a different
reason, that the passing of the Land Act marked a new era in Ireland.
They regard it as productive of, or co-incident in time with, the dawn
of the practical in Ireland. I antedate that event by some dozen years,
and regard the Land Act rather as marking a new era, because it removes
the great obstacle which obscured the dawn of the practical for so many,
and hindered it for all.
Whatever may have been the expectations upon which this great measure
was based, I, in common with most Irish observers, watched its progress
with unfeigned delight. The vast majority regarded the hundred millions
of credit and the twelve millions of 'bonus' as a generous concession to
Ireland; and I sympathised with those who deprecated the mischievous
suggestion, not infrequently heard in English political circles, that
this munificence was the 'price of peace.' On one point all were agreed:
the Bill could never have become law had not Mr. Wyndham handled the
Parliamentary situation with masterly tact, temper, and ability. To him
is chiefly due the credit for the fact that the Land Question, in its
old form at any rate, no longer blocks the way, and that the large
problems which remain to be solved, and, above all, the spirit in which
they will have to be approached by those who wish the existing peace to
be the forerunner of material and social progress, can be freely and
frankly discussed.
It is true, as I have said, that Ireland is becoming more and more
practical, and that England is becoming more anxious than ever to do her
substantial justice. But still the manner of the doing will continue to
be as important as the thing which is done. Of the Irish qualities none
is stronger than the craving to be understood. If the English had only
known this secret we should have been the most easily governed people in
the world. For it is characteristic of the conduct of our most important
affairs that we care too little about the substance and too much about
the shadow. It is for this reason that I have discussed the real nature
of one phase of Irish sentiment which has been largely misunderstood,
and it is for the same reason that I propose to preface my examination
of the Irish Question with some reference to the cause and nature of the
anti-English sentiment, for the long continuance of which I can find no
other explanation than the failure of the English to see into the Irish
mind.
I am well acquainted with this sentiment because, in my practical work
in Ireland, it has ever been the main current of the stream against
which I have had to swim. Years spent in the United States had made me
familiar with its full and true significance, for there it can be
studied in an atmosphere not dominated by any present Irish
controversies or struggles. I have found this sentiment of hatred deeply
rooted in the minds of Irishmen who had themselves never known Ireland,
who had no connection, other than a sentimental one, with that country,
who were living quiet business lives in the United States, but who were
ever ready to testify with their dollars, and genuinely believed that
they only lacked opportunity to demonstrate in a more enterprising way,
their "undying hatred of the English name."[1]
With such men I have reasoned, and sometimes not in vain, upon the
injustice and unreason of their attitude. I have not attempted to
controvert the main facts of Ireland's grievances, which they frequently
told me they had gleaned from Froude and Lecky. I used to deprecate the
unqualified application of modern standards to the policies of other
days, and to protest against the injustice of punishing one set of
persons for the misdoings of another set of persons, who have long since
passed beyond the reach of any earthly tribunal. I have given them my
reasons for believing that, even if such a course were morally
admissible, the wit of man could not devise any means of inflicting a
blow upon England which would not react injuriously with tenfold force
upon Ireland. I have gone on to show that the sentiment itself, largely
the accident of untoward circumstances, is alien to the character and
temperament of the Irish people. In short, I have urged that the policy
of revenge is un-Christian and unintelligent, and, that, as the Irish
people are neither irreligious nor stupid, it is un-Irish. I well
remember taking up this position in conversation with some very advanced
Irish-Americans in the Far West and the reply which one of them made.
"Wal," said my half-persuaded friend, "mebbe you're right. I have two
sons, whom I have raised in the expectation that they will one day
strike a blow for old Ireland. Mebbe they won't. I'm too old to change."
I have chosen this incident from a long series of similar reminiscences
of my study of Irish life, to illustrate an attitude of mind, the
historical explanation of which would seem to the practical Englishman
as academic as a psychological exposition of the effect of a red rag
upon a bull. The English are not much to be blamed for resenting the
survival of the feeling, but it appears to me to argue a singular lack
of political imagination that they should still fail to appreciate the
reality, the significance, and the abiding force of a sentiment which
has so far successfully resisted the influence of those governing
qualities which have played a foremost part in the civilisation of the
modern world. The _Spectator_ some time ago came out bluntly with a
truth which an Irishman may, I presume, quote without offence from so
high an English authority:--"The one blunder of average Englishmen in
considering foreign questions is that with white men they make too
little allowance for sentiment, and with coloured men they make none at
all."[2] I am afraid it must be added that 'average Englishmen' make
exactly the same blunder in under-estimating the force of sentiment when
considering Irish questions, with the not unnatural consequence that
the Irish regard them as foreigners, and that, as those foreigners
happen to govern them, the sentiment of nationality becomes political
and anti-English.
There is one reason why this sentiment is not allowed to die which
should always be remembered by those who wish to grasp the inner
workings of the Irish mind. Briefly stated, the view prevails in Ireland
that in dealing with questions affecting our material well-being, the
government of our country by the English was, in the past, characterised
by an unenlightened self-interest. Thoughtful Englishmen admit this
charge, but they say that the past referred to is beyond living memory
and should now be buried. The Irish mind replies that the life of a
nation is not to be measured by the life of individuals, and that a
wrong inflicted by a Government upon a community entitles those who
inherit the consequences of the injury to claim reparation at the hands
of those who inherit the government. With this attitude on the part of
the Irish mind I am not only most heartily in sympathy, but I find every
Englishman who understands the situation equally so. In the later
portions of this book it will be shown that practical recognition, in no
small measure, has been given by England to the righteousness of this
part of the Irish case, and that if the effect thus produced has not
found as full an outward expression as might have been expected, the
Irish people have at any rate responded to the new treatment in a manner
which must, in no distant future, bring about a better understanding.
The only historical causes of our present discontents to which I need
now particularly refer, are the commercial restrictions and the land
system of the past, which stand out from the long list of Irish
grievances as those for which their victims were the least responsible.
No one can be more anxious than I am that we should cease to be for ever
seeking in the past excuses for our present failures. But it is
essential to a correct estimation of Irish agricultural and industrial
possibilities that we should notice the true bearings of these
historical grievances upon existing conditions.
In this connection there arises a question which is very pertinent to
the present inquiry and which must therefore be considered. I have seen
it argued by English economists that the industrial revolution which
took place at the end of the eighteenth and commencement of the
nineteenth century would in any case have destroyed, by force of open
competition, industries which, it is admitted, were previously
legislated away. They point out that the change from the order of small
scattered home industries to the factory system would have suited
neither the temperament nor the industrial habits of the Irish. They
tell us that with the industrial revolution the juxtaposition of coal
and iron became an all-important factor in the problem, and they recall
how the north and west of England captured the industrial supremacy from
the south and east. Incidentally they point out that the people of the
English counties which suffered by these economic causes braced
themselves to meet the changes, and it is suggested that if the people
of Ireland had shown the same resourcefulness, they, too, might have
weathered the storm. And, finally, we are reminded that England, by her
stupid Irish policy, punished her own supporters, and even herself,
quite as much as the 'mere Irish.'
Much of this may be true, but this line of argument only shows that
these English economists do not thoroughly understand the real grievance
which the Irish people still harbour against the English for past
misgovernment. The commercial restraints sapped the industrial instinct
of the people--an evil which was intensified in the case of the
Catholics by the working of the penal laws. When these legislative
restrictions upon industry had been removed, the Irish, not being
trained in industrial habits, were unable to adapt themselves to the
altered conditions produced by the Industrial Revolution, as did the
people in England. And as for commerce, the restrictions, which had as
little moral sanction as the penal laws, and which invested smuggling
with a halo of patriotism, had prevented the development of commercial
morality, without which there can be no commercial success. It is not,
therefore, the destruction of specific industries, or even the sweeping
of our commerce from the seas, about which most complaint is now made.
The real grievance lies in the fact that something had been taken from
our industrial character which could not be remedied by the mere removal
of the restrictions. Not only had the tree been stripped, but the roots
had been destroyed. If ever there was a case where President Kruger's
'moral and intellectual damages' might fairly be claimed by an injured
nation, it is to be found in the industrial and commercial history of
Ireland during the period of the building up of England's commercial
supremacy.
The English mind quite failed, until the very end of the nineteenth
century, to grasp the real needs of the situation which had thus been
created in Ireland The industrial revolution, as I have indicated, found
the Irish people fettered by an industrial past for which they
themselves were not chiefly responsible. They needed exceptional
treatment of a kind which was not conceded. They were, instead, still
further handicapped, towards the middle of the century, by the adoption
of Free Trade, which was imposed upon them when they were not only
unable to take advantage of its benefits, but were so situated as to
suffer to the utmost from its inconveniences.
I am convinced that the long-continued misunderstanding of the
conditions and needs of this country, the withholding, for so long, of
necessary concessions, was due not to heartlessness or contempt so much
as to a lack of imagination, a defect for which the English cannot be
blamed. They had, to use a modern term, 'standardised' their qualities,
and it was impossible to get out of their minds the belief that a
divergence, in another race, from their standard of character was
synonymous with inferiority. This attitude is not yet a thing of the
past, but it is fast disappearing; and thoughtful Englishmen now
recognise the righteousness of the claim for reparation, and are willing
liberally to apply any stimulus to our industrial life which may place
us, so far as this is possible, on the level we might have occupied had
we been left to work out our own economic salvation. Unfortunately, all
Englishmen are not thoughtful, and hence I emphasise the fact that
England is largely responsible for our industrial defects, and must not
hesitate to face the financial results of that responsibility.
When we pass from the domain of commerce, where we have seen that
circumstances reduced to the minimum Ireland's participation in the
industrial supremacy of England, and come to examine the historical
development of Irish agrarian life, we find a situation closely related
to, and indeed, largely created by, that which we have been discussing.
'Debarred from every other trade and industry,' wrote the late Lord
Dufferin, 'the entire nation flung itself back upon the land, with as
fatal an impulse as when a river, whose current is suddenly impeded,
rolls back and drowns the valley which it once fertilised.' The
energies, the hopes, nay, the very existence of the race, became thus
intimately bound up with agriculture. This industry, their last resort
and sole dependence, had to be conducted by a people who in every other
avocation had been unfitted for material success. And this industry,
too, was crippled from without, for a system of land tenure had been
imposed upon Ireland that was probably the most effective that could
have been devised for the purpose of perpetuating and accentuating every
disability to which other causes had given rise.
The Irish land system suffered from the same ills as we all know the
political institutions to have suffered from--a partial and intermittent
conquest. Land holding in Ireland remained largely based on the tribal
system of open fields and common tillage for nearly eight hundred years
after collective ownership had begun to pass away in England. The sudden
imposition upon the Irish, early in the seventeenth century, of a land
system which was no part of the natural development of the country,
ignored, though it could not destroy, the old feeling of communistic
ownership, and, when this vanished, it did not vanish as it did in
countries where more normal conditions prevailed. It did not perish like
a piece of outworn tissue pushed off by a new growth from within: on the
contrary, it was arbitrarily cut away while yet fresh and vital, with
the result that where a bud should have been there was a scar.
This sudden change in the system of land-holding was followed by a
century of reprisals and confiscations, and what war began the law
continued. The Celtic race, for the most part impoverished in mind and
estate by the penal laws, became rooted to the soil, for, as we have
seen, they had, on account of the repression of industries, no
alternative occupation, and so became, in fact, if not in law,
_adscripti glebae_. Upon the productiveness of their labour the
landlord depended for his revenues, but he did little to develop that
productiveness, and the system which was introduced did everything to
lessen it.[3] The wound produced by the original confiscation of the
land was kept from healing by the way in which the tenants' improvements
were somewhat similarly treated. I do not mean that they were
systematically confiscated--the Devon and Bessborough Commissions, as
well as Gladstone, bore witness to the contrary--but the right and the
occasional exercise of the right to confiscate operated in the same way.
In the Irish tenant's mind dispossession was nine-tenths of the law.
An enlightened system of land tenure might have made prosperity and
contentment the lot of the native race, and, perhaps, have rendered
possible such a solution of the Irish problem as was effected between
England and Scotland two centuries ago. What was chiefly required for
agrarian peace was a recognition of that sense of partnership in the
land--a relic of the tribal days--to which the Irish mind tenaciously
adhered. But, like most English concessions, it was not granted until
too late, and then granted in the wrong way. The natural result was
that, when at last the recognition of partnership was enacted, it became
a lever for a demand for complete ownership. But this was the aftermath,
for in the meantime, from the seed sown by English blundering,
Ireland--native population and English garrison alike--had reaped the
awful harvest of the Irish famine, which was followed by a long dark
winter of discontent. Upon the England that sowed the wind there was
visited a whirlwind of hostility from the Irish race scattered
throughout the globe.
It would be altogether outside the scope or purpose of this chapter to
present a complete history of the remedial legislation applied to Irish
land tenure. That history, however, illustrates so vividly the English
misunderstanding, that a short survey of one phase of it may help to
point the moral. The English intellect at long last began to grasp the
agrarian, though not the industrial side of the wrong that had been done
to Ireland, and the English conscience was moved; there came the era of
concessions to which I have alluded, and for over a quarter of a century
attempts, often generous, if not very discriminating, were made to deal
with the situation. In 1870, dispossession was made very costly to the
landlord. In 1881, it became impossible, except on the tenant's default,
and the partnership was fully recognised, the tenant's share being made
his own to sell, and being preserved for his profitable use by a right
to have the rent payable to his sleeping partner, the landlord, fixed by
a judicial tribunal. These rights were the famous three F's--fixity of
tenure, free sale, and fair rent--of the Magna Charta of the Irish
peasant. If these concessions had only been made in time, they would
probably have led to a strengthening of the economic position and
character of the Irish tenantry, which would have enabled them to take
full advantage of their new status, and meet any condition which might
arise; and it is just possible that the system might have worked well,
even at the eleventh hour, had it been launched on a rising market.
Unhappily, it fell upon evil days. The prosperous times of Irish
agriculture, which culminated a few years before the passing of the
'Tenants' Charter,' were followed by a serious reaction, the result of
causes which, though long operative, were only then beginning to make
themselves felt, and some of which, though the fact was not then
generally recognised, were destined to be of no temporary character. The
agricultural depression which has continued ever since was due, as is
now well known, to foreign competition, or, in other words, to the
opening up of vast areas in the Far West to the plough and herd, and the
bringing of the products of distant countries into the home markets in
ever-increasing quantity, in ever fresher condition, and at an
ever-decreasing cost of transportation. Great changes were taking place
in the market which the Irish farmer supplied, and no two men could
agree as to the relative influence of the new factors of the problem, or
as to their probable duration.
Whatever may be said in disparagement of the great experiment commenced
in 1881, there can be no doubt that it enormously improved the legal
position of the Irish tenantry, and I, for one, regard it as a
necessary contribution to the events whose logic was finally to bring
about the abolition of dual ownership. But what a curious instance of
the irony of fate is afforded by this genuine attempt to heal an Irish
sore, what a commentary it is upon the English misunderstanding of the
Irish mind! Mr. Gladstone found the land system intolerable to one
party; he made it intolerable to the other also. For half a century
_laissez-faire_ was pedantically applied to Irish agriculture, then
suddenly the other extreme was adopted; nothing was left alone, and
political economy was sent on its famous planetary excursion.
When Mr. Gladstone was attempting to settle the land question on the
basis of dual ownership, the seed of a new kind of single
ownership--peasant proprietorship--was sown through the influence of
John Bright. The operations of the land purchase clauses in the Church
Disestablishment Act of 1869, and the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, were
enormously extended by the Land Purchase Acts introduced by the
Conservative Party in 1885 and in 1891, and the success which attended
these Acts accentuated the defects and sealed the fate of dual
ownership, which all parties recently united to destroy. In other words,
Parliament has been undoing a generation's legislative work upon the
Irish land question.
This is all I need say about that stage of the Irish agrarian situation
at which we have now arrived. What I wish my readers to bear in mind is
that the effect of a bad system of land tenure upon the other aspects of
the Irish Question reaches much further back than the struggles,
agitations, and reforms in connection with Irish land which this
generation has witnessed. The same may be said with regard to the other
economic grievances. No one can be more anxious than I am to fasten the
mind of my countrymen upon the practical things of to-day, and to wean
their sad souls from idle regrets over the sorrows of the past. If I
revive these dead issues, it is because I have learned that no man can
move the Irish mind to action unless he can see its point of view, which
is largely retrospective. I cannot ignore the fact that the attitude of
mind which causes the Irish people to put too much faith in legislative
cures for economic ills is mainly due to the belief that their ancestors
were the victims of a long series of laws by which every industry that
might have made the country prosperous was jealously repressed or
ruthlessly destroyed. Those who are not too much appalled by the
quantity to examine into the quality of popular oratory in Ireland are
familiar with the subordination of present economic issues to the dreary
reiteration of this old tale of woe. Personally I have always held that
to foster resentment in respect of these old wrongs is as stupid as was
the policy which gave them birth; and, even if it were possible to
distribute the blame among our ancestors, I am sure we should do
ourselves much harm, and no living soul any good, in the reckoning. In
my view, Anglo-Irish history is for Englishmen to remember, for Irishmen
to forget.
I may now conclude my appeal to outside observers for a broader and more
philosophic view of my country and my countrymen with a suggestion born
of my own early mistakes, and with a word of warning which is called for
by my later observation of the mistakes of others. The difficulty of the
outside observer in understanding the Irish Question is, no doubt,
largely due to the fact that those in intimate touch with the actual
conditions are so dominated by vehement and passionate conviction that
reason is not only at a discount but is fatal to the acquisition of
popular influence. Of course the power of knowledge and thought, though
kept in the background, is not really eliminated. But it is in the
circumstances not unnatural that most of us should fall into the error
of attributing to the influence of prominent individuals or
organisations the events and conditions which the superficial observer
regards as the creation of the hour, but which are in reality the
outcome of a slow and continuous process of evolution. I remember as a
boy being captivated by that charming corrective to this view of
historical development, Buckle's _History of Civilization_, which in
recent years has often recurred to my mind, despite the fact that many
of his theories are now somewhat discredited. Buckle, if I remember
right, almost eliminates the personal factor in the life of nations.
According to his theory, it would not have made much difference to
modern civilisation if Napoleon had happened, as was so near being the
case, to be born a British instead of a French subject. It would also
have followed that if O'Connell had limited his activities to his
professional work, or if Parnell had chanced to hate Ireland as bitterly
as he hated England, we should have been, politically, very much where
we are to-day. The student of Irish affairs should, of course, avoid the
extreme views of historical causation; but in the search for the truth
he will, I think, be well advised to attach less significance to the
influence of prominent personality than is the practice of the ordinary
observer in Ireland.
The warning I have to offer, I think, will be justified by a reflection
upon the history of the panaceas which we have been offered, and upon
our present state. To those of my British readers who honestly desire to
understand the Irish Question, I would say, let them eschew the sweeping
generalisations by which Irish intelligence is commonly outraged. I may
pass by the explanation which rests upon the cheap attribution of racial
inferiority with the simple reply that our inferior race has much of the
superior blood in its veins; yet the Irish problem is just as acute in
districts where the English blood predominates as where the people are
'mere Irish.' If this view be disputed, the matter is not worth arguing
about, because we cannot be born again. But there are three other common
explanations of the Irish difficulty, any one of which taken by itself
only leads away from the truth. I refer, I need hardly say, to the
familiar assertions that the origin of the evil is political, that it is
religious, or that it is neither one nor the other, but economic. In
Irish history, no doubt, we may find, under any of these heads, cause
enough for much of our present wrong-goings. But I am profoundly
convinced that each of the simple explanations to which I have just
alluded--the racial, the political, the religious, the economic--is
based upon reasoning from imperfect knowledge of the facts of Irish
life. The cause and cure of Irish ills are not chiefly political,
broaden or narrow our conception of politics as we will; they are not
chiefly religious, whatever be the effect of Roman Catholic influence
upon the practical side of the people's life; they are not chiefly
economic, be the actual poverty of the people and the potential wealth
of the country what they may. The Irish Question is a broad and deeply
interesting human problem which has baffled generation after generation
of a great and virile race, who complacently attribute their incapacity
to master it to Irish perversity, and pass on, leaving it unsolved by
Anglo-Saxons, and therefore insoluble!
FOOTNOTES:
[1] My own experience confirms Mr. Lecky's view of the chief cause of
this extraordinary feeling. "It is probable," he writes, "that the true
source of the savage hatred of England that animates great bodies of
Irishmen on either side of the Atlantic has very little real connection
with the penal laws, or the rebellion, or the Union. It is far more due
to the great clearances and the vast unaided emigrations that followed
the famine."--_Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland_, Vol. II., p, 177.
[2] _Spectator_, 6th September, 1902.
[3] The title to the greater part of Irish land is based on
confiscation. This is true of many other countries, but what was
exceptional in the Irish confiscations was that the grantees for the
most part did not settle on the lands themselves, drive away the
dispossessed, or come to any rational working agreement with them.