THE UNION.
We come now to the great turning point in the modern history of
Ireland--the Union. It has been so constantly and so vehemently
asserted that this momentous event was prompted by the wicked desire
of England to ruin Ireland, and was carried out by fraud, bribery,
intimidation, and every form of political crime, that not only
ordinary readers, but even writers who are content to receive
their information at second hand without investigating evidence for
themselves, generally assume that no other view is possible. Thus
O'Connell boldly asserted that the Irish Catholics never assented
to the Union. Others have blindly repeated his words; and from those
reiterated statements has been developed an argument that as the
Catholics did not assent to the Union, they cannot be bound by it.
I believe that there has been as much exaggeration about this as about
most other episodes of Irish history; and that anyone who, fairly and
without prejudice, takes the trouble to go through the history of the
Union as it may be gathered from contemporary documents, will come to
the conclusion that it was devised by great and earnest statesmen who
had the good of both countries at heart. As to the means by which it
was carried, there is much to be said on both sides of the question;
Lecky has stated the case against the Union ably and temperately;
other writers, equally honourable, have taken the opposite side. There
is at any rate very much to be said for the opinion, that, considering
the circumstances and the peculiar constitution of the Irish
Parliament, there was nothing which the Government did that was not
perfectly justifiable. As to whether it was in accordance with the
wish of the people or not, there are several points which ought to be
borne in mind but to which sufficient attention is not usually given.
A very large part of the nation were ignorant peasants, who did not
and could not properly understand the question; and as a matter
of fact cared little about it. Then of those who were against the
measure, many opposed it not because they wished the existing state
of things to continue, but because they thought that the Union would
prevent the one object of their ambition--total separation and the
establishment of a republic; their opinion therefore has but little
weight. When we come to the more educated and propertied classes, it
seems that the majority were in favour of the measure; and as to the
opinion of the Roman Catholic section (which after all was far the
largest part of the nation) I think there can be no doubt whatever.
Fortunately it is no longer necessary to wade through the mass of
original papers; for the evidence has been so carefully investigated
during recent years by various impartial writers, and has been
presented to the general reader in so clear and concise a manner
that no one now has any excuse for being led away by the impassioned
statements of partisan orators. I refer specially to the "History of
the Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland," by Dr. Dunbar
Ingram, published in 1887.
That careful writer commences his work by stating that, dissatisfied
with endless assertions unaccompanied by proof, he had determined to
investigate the subject for himself, examining closely the original
and contemporary authorities. He soon found that there was no evidence
to sustain the accusations made against the manner in which the Union
was carried; and that all the charges against the Government rested
finally on Harrington's worthless romances or the declamatory
statements of the Opposition during the sessions of 1799 and 1800,
which, when challenged, they declined to substantiate. Then, as he
proceeded in his work, he discovered that, after its terms were known
and the public had had time for reflection, the Union was thankfully
accepted by the two communities which made up Ireland; that the
Protestants, after the first burst of clamour, were as a body
converted and became well-wishers to the measure; and that the Roman
Catholics, after a short hesitation, gave the Union their hearty
assent and support. And finally, the whole inquiry left a strong
conviction on his mind that the Union was undertaken from the purest
motives, that it was carried by fair and constitutional means, and
that its final accomplishment was accompanied with the hearty assent
and concurrence of the vast majority of the two peoples that dwelt in
Ireland.
I feel that I cannot do better than follow some of the lines of his
argument.
It is true that in the time of the Plantagenets representatives from
Ireland were on several occasions summoned to attend the English
Parliament; and that during the Commonwealth Ireland was incorporated
with the rest of the Empire and sent members to the Parliaments of
1654 and 1657. These incidents, however, are unimportant; it is more
to the purpose to point out that from the time of the Restoration
onwards we find a long list of distinguished thinkers recommending
such a Union; and in the beginning of the eighteenth century both
Houses of the Irish Parliament twice petitioned Queen Anne to the
same effect. It may be asked why the English politicians, who were so
anxious to bring about the Union with Scotland, turned a deaf ear
to these petitions. The answer is simple. The Scotch Parliament
was independent, and the impossibility of having two independent
Parliaments under one sovereign had become manifest. Trade jealousies
had arisen; the action of the Scotch had nearly involved England in a
war with Spain; the Scotch Parliament had passed an Act declaring that
until provision was made for settling the rights and liberties of the
Scotch nation independently of England the successor to the Scotch
Crown should not be the same person that was possessed of the Crown
of England. The Parliament of England commenced arming the militia and
fortifying the towns near the Border. England being at war with France
the Scotch Parliament passed an Act allowing Scotchmen to trade with
that country; it therefore was a choice between Union and War; and
the two countries wisely chose Union. In the case of Ireland, however,
England saw no such danger; the Irish legislature was subordinate;
Ireland was bound by English statutes; and the Irish Parliament
represented not the whole people but only that one section of it which
was necessarily bound to the English connection; the Irish petitions
for Union therefore remained unheeded. The great Bishop Berkeley,
writing in 1735, strongly advocated a union; at a later time Adam
Smith wrote: "By a union with Great Britain Ireland would gain besides
the freedom of trade other advantages much more important ... Without
a union with Great Britain the inhabitants of Ireland are not likely
for many ages to consider themselves as one people." But, as we
have seen, by the Act of 1782, the Irish Parliament had become
independent--that is, it was placed in the same position as the
Scotch Parliament had been; and by the Act of 1893, the bulk of the
constituencies in the counties had become Roman Catholic. Except
in the opinion of thoughtless optimists like Grattan, matters were
approaching a deadlock; for sooner or later the Roman Catholic
electors would demand representation in Parliament; the borough
members would most probably refuse it, in which case war might break
out again; and if they granted it, the Irish Parliament, then almost
entirely Roman Catholic, would be anxious to break the tie that bound
Ireland to England.
But apart from the religious question, it was evident that the
constitution, as fixed by the Act of 1782, was fraught with dangers.
And it is no answer to say that not many difficulties had arisen
in the few years between 1782 and 1799; for, even though that is
partially true, the question for a statesman to consider was whether
they were likely to arise in the future; and the rebellion, which
was still seething, had made this all the more probable. First, on a
declaration of war by England, Ireland might refuse to take part in
it; and her refusal would paralyse the Empire. As early as 1791, Wolfe
Tone had pointed out that Ireland need not embark on the side of
Great Britain in the contest which was then pending; and one of his
followers had advocated an alliance with France. (This is of all the
more importance at the present day, when the Nationalists state that
their principles are the same as those of Wolfe Tone.) Secondly,
during a war, Ireland might refuse supplies to England. This course
was actually hinted at by Grattan. Thirdly, she might provoke a
commercial war of rates with England. This course was proposed in the
Irish House of Commons in 1784. Fourthly, she might put pressure on
the Sovereign to declare war against a country with which England was
at peace. This also was proposed in the Irish House, in the case of
Portugal. Fifthly, she might differ from England in any international
question in reference to the connection between them, as she did in
the Regency question. Sixthly, she might refuse--as she did--to make
a commercial treaty with Great Britain; and thus keep open the most
fertile sources of mutual jealousies and discontent. Grattan's best
friends had urged upon him in vain that refusing to assent to a
commercial treaty made the permanent government by two independent
legislatures impossible, and would bring about separation; he refused
to be guided by their advice, and at that time he still had supreme
power in the House. It is remarkable that even at a later date, whilst
vehemently opposing the Union, he took a delight in pointing out
how many ways there were in which an Irish Parliament might injure
England; seeming not to realize that he was supplying a forcible
argument in favour of the measure he was opposing.
The dangers of the situation were summed up by Pitt in a few
words:--"A party in England may give to the Throne one species of
advice by its Parliament. A party in Ireland may advise directly
opposite upon the most essential points that involve the safety of
both; upon alliance with a foreign power, for instance; upon the army;
upon the navy; upon any branch of the public service; upon trade; upon
commerce; or upon any point essential to the Empire at large." And
long afterwards Sir Robert Peel pointed out that within the short
period of six years from the establishment of what is called the
independence of the Irish Parliament--from 1782 to 1788--the foreign
relations of the two countries, the commercial intercourse of the two
countries, the sovereign exercise of authority in the two countries,
were the subjects of litigation and dispute; and it was more owing
to accident than to any other cause that they did not produce actual
alienation and rupture.
The idea of a Union was first brought before Parliament by the Lord
Lieutenant (Lord Cornwallis) in his speech at the opening of the
Session in January 1799. It appeared at first that a majority of the
Peers were in favour of the proposal, but a small majority of the
House of Commons hostile--some to the scheme altogether, others to
its being brought forward at that time. This small majority, however,
rapidly diminished; and before many weeks had passed, the Government
possessed a majority in both Houses. The citizens of Dublin were
naturally strongly against the measure, thinking that it would injure
the prestige of the capital; as were also the proprietors of boroughs
and the legal members of the House; and soon after the scheme had
been proposed, several counties held meetings and passed resolutions
against it; but as the year went on, when the details of the measure
had been more carefully considered, there was a general change of
feeling throughout the country. Lord Cornwallis went on tours both
north and south, through both Protestant and Roman Catholic
districts, everywhere receiving addresses in favour of the Union from
corporations, grand juries, leading residents, and especially from
Roman Catholic bodies. And, if we may believe Lord Cornwallis's own
letters, these addresses were entirely spontaneous, and represented
the real feelings of the community. Before Parliament met in March
1800, twenty-two counties had passed resolutions in favour of the
Union; and Lord Castlereagh was able to say in the House that the
great body of the landed property of Ireland, and all the great
commercial towns except Dublin and Drogheda, were friendly to the
measure. The Opposition attempted to meet this by presenting a number
of petitions showing that the people of Ireland were against it. Of
the fifty-four petitions presented, five were not against the Union at
all, but merely requests for compensation in the event of its coming
about; three were from individuals or commercial firms; and eight were
from Dublin alone. The number therefore was much smaller than appears
at first sight. Besides obtaining these petitions, the Opposition
also collected a large sum of money for the purchase of seats; in the
circumstances and according to the ideas of the time, I do not say
that they were in the least morally wrong in doing so; but the fact
takes away from the value of the votes given; and it neutralizes
anything that was done by the Government in the same way--if it can be
proved that the Government so acted.
But as the Roman Catholics constituted three-fourths of the population
of Ireland, it is more important to investigate what their feelings
were than to scrutinize the division lists of the House, if we wish to
ascertain what was really the wish of the nation. Fortunately we have
an opportunity of testing whether there is any truth in the statement
of O'Connell to which I have already referred--that the Irish
Catholics did not assent to the Union. The evidence shows conclusively
that the Roman Catholic peerage, episcopate, priesthood and laity all
gave the movement their hearty concurrence and co-operation. Lords
Kenmare and Fingall assured Lord Cornwallis that the Catholics were
in favour of a Union; the entire episcopate--that is, the four
archbishops and nineteen bishops, three sees being vacant--expressed
the same view by their letters which are still extant or by
resolutions signed by them; for instance, the Archbishop of Tuam
wrote: "I have had an opportunity of acquiring the strongest
conviction that this measure alone can restore harmony and happiness
to our unhappy country." The Bishop of Cork wrote: "Nothing in my
opinion will more effectively tend to lay these disgraceful and
scandalous party feuds and dissensions, and restore peace and
harmony amongst us, than the great measure in contemplation, of
the legislative Union, and incorporation of this Kingdom with Great
Britain. I am happy to tell you it is working its way, and daily
gaining ground in the public opinion. Several counties which appeared
most adverse to it have now declared for it, and I have no doubt but,
with the blessing of God, it will be effected, notwithstanding the
violent opposition of Mr. Foster and his party. The Roman Catholics in
general are avowedly for the measure. In the south, where they are the
most numerous, they have declared in its favour." The Bishop of Ferns
presided at a meeting of Catholics of Wexford at which an address
in favour of incorporation of both legislatures was signed by 3,000
persons; and throughout the country meetings, presided over by parish
priests, were held to further the movement; and the laity were quite
as eager as the clergy in the matter. Plowden, the Roman Catholic
historian, says: "A very great preponderancy in favour of the Union
existed in the Catholic body, particularly in their nobility, gentry
and clergy." Thomas McKenna, the Secretary to the Catholic Committee,
wrote two pamphlets in the same interest; whilst on the other hand not
a single petition against it was presented by any Roman Catholic body.
When the Session of 1800 commenced, a leading member of the Opposition
sadly confessed that the people had deserted them. But the struggle
in the House of Commons was tremendous. The Anti-Unionists had the
advantage of the oratory of Grattan, who, though he had not been in
Parliament since 1797, now purchased a seat for £2,400, and entered
the House in a theatrical manner in the midst of the discussion. But
his vehement and abusive style of declamation could not in debate
be compared with the calm reasoning of Castlereagh. The most able
speeches against the measure were not those of Grattan, but Foster.
Many divisions were taken, the Government majority steadily rising
from forty-two to sixty-five, and comprising an actual majority of
the members of the House. In the House of Lords it was relatively
much larger. But it is constantly affirmed that this majority was only
brought about by bribery and intimidation. The word "bribery" has an
ugly sound; and in such a case as this, it is only fair to examine
what is exactly meant by the term. There is no doubt that compensation
was given to the proprietors of boroughs which were not allowed
representation in the United Parliament; and it is said that as the
return of members to Parliament is a public trust and not a species of
property, this was not a fair matter for pecuniary compensation; hence
it amounted to bribery. But the ownership of boroughs had grown up
insensibly; and they had long been looked upon and treated as private
property, not only in Ireland but in England and Scotland also; and
there were many honest men in all three countries who contended that
the system worked well, as it was the means whereby a large number
of distinguished men obtained their first introduction into public
life--amongst them being Pitt, Canning, and Fox in England, Grattan,
Flood and Plunkett in Ireland. Then in other cases when powers which
had long been regarded as property have been abolished, compensation
has been given. This was the case when the heritable jurisdictions in
Scotland were abolished, and when by the disestablishment of the Irish
Church the right of patrons to nominate to livings was taken away. And
even granting for the sake of argument that this is wrong, is it fair
to call it bribery? Eighty-four places were disfranchised, and a sum
of £1,260,000 (which did not nearly amount to the price which the
boroughs at that time fetched in the market) was paid. Of this,
£67,500 was paid to Englishmen who owned seats in the Irish
Parliament; £60,000 to boroughs who had no owners; £30,000 to the
executors of a deceased owner; £18,750 to two ladies; and
£1,100,000 to Irishmen who owned boroughs--of which £400,000 went to
Anti-Unionists who opposed the Bill. In many cases, of course, the
actual occupant of the seat was a different person from the owner who
received the compensation; for instance, there is reason to believe
that all the fifty barristers in the house had purchased their seats,
but not one of them was the permanent owner. Now, if compensation
is bribery, who was bribed? Really it must be admitted that
on investigation the charge of bribery, so far as it refers to
compensation to borough-owners, falls to the ground.
Then it is said that the Government made actual payments to members
for their votes. This charge was brought forward in a general way at
the time in both Houses; the Government indignantly denied it, and
called on the Opposition to prove their accusation; but they failed to
do so. To repeat it now is therefore unjust. It may be admitted that
amongst Lord Castlereagh's letters there is one which taken by itself
looks as if a certain sum of money was to be used in bribery; but,
as Dr. Ingram has pointed out, a careful investigation of the matter
shows that it refers to proposed changes in the tariff, and not to
bribery at all.
Again, it is argued that the lavish distribution of titles amounted
to bribery. If so, it is hard to find any Government in England or
Ireland that has not been to some extent guilty of bribery--though it
is true that no British Premier has ever created peerages or salaried
offices on anything like the scale that Mr. Asquith has done. After
the Bill had passed, Pitt created twenty new Irish peerages and four
English ones; and promoted sixteen peers a step in their order; which
after all is not very much more than Lord North had done in 1779, on
no special occasion, when he had created eighteen Irish peerages and
promoted twelve existing peers.
As to the charges of intimidation, they may be dismissed at once; the
very few that were brought forward were so completely answered at the
time, that even the Opposition dropped them. The presence of such a
large number of troops in Ireland was quite accounted for by the fact
that the rebellion was still to some extent going on, and that there
was again a danger of a French invasion.
And I must contend further that even admitting that there were
some acts on the part of the Government which will not bear strict
investigation according to present ideas, it is only fair to remember
the tremendous difficulties of the occasion. The English House of
Commons was almost unanimously in favour of the Union--not more than
thirty members ever voted against it; and in the opinion of Lord
Cornwallis, who throughout his long and varied career showed himself
to be a shrewd observer and an upright, honourable man, "This country
could not be saved without the Union."
But really the whole discussion is beside the mark. The Nationalists
continually repeat the charge that the Union was carried by fraud; and
so it must be answered; but it has no bearing on anything existing at
the present day. For the old Irish Parliament has disappeared--merged
in the greater and more honourable Assembly of the United Kingdom; and
to revive it now would be a physical impossibility. The whole state
of circumstances has changed; no assembly that could now be formed in
Ireland would bear the faintest resemblance to that which met in the
eighteenth century. As Lecky has well expressed it:--
"To an historian of the eighteenth century, however, few
things can be more grotesquely absurd than to suppose that the
merits or demerits, the failure or the successes of the
Irish Parliament has any real bearing on modern schemes for
reconstructing the Government of Ireland on a revolutionary
and Jacobin basis; entrusting the protection of property and
the maintenance of law to some democratic assembly consisting
mainly of Fenians and Land-leaguers, of paid agitators and
of penniless adventurers. The Parliamentary system of the
eighteenth century might be represented in very different
lights by its enemies and by its friends. Its enemies would
describe it as essentially a government carried on through the
instrumentality of a corrupt oligarchy, of a large, compact
body of members holding place and pensions at the pleasure of
the Government, removed by the system of rotten boroughs from
all effectual popular control. Its friends would describe it
as essentially the government of Ireland by the gentlemen of
Ireland and especially the landlord class.
"Neither representation would be altogether true, but each
contains a large measure of truth. The nature of the Irish
constituencies and the presence in the House of Commons of a
body of pensioners and placemen forming considerably more than
a third of the whole assembly, and nearly half of its active
members, gave the Government a power, which, except under
very rare and extraordinary circumstances, must, if fully
exercised, have been overwhelming ... On the other hand,
the Irish Parliament was a body consisting very largely of
independent country gentlemen, who on nearly all questions
affecting the economical and industrial development of the
country, had a powerful if not a decisive influence ... and
it was in reality only in a small class of political questions
that the corrupt power of government seems to have been
strained. The Irish House of Commons ... comprised the flower
of the landlord class. It was essentially pre-eminently the
representative of the property of the country. It had all the
instincts and the prejudices, but also all the qualities
and the capacities, of an educated propertied class, and it
brought great local knowledge and experience to its task. Much
of its work was of that practical and unobtrusive character
which leaves no trace in history."