Great brutalities disgraced the rebellion of 1798, but the people had suffered much and had French examples before them. The real originator of the movement was Theobald Wolfe Tone (q.v.), whose proffered services Rebellion of 1798. were rejected by Pitt, and who founded the United Irishmen. His Parisian adventures detailed by himself are most interesting, and his tomb is still the object of an annual pilgrimage. Tone was a Protestant, but he had imbibed socialist ideas, and hated the priests whose influence counteracted his own. In Wexford, where the insurrection went farthest, the ablest leaders were priests, but they acted against the policy of their church.
The inevitable union followed (1st January 1801). From this period the history of Ireland naturally becomes intermingled with English politics (see [English History]), and much of the detail will also be found in the biographical Union of Great Britain and Ireland. articles on prominent Irishmen and other politicians. Pitt had some time before (1785) offered a commercial partnership, which had been rejected on the ground that it involved the ultimate right of England to tax Ireland. He was not less liberally inclined in religious matters, but George III. stood in the way, and like William III. the minister would not risk his imperial designs. Carried in great measure by means as corrupt as those by which the constitution of ’82 had been worked, the union earned no gratitude. But it was a political necessity, and Grattan never gave his countrymen worse advice than when he urged them to “keep knocking at the union.” The advice has, however, been taken. Robert Catholic Emancipation. Emmet’s insurrection (1803) was the first emphatic protest. Then came the struggle for emancipation. It was proposed to couple the boon with a veto on the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops. It was the ghost of the old question of investitures. The remnant of the Roman Catholic aristocracy would have granted it; even Pius VII. was not invincibly opposed to it; but Daniel O’Connell took the lead against it. Under his guidance the Catholic association became a formidable body. At last the priests gained control of the elections; the victor of Waterloo was obliged to confess that the king’s government could no longer be carried on, and Catholic emancipation had to be granted in 1829. The tithe war followed, and this most oppressive of all taxes was unfortunately commuted (1838) only in deference to clamour and violence. The repeal agitation was Repeal agitation. unsuccessful, but let us not be extreme to mark the faults of O’Connell’s later years. He doubtless believed in repeal at first; probably he ceased to believe in it, but he was already deeply committed, and had abandoned a lucrative profession for politics. With some help from Father Mathew he kept the monster meetings in order, and his constant denunciations of lawless violence distinguish him from his imitators. His trial took place in 1844. There is a sympathetic sketch of O’Connell’s career in Lecky’s Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland (1871); Sir Thomas Wyse’s Historical Sketch of the late Catholic Association (1829) gives the best account of the religious struggle, and much may be learned from W. J. Fitzpatrick’s Life of Bishop Doyle (1880).
The national system of education introduced in 1833 was the real recantation of intolerant opinions, but the economic state of Ireland was fearful. The famine, emigration and the new poor law nearly got rid of starvation, but the people never became frankly loyal, feeling that they owed more to their own importunity and to their own misfortunes than to the wisdom of their rulers. The literary efforts of young Ireland eventuated in another rebellion (1848); a revolutionary wave could not roll over Europe without touching the unlucky island. After the failure of that outbreak there was peace until the close of the American civil war released a number of adventurers trained to the use of arms and filled with hatred to England.
Already in 1858 the discovery of the Phoenix conspiracy had shown that the policy of John Mitchel (1815-1875) and his associates was not forgotten. John O’Mahony, one of the men of ’48, organized a formidable secret society in America, which his historical studies led him to call the Fenian brotherhood (see [Fenians]).
The Fenian movement disclosed much discontent, and was attended by criminal outrages in England. The disestablishment of the Irish Church, the privileged position of which had long been condemned by public opinion, was then decreed (1869) and the land question was next taken in hand (1870). These reforms did not, however, put an end to Irish agitation. The Home Rule party which demanded the restoration of a separate Irish parliament, showed increased activity, and the general election of 1874 gave it a strong representation at Westminster, where one section of the party developed into the “obstructionists” (see the articles on [Isaac Butt] and [C. S. Parnell]).
Isaac Butt, who died in May 1879, led a parliamentary party of fifty-four, but the Conservatives were strong enough to outvote them and the Liberals together. His procedure was essentially lawyer-like, for he respected the House of Commons and dreaded revolutionary violence. His death left the field clear for younger and bolder men. William Shaw succeeded him as chairman of the Irish party in Parliament; but after the election of 1880, Parnell, who had the Land League at his back, ousted him by 23 votes to 18.
The Land Law of 1860, known as Deasy’s Act, had been based on the principle that every tenancy rested on contract either expressed or implied. The act of 1870, admitting the divergence between theory and practice, The Land League. protected the tenants’ improvements and provided compensation for disturbance within certain limits, but not where the ejectment was for non-payment of rent. In good times this worked well enough, but foreign competition began to tell, and 1879 was the worst of several bad seasons. A succession of wet summers told against all farmers, and in mountainous districts it was difficult to dry the turf on which the people depended for fuel. A famine was feared, and in the west there was much real distress. The Land League, of which Michael Davitt (q.v.) was the founder, originated in Mayo in August, and at a meeting in Dublin in October the organization was extended to all Ireland, with Parnell as president. The country was thickly covered with branches before the end of the year, and in December Parnell went to America to collect money. He was absent just three months, visiting over sixty cities and towns; and 200,000 dollars were subscribed. Parnell had to conciliate the Clan-na-Gael and the Fenians generally, both in Ireland and America, while abstaining from action which would make his parliamentary position untenable. He did not deny that he would like an armed rebellion, but acknowledged that it was an impossibility. Speaking at Cincinnati on the 23rd of February 1880, he declared that the first thing necessary was to undermine English power by destroying the Irish landlords. Ireland might thus become independent. “And let us not forget,” he added, “that that is the ultimate goal at which all we Irishmen aim. None of us, whether we be in America or in Ireland, or wherever we may be, will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England.” At Galway in October of the same year he said that he “would not have taken off his coat” to help the tenant farmers had he not known that that was the way to legislative independence. Fenianism and agrarianism, essentially different as they are, might be worked to the same end.
To meet the partial failure of the potatoes in Connaught and Donegal, very large sums were subscribed and administered by two committees, one under the duchess of Marlborough and the other under the lord mayor of Dublin. When Lord Beaconsfield appealed to the country in March 1880, he reminded the country in a letter to the viceroy, the duke of Marlborough, that there was a party in Ireland “attempting to sever the constitutional tie which unites it to Great Britain in that bond which has favoured the power and prosperity of both,” and that such an agitation might in the end be “scarcely less disastrous than pestilence and famine.” But the general election did not turn mainly upon Ireland, and the result gave Gladstone a majority of 50 over Conservatives and Home Rulers combined. Earl Cowper became lord-lieutenant, with W. E. Forster (q.v.) as chief secretary, and Parnell remained chairman of his own party in parliament. The Compensation for Disturbance Bill, even where the ejectment was for non-payment of rent, passed the House of Commons, but the Lords threw it out, and this has often been represented as the great cause of future trouble. Probably it made little real difference, for the extreme party in Ireland were resolved to stop at nothing. It is not easy to defend the principle that a landlord who has already lost his rent should also have to pay the defaulter before getting a new tenant or deriving a profit from the farm by working it Boycotting. himself. Speaking at Ennis on the 19th of September, Parnell told the people to punish a man for taking a farm from which another had been evicted “by isolating him from his kind as if he was a leper of old.” The advice was at once taken and its scope largely extended. For refusing to receive rents at figures fixed by the tenants, Captain Boycott (1832-1897), Lord Erne’s agent in Mayo, was severely “boycotted,” the name of the first victim being given to the new system. His servants were forced to leave him, his crops were left unsaved, even the post and telegraph were interfered with. The Ulster Orangemen resolved to get in the crops, and to go in armed force sufficient for the purpose. The government allowed 50 of them to go under the protection of about 900 soldiers. The cost seemed great, but the work was done and the law vindicated. In Cork William Bence-Jones (1812-1882) was attacked. The men in the service of the steam-packet companies refused to put his cattle on board, and they were eventually smuggled across the Channel in small lots. Several associations were formed which had more or less success against the League, and at last a direct attack was made. Parnell with four other members of parliament and the chief officers of the Land League were indicted for conspiracy in the Queen’s Bench. No means of intimidating the jurors was neglected, and in the then state of public feeling a verdict was hardly to be expected. On the 25th of January 1881 the jury disagreed, and Parnell became stronger than ever.
Then followed a reign of terror which lasted for years. No one was safe, and private spite worked freely in the name of freedom. The system originated by Parnell’s Ennis speech became an all-devouring tyranny. In the House of Commons, on the 24th of May 1882, Gladstone said that boycotting required a sanction like every other creed, and that the sanction which alone made it effective “is the murder which is not to be denounced.” The following description by a resident in Munster was published in The Times of the 5th of November 1885: “Boycotting means that a peaceable subject of the queen is denied food and drink, and that he is ruined in his business; that his cattle are unsaleable at fairs; that the smith will not shoe his horse, nor the carpenter mend his cart; that old friends pass him by on the other side, making the sign of the cross; that his children are hooted at the village school; that he sits apart like an outcast in his usual place of public worship: all for doing nothing but what the law says he has a perfect right to do. I know of a man who is afraid to visit his own son. A trader who is even suspected of dealing with such a victim of tyranny may be ruined by the mere imputation; his customers shun him from fear, and he is obliged to get a character from some notorious leaguer. Membership of the National League is, in many cases, as necessary a protection as ever was a certificate of civism under Robespierre. The real Jacobins are few, but the masses groan and submit.” Medicine was refused by a shopkeeper even for the sick child of a boycotted person. A clergyman was threatened for visiting a parishioner who was under the ban of the League. Sometimes no one could be found to dig a grave. The League interfered in every relation of life, and the mere fact of not belonging to it was often severely punished. “The people,” says the report of the Cowper Commission, “are more afraid of boycotting, which depends for its success on the probability of outrage, than they are of the judgments of the courts of justice. This unwritten law in some districts is supreme.”
The session of parliament of 1881 was chiefly occupied with Ireland. “With fatal and painful precision,” Gladstone told the House of Commons on the 28th of January, “the steps of crime dogged the steps of the Land Coercion. League,” and the first thing was to restore the supremacy of the law. In 1871 there had been an agrarian war in Westmeath, and an act had been passed authorizing the arrest of suspected persons and their detention without trial. The ringleaders disappeared and the county became quiet again. It was now proposed to do the same thing for the whole of Ireland, the power of detention to continue until the 30th of September 1882. Parnell cared nothing for the dignity of the House of Commons. His leading idea was that no concession could be got from England by fair means, and he made himself as disagreeable as possible. Parliamentary forms were used with great success to obstruct parliamentary action. The “Coercion Bill” was introduced on the 24th of January 1881. There was a sitting of 22 hours and another of 41 hours, and on the 2nd of February the debate was closured by the Speaker on his own responsibility and the bill read a first time. The Speaker’s action was approved by the House generally, but acrimonious debates were raised by Irish members. Parnell and 35 of his colleagues were suspended, and the bill became law on the 2nd of March, but not before great and permanent changes were made in parliamentary procedure. An Arms Bill, which excited the same sort of opposition, was also passed into law.