HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL 
 ADDRESSES 
 
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL 
 ADDRESSES 
 
 1883-1897 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN E. REDMOND, M.P. 
 
 Bublin 
 
 SEALY, BRYERS AND WALKER 
 
 MIDDLE ABBEY STREET 
 
 X n D n 
 
 SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT & CO. 
 
 LIMITED 
 
 stationers' hall court, E.g. 
 
 189S 
 
 :B0ST017 rOTT^r^^ ryvry^^r 
 
FEINTED BY 
 
 SEALY, BEYEES AND WALKEE, 
 
 ABBEY STEEET, DUBLIN. 
 

 PEEFACB. 
 
 The Addresses contained in the following pages 
 range over a period of fifteen years, but they 
 are not given in any special order. They are 
 printed as they were delivered, and where they 
 are taken from newspapers, the only alterations 
 made are merely literal or verbal corrections. 
 The subjects dealt with being, nearly all of 
 them, of permanent interest for Irishmen, it is 
 hoped that the volume may be found useful 
 by students of Irish History, as well as by 
 those engaged in current politics. 
 
 J. E. K 
 
 7 Belvideee Place, 
 Dublin, 1st Jan., 1898, 
 
 Q ^ .^ (} 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 1 
 
 II. HUGH O'NEILL ... ... ... 31 
 
 III. WAS THE LATE LAND LEAGUE RESPONSIBLE 
 
 FOR CRIME ? ... ... ... 60 
 
 IV. THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE IRISH 
 
 NATIONAL LEAGUE (1883) ... ... 89 
 
 V. IRISH PROTESTANTS AND HOME RULE ... 116 
 
 VI. THOMAS DRUMMOND ... ... ... 135 
 
 VII. WEXFORD IN '98 ... ... ... 153 
 
 Vin. HOME RULE — ITS REAL MEANING ... 179 
 
 -IX. THE HOME RULE BILL, 1 886 ... ... 202 
 
 — X. THE HOME RULE BILL, 1893 ... ... 220 
 
 XI. IRISH NATIONAL CONVENTION IN CHICAGO 242 
 
 XII. THE COERCION ACT (Defence of Self at 
 
 Ferns) ... ... ... ... 253 
 
viii Contents. 
 
 XIII. THE COERCION ACT (Defence of Dillon, 
 
 O'Brien and Others at Tipperary) ... 260 
 
 XIV. THE PARNELL CRISIS (First Speech in 
 
 Committee Room 15) ,.. ... 290 
 
 XV. THE PARNELL CRISIS (Sccond Speech in 
 
 Committee Room 15) ... ... 301 
 
 XVI. THE NATIONAL DEMAND ... ... 311 
 
 XVII. SPEECH IN THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC, NEW 
 
 YORK ... ... ... ... 331 
 
 XVIII. AMNESTY ... ... ... ... 355 
 
 XIX. THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT 
 
 BRITAIN AND IRELAND ... ... 375 
 
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL 
 ADDRESSES. 
 
 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE HOUSE OF 
 COMMONS. 
 
 LECTURE DELIYEUED IX THE BROADWAY THEATRE, 
 
 NEW YORK, ON 29tH NOVEMBER, 1896. 
 
 C. H. DANA IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 I. 
 
 I CANNOT but feel that there must seem something ahiiost 
 presumptuous in my coming before an American autlience 
 to tell them anything about the English Parliament. 
 America is so enlightened, so intellectually keen about 
 everything which is going on throughout the world — the 
 American Press casts so piercing a search-light around the 
 globe, that the average American probably knows ars much 
 of our institutions and life in Europe as we do ourselves. 
 Your newspapers spread before you every morning a record 
 of the world's doings — even its most hidden things — the 
 secrets of Cabinets, the private treaty of kings, the schemes 
 of armies, the inner personal history of political manoeuvres, 
 to say nothing of the comedies and tragedies of society. 
 
 In coming to speak to you therefore on the subject which 
 has been suggested for my lecture to-night, I am oppressed, 
 by a double sense of difficulty and doubt. First, I feel that 
 
2 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 I shall find it hard to tell you anything abont the British 
 Parliament which yoxi have not already been told in a more 
 interesting way by those Argus-eyed correspondents whom 
 your great newspapers keep in London to describe our 
 doings ; and on the other hand I am oppressed by the 
 consciousness that— strange as the confession may appear 
 from a i^olitician — this is a form ox public speaking to 
 which I am quite unaccustomed. 
 
 I could advocate without too much hesitation the cause 
 for which I have do'ue my best to fight during the past 
 fifteen years in the House of Commons ; that is to say, I 
 could readily strike a. blow in the fight^that comes 
 naturally to a fighter — but to describe the scenes and 
 incidents and personalities of the fight is another matter. 
 However, I suppose my justification is, after all, that I 
 have been in the fight, taking part in it and can say of 
 it "pars e,vigua fui;" and perhaps the point of view of 
 a man sO' situated towards the events he speaks of is not 
 without an interest of its own. 
 
 Cardinal Newman in one of his essays says the Houses 
 of Parliament are a sort of " University of Politics." 
 
 " A member of the Legislature," lie says, " if tolerably observant, 
 begins to see things with new eyes even though his views undergo no 
 change. He learns a vast deal in public speeches and private con- 
 versations which is never put in print. The bearing of measures and 
 events, the action of parties and the character of friends and enemies 
 are brought out to the man who is in the midst of them with a dis- 
 tinctness which the most diligent perusal of the newspapers will fail 
 to impart to them." 
 
 Looking at it in this way it is possible that what I 
 have to say may not prove superfluous or unwelcome to 
 you. On my side I will enjoy as a pleasant interlude this 
 rare opportunity of standing aside from the dust and heat 
 of the strife and contemplating it as a spectator. 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 3 
 
 The House of Commons thi-oughout its long and 
 chequered history has most of the time been a true reflex 
 of the mind of the British nation, and its attitude at 
 different periods towards men and towards events has 
 generally been the attitude which the nation at large has 
 eventually assumed. During my short time I have seen 
 it change again and again in its way of regarding and 
 feeling towards certain men and certain events, and I have 
 seen the British nation invariably follow or at least keep 
 time v.'ith its varying phases. 
 
 I propose to-night, with, your permission, to tell you 
 something of my experiences of some of the great and 
 remarkable Englishmen with whom it has been my lot to 
 be in political relations during the past fifteen years. 1 
 shall have something to say of Gladstone and Disraeli, of 
 Bright, of Churcliill, and others, but in the first place it 
 will be necessary for me to explain brietlv to you the 
 extraordinary political situation which existed in the House 
 •of Commons when I first entered its walls, and to draw a 
 picture for you, as briefly as may be, of perhaps the most 
 remarkable figure Avhich ever appeared in that assembly — 
 I mean Charles Stewart Parnell. 
 
 When I entered Parliament, fifteen years ago, the 
 British public was in the very midst of one of the most 
 desperate of the Irish crises. An Irish leader had arisen 
 who had taken a new way of obtaining redress for Ireland. 
 Mr. Parnell found that the British Parliament insisted 
 upon turning a deaf ear to Ireland's claim for justice. He 
 resolved to adopt the simple yet masterly device of pre- 
 venting Parliament doing any work at" all until it consented 
 to listen. In this policy he was successful. He was the 
 first man who, as Wendel Philips afterwards said of him 
 in Boston, made John Bull listen to the voice of Ireland. 
 
Historical and Political Adclres 
 
 ses. 
 
 The task he had undertaken was a desperate one— and 
 
 at first all the odds were against him. He was in a small 
 
 minority in his own Party. Isaac Butt, the Leader of the 
 
 Irish Party, a great orator and constitutional lawyer, 
 
 commanded the allegiance of four-fifths of the Home Rule 
 
 Members and had denounced the new policy as mischievous 
 
 and insane. Parnell himself was young, inexperienced, not 
 
 gifted with an Irish fluency of speech, but, on the contrary, 
 
 weighted with a halting delivery almost painful to listen to. 
 
 All the men of brilliant Parliamentary talent amongst the 
 
 Irish Members were against him. On his side were only a 
 
 handful of yomig untried and inexperienced Members. 
 
 More than all perhaps, he had the miwritten laws and 
 
 traditions of the House of Commons to combat. On the 
 
 other hand, however, he had to sustain him the sympathy 
 
 of the masses of the Irish people, and he speedily found 
 
 witliin the four corners of the rules and orders of the House 
 
 ample room to obstruct public business and to paralyse the 
 
 legislative machme. With consummate skill, he and Mr. 
 
 Biggar fastened upon those qviestions in particular which 
 
 were likely to command a certain amount of sympathy 
 
 from the more extreme Radicals. They fought the Prisons' 
 
 Bill in the interest of a more humane treatment of 
 
 prisoners, and especially in order to obtain a distinction 
 
 between the treatment of political offenders and ordinary 
 
 criminals. They fought the Factories' Bill in the interest of 
 
 the workmen and workwomen. They raised the question of 
 
 flogging soldiers in the British Army, and eventually 
 
 succeeded in securing its abolition. They resisted the 
 
 South African policy of absorbing the Transvaal, and all 
 
 these questions they attracted a certain amount of 
 
 sympathy and support from English Radicals. But their 
 
 efforts did not end there. They interfered systematically 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 5 
 
 in every single detail of Parliamentary business. Nothing- 
 was too large or too small a question for discussion. Night 
 after night they talked by the hour upon every subject 
 that arose, until the astonished Legislature suddenly woke 
 up to the fact that by the action of this handful of young 
 Irishmen the entire legislative machine has been brought 
 to a stand-still. Then there burst over the heads of Mr. 
 Pamell and his friend a perfect storm of abuse, hatred, 
 and passion. Their rising to' address the House was 
 invariably the signal for an outburst of howls of execration, 
 and Mr. Parnell in particular often stood for half an hour 
 at a time before he could utter a word. But he proved 
 himself perfectly insensible to such methods. He cared 
 neither for the praise nor the abuse of this British 
 Parliament. His object was to injure it so long as it 
 refused to listen to the just claims of his country. If the 
 House groa.ned, he smiled and paused until the groans 
 were over. If the House was turbulent, he remained calm. 
 He spoke always reasonably, alwaj'^s at great length. By 
 degrees he came to be feared almost as much as hated. 
 Again and again he and Mr. Biggar were expelled from the 
 House. The next day they invariably returned and calmly 
 resumed their tactics. On one famous occasion Mr. Biggar 
 spoke for four hours. At first, Members indulged in the 
 usual interruptions, and seeing that Mr. Biggar rather 
 welcomed them as affording him a pleasant rest, they 
 adopted another plan to discourage him and left the House 
 in a body, some half-dozen only of their number remaining. 
 Looking in an hour later, they found him still on his legs 
 reading long extracts from Blue Books to empty benches. 
 An hour later he was still talking. After three hours the 
 Speaker attempted to cut him short. There is a rule of the 
 House that every Member must make himself audible to 
 
6 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 the chair, and Mr. Biggar's voice had grown weak and 
 husky. " The Hon. Member is not making himself audible 
 to the chair," said Mr. Speaker Brand. "That is because 
 I am toO' far away from you, sir,'' said Mr. Biggar, who 
 immediately gathered together his books and papers, and 
 picking up his glass of water walked solemnly up the floor 
 of the House and took uj) a position within a yard of the 
 chair. " As you have not heard me, Mr. Speaker,'' said he, 
 "perhaps I had better begin all over again." 
 
 Parliament thus lay absolutely at the mercy of this new- 
 policy, and Liberals and Tories alike threw all considera- 
 tions of Party aside, and devoted themselves to the task 
 of devising some new rules to rescue the House of Commons 
 from destruction. 
 
 All this was witnessed with beating hearts by the people 
 of Ireland. Hope in Parliamentary action revived, and 
 day by day Mr. Parnell's power grew. Mr. Butt had died. 
 His successor, Mr. Shaw, was politically a cipher, and the 
 General Election of 1880 saw Mr. Parnell safely installed 
 as Leader of the Irish Nationalist Party, and his policy 
 enthusiastically adopted by the people. While these events 
 had been occurring in Parliament the Land League move- 
 ment had sprung into life in Ireland, and almost the first 
 Avork which the new House of Commons, under Gladstone, 
 was asked to undertake was the passage of a Coercion Act 
 suspending the Constitution and abolisliing Trial by Jury. 
 All England was ablaze with excitement. Mr. Parnell and 
 his Party were engaged in a life and death struggle in the 
 House of Commons to prevent the passage of the measure. 
 It was at this moment that I was first elected to Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 At the moment when the Sheriff declared me duly 
 elected, the House of Commons had already been sitting 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 7 
 
 continuously for some twenty-four hours. The brunt of 
 the fight against the Coercion Bill was being bourne by 
 some dozen of Mr. Parnell's most active supporters, and 
 they were looking anxiously for my election to send them 
 a recruit. I received a wire urging me not to lose an hour 
 in crossing to Westminster. I started at once, and 
 travelled all night to London. On my way I received 
 another wire saying the House was still sitting. I reached 
 London about seven o'clock on a dark and cold winter^s 
 morning. I drove straight from the station to the House 
 of Commons, and it was thus travel-stained and weary that 
 I first presented myself as a Member of the British 
 Parliament. The House was still sitting — it had been 
 sitting without a break for over forty hours. I shall 
 never forget the appearance the Chamber presented. The 
 floor was littered with paper. A few dishevelled and wearj- 
 Irishmen on one side of the House, about a hundred 
 infuriated Englishmen upon the other; some of them still 
 in evening dress, and wearing what once were the white 
 shirts of the night before last. Mr. Parnell was upon his 
 legs, with pale cheeks and drawn face, his hands clenched 
 behind his back facing without flinching a continuous roar 
 of interruption. It was now about eight o'clock. Half of 
 Mr. Parnell's followers were out of the Chamber snatching 
 a few moments' sleep in chairs in the library or smokeroom. 
 Those who remained had each a specified period of time 
 allotted to him to speak, and they were wearily waiting 
 their turn. As they caught sight of me standing at the 
 bar of the House they sent up a cheer of welcome. I Avas 
 unable to come to their aid, however, as under the Rules 
 of the House I could not take my seat until the commence- 
 ment of a new sitting. My very presence, however, 
 brovight a sense of encouragement and approaching relief 
 
S Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 to them, and I stood there at the bar with my rough 
 travelling coat still upon me, gazing alternately with 
 indignation and admiration at the amazing scene being 
 enacted before me. Here then was the great Parliament 
 of England. Of intelligent debate there was none. It was 
 ■one unbroken scene of turbulence and disorder. The few 
 Irislimen remained quiet, too' ajiiused, perhaps, or too much 
 exhausted to retaliate. It was the Englishmen — the 
 members of the first assembly of gentlemen in Europe as 
 they love to style it — who howled and roared and almost 
 foamed at the mouth with rage, at the calm and pale- 
 laced young man, who stood patiently facing them and 
 endeavouring from time to time to make himself heard. 
 The galleries were filled with strangers eveiy whit as 
 excited as the Members, and even the ladies' gallery 
 contained its dozen or so of eager spectators. No one 
 knew what was going to happen. There was no power 
 under the Rules of the House to stop the debate, it had 
 resolved itself into a question of physical endurance, and 
 it seemed as if the Irishmen, battling for the liberties of 
 their country were capable of resisting until the impotence 
 of the House of Commons had covered it with the contempt 
 and ridicule of Europe. 
 
 At last the end came suddenly and unexpectedly. At 
 ■eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker Brand, from a sense of duty, as 
 he said, and acting on liis own responsibility, and in de- 
 fiance of the Rules of the House, ordered the debate to 
 end. 
 
 The correspondent of a great English newspaper thus 
 described the scene : — ■ 
 
 " Amid breathless silence the Speaker began to read from a paper 
 which trembled like an aspen leaf in his hand. For all his grave and 
 «tately quietude the Speaker is a nervous man, and always brings to 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 9 
 
 the performance of his duty a disturbing consciousness of its momen- 
 tous character. The task he was now engaged on was enough to 
 shake the nerves of a stronger man. Never since Cromwell entered 
 the House, at the head of his men-at-arms, had regular Parliamentary 
 procedure been subject to this swift and arbitrary cutting off by the 
 mandate of a single man. But the Speaker got through his task with 
 dignity, being strengthened by the burst of enthusiastic cheers which 
 greeted him." 
 
 The Irish Members endeavoured to pi'otest by speech 
 against this proceeding', and failing in the attempt, they 
 rose in their seats and left the Chamber in a body shouting, 
 ^' Privilege," a ciy not heard in that place since Charles I. 
 attempted to invade the liberty of Parliament. So ended 
 the first battle over this Coercion Bill, the net result 
 being that England found, in order to suspend the Consti- 
 tution in Ireland, she was obliged to destroy the most 
 cherished tradition and most precious possession of her 
 Parliament — the freedom of speech of its members. 
 
 The following day my membership of the House of Com- 
 mons actually commenced, and I had an experience, I 
 believe, absolutely unique in Parliament aiy history. I 
 took my oath and seat, made my maiden speech, and was 
 suspended and expelled from the House, for the rest of the 
 sitting all in the same evening. It was none of my choosing, 
 however, I had this distinction thrust upon me. It 
 occurred in tliis way. The excitement of the previous day 
 had been intensified by the news of the aiTest of Mr. 
 Davitt in Ireland. Mr. Dillon had endeaA-oured to extract 
 some explanation from the Government, and had been 
 named and suspended, and then Mr. Parnell, on the Prime 
 Minister rising to speak, moved " That Mr. Gladstone be 
 not heard." What then occurred was thus described by 
 an English journalist at the time : — 
 
 " The Speaker ruled that Mr. Gladstone was in possession of the 
 
10 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 House, whereupon Mr. Parnell, rising amid cheers from the Irish 
 Members, moved that Mr. Gladstone be not heard. The Speaker 
 again calHng on Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Parnell shouted out : ' I insist 
 upon my motion being put.' The Speaker having warned Mr. Parnell 
 that his conduct was wilfully obstructive, again called on Mr. 
 Gladstone who had not proceeded beyond his first sentence when 
 Mr. Parnell, rising again excitedly, insisted upon his right to be- 
 heard. ' I name Mr. Parnell as disregarding the authority of the 
 Chair,' said the Speaker, and Mr. Gladstone moved his suspension^ 
 The House was cleared for a divisisn in the usual manuer, but the 
 Irish Members remained seated. Mr. R. Power, the whip, walking 
 round and round as a shepherd's dog guards a flock of sheep. Mr. 
 Sullivan shouted out : ' We contest the legality of the proceeding,* 
 and the Speaker, after the division, reported the matter to th& 
 House." 
 
 For tliis refusal to vote thirty-seven Irish members were 
 suspended, myself among the number. Having been sus- 
 pended, we each in turn refused to leave the Chamber, and 
 addressing the Speaker protested against the entire pro- 
 ceeding, and intimated that unless superior force was 
 employed Ave should resist. That was my maiden speech. 
 Superior force in the shape of the Sergeant-at-Arms and 
 his meny men was applied, and eventually each one of us 
 was escorted under arrest from our seats. In this way my 
 Paiiiamentary career opened with the unique experience 
 O'f taking my seat, making my maiden speech, and being 
 expelled by force from the Chamber on the same -evening. 
 
 During the fifteen years which have passed away since 
 then I have been thrown into political contact with some 
 great and many remarkable Englishmen, Disraeli, Glad- 
 stone, Bright, Chamberlain, Churchill, Harcom-t and 
 Balfour. I have seen the triumph of their genius, the 
 development of their character, the powerful spell they 
 have thrown over the House of Commons and the people- 
 of Great Britain, but I can with perfect truth assert that 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 11 
 
 not one of them presented so strange, so fascinating, so 
 commanding a personality as Charles Stewart Parnell. 
 This testmiony as coming from a political disciple and a 
 personal friend may perhaps be regarded by some of you 
 as biassed, but the view of Pamell which I wish to place 
 before you is not that of his friends who knew him and 
 loved him well, but rather that which is accepted to-day 
 universally by the English people who at one time 
 hated him, who at another time respected and honored 
 him, and who at all times feared him. Writing of him 
 after his death a well-known English writer said (and I 
 quote these Englishmen lest it should be thought that my 
 pictures are exaggerated) : — 
 
 "In years to come the name of Charles Stewart Parnell will be 
 familiar in school books, and his tall figure and pale face will stand 
 out distinct in the portrait gallery of statesmen of the Victorian age. 
 Parnell was not interesting in the same sense as Disraeli was and 
 Gladstone is, but there was about him that fascination which 
 pertains to strong characters whom the public feel they do not 
 thoroughly understand. Disraeli at one epoch of his career wa^ 
 known as the mystery man of politics. That was in his case a 
 mocking phrase used in a sense that implied full insight into the 
 strings and motives of his double shuffling. AVith Parnell it was 
 different. About him there brooded a real air of mystery that in a 
 subtle way added to his power." 
 
 The truth is, the English never understood Parnell. 
 They never could fathom his aims and his policies. Though 
 a man of strong passion, his outAvard demeanour was 
 invariably cold and impassive. He seldom spoke once he 
 had risen to a commanding position in Parliament. When 
 he did speak the silence which crept over the House was 
 absolutely painful in its itensity. He had something of 
 that quality which Coleridge attributed to the Ancient 
 Mariner. "He held them with his glittering eye, they 
 
12 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 could not choose but hear." He was no orator in the 
 ordinary acceptation of the phrase. Indeed he commenced 
 his Parliamentaiy career as a halting speaker, with almost 
 an impediment in his speech. As time went on it is true 
 he spoke with ease and fluency, but the great quality of his 
 oratory was its clearness, directness, and terseness. " No 
 man," said Mr. Gladstone of him, " is more successful in 
 doing that wliich it is commonly supposed all speakers do, 
 but which in my opinion few really do — namely, in saying 
 what he means.'' 
 
 At one time Parnell was the most hated man in the 
 House of Commons. At another he was probably the most 
 powerful and respected. Let me shortly sketch for you one 
 or two pictures which will show you Parnell in both 
 characters. You have already seen him as an obstruc- 
 tionist, detested, absolutely loathed, by Englishmen, 
 fighting almost single-handed against all parties in the 
 House of Commons, certainly the most unpopular man in 
 Biitain. 
 
 A fcAv years later his position had somewhat changed. 
 He was now more feared than hated, and when in the 
 spring of 1882 he was released from prison, and the policy 
 of Coercion was abandoned by Mr. Gladstone, it seemed as 
 if a reaction was about to set in in England with regard to 
 Ireland, and to Mr. Parnell personally. Suddenly the 
 Phoenix Park murder took place, and the fury and hatred 
 of England burst out afresh with a hundred-fold greater 
 intensity than before. A blind unreasoning fury took 
 possession of the public, and there was but one thought in 
 every English mind, Parnell was the man responsible. 
 Parnell was the man who ought to suffer. Imagine your- 
 selves in the House of Commons at its first meeting forty- 
 eight hours after the murder. All London surged down 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Comvions. 1.5 
 
 towards Westminster. The police with difficulty cleared a 
 passage for Members to enter the building through the 
 crowds in the street outside. Such one or two of the Irish 
 Members as were recognised were greeted with howls of 
 execration. Inside the House there wasi the stillness of 
 the tomb. By a strange and mysterious instinct every 
 Member had come down dressed in black as to a funeral. 
 Every available inch' of room on the floor, and in the 
 galleries was occupied, and when Mr. Gladstone, looking 
 strangely old and haggard, rose tO' move the adjournment 
 of the House in consequence of the crime, a sort of shiver 
 seemed to run through the entire assembly. Mr. Glad- 
 stone himself broke down. He had loved Lord Frederick 
 Cavendish, and he could barely articulate his words in 
 expressing his horror at the deed. When he resumed, his 
 seat Mr. Parnell rose, pale and worn, after his six months' 
 imprisonment, but calm, erect, and defiant. A strange, 
 fierce murmur ran round the House, the like of which I 
 had never heard. It could not be described as a growl, 
 though it had in it a note of savage hatred. We looked up 
 startled, and knew not what was about to happen, but it 
 suddenly died away into a silence so intense we could almost 
 feel it. What had this man to sayl This man, the in- 
 direct if not the actual cause of the murder 1 What right 
 had he to speak — What right had he toi be here at all? 
 His very presence was an outrage ! Never, as long as I 
 live, shall I forget the looks of fierce detestation turned 
 upon Mr. Pamell at that moment. We, his friends, tried 
 to counteract all this by a cheer, but so chilled were we by 
 the scene that it died away unuttered on our lips. Mr. 
 Parnell, however, did not falter. In a few simple words, 
 expressed without any outward sign of the influence of 
 the scene upon him, he expressed his horror at the crime 
 
14 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 and sat dov.-n the most liated, distrusted, and feared man 
 in England. 
 
 Let me sketch, for you another scene in the same place 
 four years later. Once more the House is crowded. Once 
 more all London has flocked to Westminster. Once more 
 an eager crowd of thousands of people wait patiently in the 
 street to see the Members arrive. Their demeanour now 
 is strangely different from what it wasi on that dreadful 
 day four years before, and as Mr. Parnell quietly makes 
 his way towards the entrance he is recognised and greeted 
 with a cheer. What is the meaning of it all 1 The answer 
 is simple. To-day Mr. Gladstone isi to introduce his fa'st 
 Home Rule Bill, and, next to the aged Premier himself, the 
 Irish Leader holds the largest place at this moment in the 
 public mind of England. When Mr. Parnell rose to address 
 the House of Commons that evening, few could believe 
 that he was the same man, and that the same assembly of 
 the scene after the Phoenix Park tragedy. Mr. Gladstone's 
 oration had been the most powerful heard by that genera- 
 tion of Members, and the echoes of its eloquence would for 
 ever ring in their ears ; but after all what they wanted to 
 hear, what all England, nay, all the world, wanted to hear, 
 was what judgment the Irish Leader would pronounce on 
 the Home Rule Bill. Would he accept it or would he 
 reject it? Would he save or kill the Ministry? It is a 
 significant fact, significant of the man and of his character, 
 that no one outside his ov/n Party knew what his decision 
 was to be until he rose to speak in the debate. Mr. Glad- 
 stone himself, when introducing the measure did not know 
 what reception it would meet from the inscrutable and 
 indomitable captain who lead the Irish forces. This, 
 indeed, was Parnell's day of triumph. He had driven the 
 Liberals from office in 1885 by Irish votes because they 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 15 
 
 refused Home Rule. He had driven the Conservatives 
 from office in 1886 for the same reason, and now he had 
 England's greatest statesman and the entire Liberal Party 
 at his feet confessing that they were wrong in the past, 
 and adopting Home Rule for Ireland as their watchword. 
 He, the hated and despised of foiir years before, was now 
 the master of Parliament, and the arbiter of the fate of 
 Ministries. 
 
 One more scene, and I will pass away from Parnell. It 
 was the 1st of March, 1889. The conspiracy of the London 
 Times and Pigott to' ruin Parnell by means of forged letters 
 implicating him in the Phoenix Park murder had just 
 broken down. Pigott himself had that day fled the 
 country. Parnell, on leaving the Court, had been escorted 
 through the streets by cheering thousands of Englishmen. 
 As he emerged from that Court, he passed by the spot 
 where Temple Bar had once stood, Temple Bar, upon whose 
 summit in the olden days were displayed the bloody heads 
 of the Geraldines and other Irish chiefs. Never in the 
 history of the country had there been so dramatic an 
 episode. For many long monthsi this terrible accusation, 
 made with all the authority of the greatest newspaper in 
 England, had hung over Mr. Parnell's head. The most 
 skilled experts in hand-wi'iting had sworn positively that his 
 Avas the hand which had penned the damming letters. 
 Belief in his guilt was almost universal in England, and 
 now suddenly the forger had the truth wrung from his lips 
 in the witness chair, and had fled the country to find a few 
 hours afterwards an end to his miserable life by suicide. 
 The reaction in Mr. Parnell's favour was instantaneous 
 and complete. In the House of Commons an Irish debate 
 was proceeding. The unusual crush of Members, and the 
 public excitement outside the building, bore testimony to 
 
16 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 the universal desire to see Mr. Parnell, to witness how he 
 Avould demean himself in his hour of triumph, to hear what 
 he had to say, to pay homage to him as a victor. It was 
 late when Mr. Parnell reached the House. His approach 
 was heralded by cheers in the street, in the lobby, and on 
 his entrance into the Chamber. A few moments after- 
 wards he rose to speak, and then was enacted a scene 
 absolutely without parallel in the history of the House of 
 Commons. Once again, let me quote from an Englishman. 
 The following description of it, written at the time, is 
 from the pen of an Eno-lishman, who, was by no means 
 too friendly to Mr. Parnell or to Ireland : — 
 
 " When he stood up with pale set face turned towards the chair, 
 the Irish Members near him began to cheer. Then they rose to their 
 feet. The enthusiasm extended, and sedate English Liberal Members 
 also uprose— a thing never before seen in the House of Commons in 
 honour of an Irish Member. But there was more to follow. Mr. 
 Gladstone stood up and turned to face with welcoming countenance 
 the representative of Ireland. In a second, ex-Ministers right and 
 left followed his lead, and resounding cheers filled the House, whilst 
 Mr. Parnell, pale to the lips, stood waiting till the cheering subsided. 
 It was some minutes before he found an opportunity of speaking, the 
 cheers rising again and again, with waving of hats and clapping of 
 hands. All this while Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues stood with 
 their faces turned towards the animated group of Irishmen." 
 
 During this extraordinary ovation Mr. Parnell remained 
 perfectly calm and impassive. Not even by an inclination 
 of his head did he acknowledge the applause which greeted 
 him from those Englishmen who but yesterday were 
 clamouring for his blood, and when at length silence 
 was restored and he commenced to speak, his usual cold 
 and unimpassioned voice and manner did not show the 
 smallest trace of excitement or emotion. He made no 
 allusion whatever to the marvellous scene which had just 
 been enacted, or to the break down of the conspiracy. 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 17 
 
 but proceeded quietly, as if nothing had happened, to 
 the discussion of the particular question before the House. 
 
 Here was, if you will, a strong, still man, a man to be 
 feared by liis foes, a man to be trusted and followed to the 
 death by his friends. A man of grim and stern resolve of 
 unbending nature, unmoved by applause and triumph, as 
 he had been undaunted by hatred and defeat. Never this 
 centuiy did Ireland stand higher that at that moment, and 
 never in the whole history of the British Parliament did 
 there appear a prouder figure, a stronger or more com- 
 manding personality. 
 
 In many respects Mr. Gladstone was the very antithesis 
 of Painell. Above and beyond all else, Mr. Gladstone is 
 an orator, incomparably the greatest orator the House of 
 Commons has seen this century. I have heard many great 
 speakers in the Pulpit, at the Bar, and in Parliament, but 
 I never heard one fit, in my opinion, to rank in the same 
 class as Gladstone. John Bright I well remember. His 
 fine presence his incisive and clear cut diction, his resonant 
 voice, his dramatic action — all made it easy to understand 
 how he had earned the title of " Tribune of the People.'* 
 But in all these attributes, Mr. Gladstone was his superior, 
 while he had many great intellectual qualities never 
 possessed by Bright at all. I suppose no man ever 
 possessed a more marvellous voice than Gladstone. It 
 was powerful, but that was not the secret of its influence. 
 It was its sweetness and its extraordinary compass. 
 Gladstone could sway an assembly as I believe no other 
 living man could do. I have heard him speaking on a 
 multitude of subjects. Sometimes my sympathies were 
 with him, oftener probably against him. I have heard 
 him nobly vindicating the national cause of Ireland, and 
 
 I have heard him at other times denounce and overwhelm 
 
 c 
 
18 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 with ridicule all those things dearest to my heart ; but 1 
 can with tinith say I never heard hhn on any subject with- 
 out being lost in admiration at his genius, or without 
 experiencing the keenest sense of intellectual enjoyment. 
 With the single exception of John Bright, he was the only 
 orator in Parliament during my fifteen years there. 
 Disraeli, it is true, was always delightful to listen to, keen, 
 satirical witty, appealing irresistibly to a sense of humour 
 and to common sense, but never to the feelings or passions. 
 Gladstone, on the other hand, played upon the passions 
 of an audience at his will. He swayed them to laughter 
 or tears with equal ease. He in truth was the last of the 
 great orators of Parliament. Of good speakers, keen 
 debaters, we have plenty to-day. Chamberlain, Balfour, 
 HarcO'in-t, Asquith, and others, but of orators the British 
 Parliament cannot to-day boast of a single one. 
 
 As is the case with all great men Gladstone's character 
 is a many-sided one, and his career as a public man has 
 been full of strange inconsistencies and vicissitudes. A 
 recent writer says of him : — 
 
 " It is sufficiently evident that Mr. Gladstone is one of those great 
 and complex personalities who excite both violent antagonisms and 
 violent enthusiasms, who are the subject of as much misunderstaud- 
 ing as comprehension, and who are continually baffling the dissect- 
 ing knives of their critics. His career is strewn with what seem to 
 be startling inconsistencies, his character abounds in apparent con- 
 tradictions. The rising hope of the stern and unbending Tories, he 
 became the most daring Liberal innovator of the century. The 
 author of Tlie Church in its lielatlons ivith the State, he became the 
 most dangerous foe of Establishment. We have seen him expressing 
 positive loathing for Lord Palmerston, and we have seen him withia 
 a Session Lord Palmerston's Chancellor of the Exchequer ; he came 
 into power in 1880 on a wave of Liberal enthusia.'^m, the result of 
 his agitation against the jingoism of Lord Beaconsfield, and presently 
 his own Government was outrivalling that jingoism in Egypt and 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 19 
 
 ■the Soudan ; he who voted steadily for Coercion for Ireland all his 
 life, and always scouted the demands of Home Rulers, introduced 
 the Home Rule Bill of 1886, and surpassed the most extreme 
 Nationalist Member in the vehemence with which he denounced 
 i;he ' blackguardism and baseness ' by which the Union was 
 effected." 
 
 In the course of such a career it was inevitable that he 
 should arouse bitter antagonism. If Gladstone was at one 
 time the most powerful and respected man in England, if 
 in seme senses he is so still to-day in his retirement, it is 
 alsO' true to say that at other times he was probably the 
 most hated. Even in my short experience I have seen his 
 popularity ebb and flow, I have seen the demeanour of the 
 House of Commons change toward him with the most 
 ;astounding rapidity. 
 
 When the vain-glorious Jingoi war spirit, fostered by 
 Disraeli, was at its height, Mr. Gladstone was never one 
 ■single day safe from insult either in the streets of London 
 or in the House of Commons. A mob broke the windows 
 of his house. He declared himself that he was only able to 
 -walk safely to his house with his wife owing to " the 
 protection of the police." His every appearance in public 
 ■was the signal for hooting and hissing. In the House of 
 Commons the almost daily insults to which he was sub- 
 jected culminated in a scene which will show you at a 
 glance to what deaths of vulgar blackguardism Members of 
 the English Parliament sometimes descend. The following 
 is from the pen of an Englishman : — 
 
 " Scene : Division Lobby of the House of Commons. Time : 9.20 
 p.m. Gladstone is walking along the Lobby having recorded his 
 vote. The Conservative majority in the other Lobby observe him 
 through the glass door, and suddenly set up a yell of execration 
 which could scarcelj' be more violent if the murderer of Lord Leitrim, 
 Hying for sanctuary to Westminster, were discovered skulking in the 
 
20 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Lobby. The crowd increased until it reaches the proportions of 
 forty or fifty English gentlemen, all M'ell ediicated, ^many of good 
 birth, who, with hand held to mouth to make the sound shriller, 
 howl and groan while some even shake their fists. Gladstone, startled 
 at the cry, loulcs iip and sees the crowd. He pauses a moment, and 
 then advancing close to the glass door, calmly survej's the yelling 
 mob. On one side, the slight figure drawn up to its full height, and 
 the pale stern face steadfastly turned towards the crowd, on the 
 other the jeering, mocking gesticulating mob. Between them the 
 glass door." 
 
 At this time, assuredly, there was no more unpopular 
 man in England. The j^opular songs of the day were 
 replete with gross vituperation of him. One of these 
 songs was intensely anmsing, mingling as it does, a 
 grotesque humour with its savageiy. Let me quote a 
 stanza : — 
 
 " When the G.O. M. goes down to his doom. 
 He will ride in a fiery chariot ; 
 And sit in state on a red-hot plate 
 
 Between Satan and Judaa Iscariot. 
 Says the Devil, ' We're rather full you see, 
 
 But I'll do the best I can ; 
 I'll let Ananias and Judas free 
 And take in the Grand Old Man !' " 
 
 There are two scenes in the House of Commons con- 
 nected with Gladstone which stand out clear and distinct 
 beyond all others in my memory. One a scene of defeat 
 and humiliation, the other of trimnph such as few men 
 have ever achieved within these walls. These two scenes 
 well exemplify the vicissitudes of fortune which even the 
 greatest men have to face in Parliament, and the abrupt 
 and extraordinary changes of feeling and opinion which, 
 sway the House of Commons from time to time. The first 
 scene was the defeat of Gladstone's Govermnent in 1885, 
 and the other was the introduction of the second Home 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 21 
 
 Rule Bill in the year 1893. Both these scenes Avere the 
 direct result of the Irish National Question. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Government came into power in 1880 
 with an overwhelming majority. 
 
 In speaking tO' you about Parnell I have already 
 explained the deadly feud which raged between the Irish 
 Party and the Liberal Government of the day. Coercion 
 was in full swing in Ireland. Almost every one of us had 
 made the acquaintance of plank bed and prison skillj^, and 
 we had been waiting for five years for an ooportuiiity of 
 striking back an effective blow. At last the opportunity 
 came. An unpopular Budget was introduced. Certain 
 defections had weakened the ranks of the Government, and 
 at the last moment it became clear that the Irish Members. 
 held the bala,nce of power. They exercised it swiftly, 
 relentlessly, and defeated the Coercionist Government. 
 The scene on the amaouncement of the result of the division 
 baffles description. The central figure, of course, was 
 Gladstone. There he sat, pale as marble, making no effort 
 to conceal the pain, humiliation, and sui'prise of the 
 moment. All around him there surged and swayed an 
 excited throng, while the air resounded with the most 
 conflicting cries. One universal feeling of triumph seemed 
 to pervade the whole scene. The Liberals themselves were 
 not apparently sorry. They had already deserted Gladstone. 
 It was above all a personal defeat. The old man was 
 seventy-seven years of age, and this was the end of his 
 career. Such was the thought uppermost in every man's 
 mind, and with an almost savage cruelty this thought 
 added zest to the cheers of triumph from his foes. High 
 above all rang the voices of the Irish members shouting 
 " Down with Coercion." They stood upon the benches and 
 shook their clenched hands at the old man, and again and 
 
22 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 again reminded him that it Avas Ireland's vote that had 
 wrought his downfall. Amongst those most wildly excited 
 wasi one, of whose brief, strange, and sad career I shall 
 ha.ve a word to say later — I mean Lord Randolph Churchill 
 — then young, vigorous, and confident of the future. The 
 scene of disorderly and tumultuous triumph las.ted for a 
 quarter of an hour or more, and when at last it exhausted 
 itself, and members began to troop out into the lobbies, 
 the old man still sat pale and exhausted upon his seat, 
 the very picture of hopeless old age and overwhelming 
 defeat. 
 
 Who could have believed at that moment that eight 
 years aftenvards — at the age of eighty-fom' — this marvel- 
 lous man would appear again in that House, more powerful, 
 more honoured than ever, still strong in mind and body,, 
 moving, as Prime Minister, the first reading of the Home 
 Rule Bill of 1893. 
 
 For seven years he had been in opposition. During all 
 that time he had laboured with an energy and a splendid 
 confidence in the future which put to shame many of his 
 younger colleagues. In Parliament he led the opposition 
 with unflagging vigour. In the country he spoke on scores 
 of platforms. Never in his whole career did he give more 
 time and labour toi public life. His opponents gazed in 
 wonder at this marvellous old man. They had counted on. 
 his disappearance after the defeat of his first Home Rule 
 Bill in 1886. Lord Randolph Churchill described him as 
 " an old man in a luury,'' and plainly and heartlessly 
 indicated his view that the Unionists had only to wait 
 patiently for a little while, and the old man would dis- 
 appear. What an irony of fate that in the result it was 
 the young man who should have gone and that the old man 
 should still be alive to-day, closely approaching now to his 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 23 
 
 ninetieth year, in complete command of all his jjreat 
 intellectual faculties, and physically hale and I'obust. Those 
 years of opposition, from 1886 to 1892, ended in the 
 complete triumph of Gladstone, and when in February, 
 1893, he rose once more as Prime Minister, to introduce 
 the Home Rule Bill, everyone present realised that they 
 were taking part in one of the most historical scenes ever 
 enacted within the Avails of the British Parliament. 
 
 As usual on such occasions, the populace assembled in 
 thousands round the House of Parliament. For long 
 hom-s an immense crowd waited outside Mr. Gladstone's 
 house, and when he emerged, accompanied by the faithful 
 woman who had done so much to heln him during his long 
 career, he received a noble ovation, and was escorted in 
 triumph to the doors of Parliament. This was after three 
 o'clock in the afternoon, but from early morning the 
 inside of the building had been the scene of intense exciter 
 ment. The most eager competition had taken place for 
 seats in the various stranger's galleries, and even the staid 
 and stately peers had shoved and pushed and fought like 
 schoolboys to obtain admittance. The Prince of Wales and 
 his son ari-i*ed early. All the centre cf the floor of the 
 House had been filled with chairs, and even then there was 
 not room for all the members who overflowed into every 
 passage, and some of whom sat upon the steps of the 
 gangway. At a quarter to four there was but one vacant 
 place — that of the Prime Minister. The intense excitement 
 was evidenced by that subdued movement and eager 
 whispered conversation which the papers in reports of 
 great trials sometimes describes as sensation. Suddenly 
 the echo of a cheer is heard from outside. It comes nearer 
 and louder. All eyes are fixed upon the door, and then, 
 after a moment's pause, the old man enters. The entire 
 
24 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 assembly, with the exception of a few Irish Members, 
 friend and foe alike, rose to greet him. Never did he 
 look nobler, stronger, or more vigorous. Eighty-four years 
 old ! It seemed impossible to believe. His step had the 
 elasticity and spring of youth ; his carriage was as erect 
 as that of a man of twenty ; his eye had all the fire 
 of earlier daj's ; and the flush on his cheek, caused by the 
 scene of excitement he had just passed through outside, 
 made him look positively young. I have always thought 
 Gladstone a strikingly handsome man. To-day the leonine 
 quality of his head showed clearer than ever, and as he 
 Avalked to his seat I could not help thinking that one such 
 scene of triumph as this, one such scene of complete mastery 
 on one side, and honour and homage upon the other, was 
 worth a lifetime of toil and suffering. 
 
 Gladstone faUed to carry his Home Rule proposals, and 
 he is now spending the last days of his life in quiet and 
 retirement, but his recent action on the Armenian question, 
 and the popular enthusiasm it evoked, show how great a 
 hold he still has upon the imaginations and the hearts of 
 the great masses of the English people. As a public man, 
 posterity will no doubt point to his faults — what man is 
 faultless? But I venture to say he will stand out 
 as one of the greatest oratoi'S and statesmen of the 
 British Parliament, aiad one of the most remarkable men who 
 ever appeared in the whole course of English history. And 
 this testimony is perhaps all the more valuable from the 
 fact that it comes from one who has never been a follower 
 of his, and who has been for the most part a bitter opponent, 
 Gladstone's career in Parliament, and in public offices, was 
 one of the longest upon record. That of Lord Randolph 
 Churchill was one of the shortest. He was indeed the comet 
 of a season, but during his short career he exhibited qualities 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Cammons. 25 
 
 which fascinated the public mind, and made him one of 
 the most interesting personalities of the public life of 
 this generation in England. I knew him well. I respected 
 his abilities I admired his many brilliant qualities, 1 
 recognised his kindly nature, and I deeply deplored his sad 
 and untimely end. It was during the early days of Irish 
 obstruction that Lord Randolph first interfered in 
 Parliamentary debate. He became the leader of the 
 Fourth Party, as it was called — a little coterie of four 
 Members, who broke loose from the ordinary discipline of 
 the Tory Party, and aping a kind of Toiy democracy, 
 attacked with bitter impartiality the Government of Mr. 
 Gladstone, and the old leaders of the Conservative opposi- 
 tion. This knot of members consisted of Lord Randolph, 
 Mr. Arthur Balfour, the present Leader of the House of 
 Commons, Mr. Gorst, a prominent member of the present 
 Government, and Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, who stands 
 high to-day in the diplomatic service of England as 
 Ambassador to the Court of Spain. In those early days 
 the Irish Members and the Fourth Party, having much the 
 same end in view, were in daily, almost hourly, communica- 
 tion. They sat on the next bench below us, and many was 
 the private consultation we had with them, when planning 
 attacks upon the Government. When, by our combined 
 votes, we overthrew Mr. Gladstone in 1885, and the Con- 
 servatives came for a few months into office, we obtained 
 from them, through Lord Randolph Churchill, a promise 
 of abandoning Coercion, and the Crimes Act of 1882 was 
 allowed by them to lapse. IMore than that, Lord Randolph 
 at once publicly declared that the policy of his Party was 
 to extend to Ireland every measure of self-govermuent 
 given to England, and the new Tory Lord Lieutenant, Lord 
 Cajrnarvon, immediately upon taking office opened his 
 
26 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 famous negotiations with Mr. Parnell on the question of 
 Home Rule. Lord Randolph's opportunity had now come- 
 
 From that day forward until he, in a moment of temper, 
 threw it away, he possessed the foremost place in the- 
 House of Commonsi on the ConseiTative side. When, after 
 the elections of 1886, the Tory Party came back to power, 
 he accordingly was made Leader of the House, a position 
 which had not been filled by so young a man since the days 
 of Pitt. All the old leaders of his Party were set aside in 
 his favour, and it seemed as if he were entering upon a 
 career of infinite possibilities. 
 
 Lord Randolph had many great qualities, but he had an 
 luigovernable temper and an overweening opinion of his 
 own power. In a moment of temper, caused by a 
 temporary difference with his Party, and thinking it was 
 impossible for them to do without him, he resigned office. 
 His resignation was accepted, and from that day his career 
 may be said to have closed. He absented himself from 
 Parliament for a considerable time, and when he returned 
 it was evident some fell disease had laid its jDaralizing 
 grasp upon him. He was still quite a young man, but he 
 came back strangely aged and bent and broken. I have 
 never w^itnessed a more pathetic scene. All his old 
 friends assembled to welcome him. It had been arranged 
 he was to commence the debate for the evening, and the 
 knowledge that he was to make his re-entree on the stage 
 upon which he had played so brilliant a part brought 
 together a remarkable assemblage. The Prince of Wales 
 sat in the Peers' Gallery, Avhich was crowded to overflowing. 
 There was but one feeling amongst men of all parties — a 
 desire to' give a kindly welcome to the man who had been 
 when in his prime a general favourite. In appearance he 
 Was strangely altered. It has recently been stated, and I 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Cdmmons. 27 
 
 believe it was true, that he! had taken some drug to help 
 him through the ordeal he had to face. Owing to a strange 
 piece of ill-luck, an unexpected discussion which occupied 
 an hour or more, intervened between him and his speech. 
 During this time he sat the very picture of nervousness and 
 misery. The effect of the drug had time to wear away, and 
 when he finally rose to address the House, members were 
 shocked to see his physical weakness, and to mark the sad 
 havoc made on him by his fell disease. His nervousness 
 was painful. In vain he sought to rouse himself and collect 
 his thoughts. He was inaudible, almost inarticulate. No 
 one could follow his speech. In silence the tortured House, 
 tortured by the spectacle of his evident suffering, sat 
 patiently until at last he abruptly ceased and fell back in 
 his seat. It was pitiful. He Avas so young. His prospects 
 had but yesterday seemed so bright. He was so brilliant, 
 so full of life and vigour, so masterful, and now he was so 
 utterly crushed and broken. From that day he never 
 recovered. Again and again he strove with pathetic 
 persistence to re-gain his lost position. It was of no 
 avail. He became worse and worse, and finally sank into 
 his grave. All during my experience of Parliament, I 
 know of nothing more pitiful than this story of sudden 
 dazzling success, followed by swift and utter disaster and 
 destruction. 
 
 There is one other career, and one onl}-, which I wish to 
 sketch for you before I conclude — a career in some respects 
 a sad one, but which, though it ended in premature death, 
 yet ended in complete and absolute trimnph — it was the 
 career of the great demagogue, Charles Bradlaugh. 
 
 Bradlaugh's career as an Apostle of Socialism and 
 Atheism is probably well known by you all. His Parlia- 
 mentary career was indeed a strange one. For five long. 
 
•28 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 years he battled against the House of Commons for his 
 right to a seat within its walls. The great working-class 
 population of Northampton had returned him as their 
 member, as the colleague of the well-known Mr. Labouchere. 
 When he came to the table of the House to be sworn in he 
 claimed the right to make an aiErmation, declaring that 
 fche words of the oath " So help me God '" were meaningless 
 words to him, A Committee of the House considered his 
 claim to be alloAved to affirm, and decided against him. 
 Immediately thereupon Bradlaugh appeared again at the 
 table, and this time asked to have the oath administered to 
 him. Bvit he had previously declared his unbelief in the 
 oath, and the House would not now permit him to take it. 
 They declared his seat vacant, and ordered a new election. 
 Northampton returned him again in triumph. Then com- 
 menced a struggle which lasted for five years, and ended in 
 the defeat of the House and the victory of Bradlaugh. 
 Repeatedly new elections were ordered. Upon each 
 occasion the constituency returned their recalcitrant 
 member. More than once Bradlaugh was arrested and 
 imprisoned. Upon one occasion the House invoked the 
 assistance of the police, who, after a fierce struggle, dragged 
 him violently resisting out of the Lobby and down the 
 staircase, and thrust him panting and ragged into the 
 street. I well remember this occasion. Bradlaugh that 
 afternoon had addressed an enormous public gathering of 
 his supporters in Trafalgar Square, and had announced to 
 them his intention of proceeding at once to Westminster 
 and forcing his wa^- into the House of Commons. He was 
 escorted by an enormous and excited multitude as far as the 
 Houses of Parliament. Here the gates were shut and the 
 crowd kept outside. Bradlaugh alone was admitted. He 
 entered the building, but was stopped at the door of the 
 
Fifteen Years in the House of Commons. 29 
 
 House of Commons by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who informed 
 him he had received instructions from the House not to 
 admit him. Bradlaugh was a man of great height and 
 massive frame, and the Sergeant-at-Arms in his court suit 
 and fancy sword looked like the picture of Jack the Giant 
 Killer gazing up at one of his mighty adversaries, Bradlaugh 
 pushed his way roughly passed, but quick as lightning six 
 burly policemen seized him and commenced attempting to 
 drag him across the Lobby. He fought, indeed, like a- 
 giant, and though the odds were so greatly against him it 
 took his six adversaries a long time to remove him. Mean- 
 time a crowd of Members gathei'ed round and watched the 
 scene, and I well remember — it was then for the first time 
 my sympathies were enlisted on Bradlaugh's behalf — when 
 I witnessed the disgraceful spectacle of a duly elected repre- 
 sentative of the people being kicked, and dragged, and 
 beaten, and torn with brutal force from endeavouring to 
 fulfil his duty to his constituents. In the end, of course^ 
 the will of the people triumphed, and in 1885 Bradlaugh was 
 quietly allowed to take his seat. He died in January, 1891. 
 Before his death he had succeeded in completely reversing 
 the opinion of the House in his regard, and had come to be 
 looked up to with attention and respect as an able* 
 industrious, and thoroughly sincere man. The last and 
 most pathetic incident in his strange career took place 
 while he lay upon his death bed, within a few hours of his 
 death. The Hovise of Commons, which had hated and 
 persecuted him, now did a graceful and thoughtful act, 
 though it was but a tardy I'eparation. It unanimously 
 expunged from its records the resolution of some years 
 before declaring him unfit to take a seat in that assembly. 
 It sent him this message of repentance and sympathy just 
 before he died, and it was the last fact of which he was. 
 
^0 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 conscious before crossing that bourne from which no 
 traveller returns. 
 
 I need scarcely say I have not nearly exhausted the 
 subject upon which I have been speakitig, but yet I feel I 
 can go no further to-night. If in Avhat I have said I have 
 been able to throw any new light vipon the House of 
 •Commons, upon its chief characteristics and its leading 
 Members, I shall be amply repaid. Allow me to make one 
 general remark in conclusion. In the main the House of 
 ■Commons is, I believe, dominated by a rough and ready 
 sense of manliness and fair play. Of course I am not 
 speaking of it as a governing body. In that character it 
 has been towards Ireland always ignorant, and nearly 
 always unfaii-. I am treating it simply as an assembly of 
 men, and I say of it it is a body where sooner or later 
 -every man finds his proper level, where mediocrity and 
 insincerity will never permanently succeed, and where 
 ability and honesty of purpose will never permanently 
 fail. 
 
HUGH O'NEILL. 
 
 lecttjee deliveeed in the town hall, naas, 
 5th decembee, 1887. 
 
 11. 
 
 I PROPOSE to devote my lecture to-night to giving a 
 short sketch of the romantic and glorious career of Hugh 
 O'Neill, The subject is a difficult one to treat as it deserves 
 to be treated at the hands of an Irish Nationalist, and many 
 may consider it is too extensive a one to be discussed, except 
 in the most perfunctory manner, in the limited time at the 
 disposal of a lecturer on an occasion such as this. I 
 acknowledge the difficulty of the subject, and I freely admit 
 my utter incapacity to do justice to my theme. Yet I have 
 been tempted to make this selection of a subject by reasons, 
 the cogenc}^ of which none of you will deny. I know of no 
 reproach which can be levelled against the Irish nation 
 of to-day more full of humiliation and of bitter truth than 
 the indifference of our people to the past history of this 
 land. The histories of other nations find devoted students 
 amongst the youth of Ireland. The story of Spain when she 
 was the mistress of the world, the glories of France when 
 for centuries the fleur-de-lis was the symbol of military 
 renown, the far-off splendours of Roman conqviest, and of 
 Grecian art, all ensaofe the minds and excite the enthusiasm 
 •of Irish youth, while the histoiy of their own land, which 
 
32 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 should be their great source of national inspiration and 
 patriotic zeal, has remained too often an unknown and 
 unopened book. And what a history has it not been ? 
 Tlie recent story of our country has, it is true, been a sad 
 one. It is the record of disaster, and famine, and misery, 
 Eut even in its gloomiest pages, it has never been the 
 record of disgrace, and I am inclined to think that it is 
 from the dark annals of oppression and unfaltering fidelity 
 that Irishmen will draw the lessons of patriotism and of 
 national pride, rather than from the records of military 
 glory or material prosperity. The spectacle of a weak, 
 small, and poor nation, battling for centuries against the 
 most powerful people in Europe, without an ally in the wide 
 universe, continuins: the struggle through generations of 
 luibroken disaster, beaten to her knees a thousand times, 
 yet steadily refusing to surrender the priceless treasures 
 which she clasped to her heart, and for which she fought,, 
 her ancient nationality, and her ancient faith — surely this 
 is a spectacle to arouse ^the pride and to enkindle the de- 
 votion of her sons. And Ireland's history has not all been 
 disaster and defeat. No nation in Europe can point to-day 
 to so splendid a record in the past as can this Island of 
 ours. In the paths of learning and civilisation and religion 
 Ireland led the wa}' for all the nations of the olden world, 
 and tlie record of her military glories still throws a halo 
 round her name, which even the disasters of later genera- 
 tions cannot wholly efface. It is the most humiliating 
 reproach which can be cast at our people to-day, that they, 
 who stud}^ with eagerness the history of the British Empire, 
 with its countless suppressed nationalities, with its pride of 
 power and wealth, with its heartlessness, and its godlessness,, 
 know nothing, or next to nothing, of the ancient glories of 
 their own land, which tell of an uncoquerable nationality^ 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 33 
 
 of an undying faith, and of a people who, for centuries, have 
 preferred poverty to apostacy, and death to national dis- 
 honour. Thank God this reproach of indifference to the 
 history of their country is gradually being removed from 
 Irishmen. The great work to which Davis and Duff"y and 
 Mitchel devoted years of labour and their brilliant intellects, 
 has to-day revived. In Irish schools, where years ago Irish 
 history was never heard of, it is now being taught to the 
 young sons and daughters of the Irish people. 
 
 The story of Hugh O'Neill is the story of the first man 
 who, after the invasion of the Normans, succeeded in 
 miiting Irishmen. It is the story of the first man who 
 abandoned the ideas of provincialism and of tribe dis- 
 tinctions, and conceived the bold idea of creathig one 
 Irish nation, north and south, east and west, bound 
 together by the bond of one common nationality; 
 and it is the stoi-y of the man who wrested this country 
 from the grasp of the foreigner, and successfully defied the 
 entire power and wealth of England's mighty monarch, 
 Elizabeth. English historians delight in depicting Hugh 
 O'Neill as a hypocrite and a traitor. It will be my task 
 to prove him to have been an honourable and courageous 
 gentleman, a far-seeing statesman, and a matchless general. 
 It is commonly asserted by English writers that O'Neill 
 played a crafty and deceitful part to the English Queen, 
 that, while pretending to be her servile tool and ardent 
 admirer, he was in reality plotting day and night to crush 
 her power in Ireland, and to free his country from her 
 tyrannous sway, I admit the accusation, but I enter a 
 plea of justification. In the circumstances in which he 
 lived, Hugh O'Neill had to make a choice between being 
 falsely true to his country's enemies and being patriotically 
 true to his country and his creed. He chose the better 
 
34 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 part, and every thought and action of his entire life, from 
 early boyhood to the grave was dictated by the desire to safe- 
 guard the ancient faith, and restore the ancient liberties of 
 his country. This was the master passion of his life, and it 
 is only by bearing this constantly in mind tliat 
 we can hope to understand his career. The same motive 
 underlay every action of his life, whether he was 
 playing the courtier in London, and wmning his way 
 into the favour of the Queen with his flattering Irish 
 tongue, or leading the Confederate army of Ulster from 
 victory to victory amongst the thousand moimtain peaks of 
 his own loved Ireland. His policy was akin to that of the 
 great French Cardinal, who was wont to say, " When the 
 lion's skm is too short, eke it ou.t with the fox's." He had 
 to contend against a foe far his superior in wealth and 
 in power, a foe as treacherous and as crafty as it was cruel 
 and unscrupulous. Where it was in his power he opposed 
 force to force, but he did not hesitate also to meet intrigue 
 and treachery with craft and cumimg. 
 
 When the light of reason dawned upon him he found 
 himself the scion of a noble race whose honour had been 
 basely bartered away. His grandfather had exchanged 
 the title of The O'Neill for the English Earldom of TjTone. 
 His father had accejDted at the hands of his country's 
 enemies the title of Baron of Dungannon, and he, himself, 
 while yet a boy, had been sent to the English Court in the 
 hope that by learning English manners he might learn also 
 to forget the ancient glories of his race, and to hug the 
 gilded chains which hung around his neck. Those who 
 hoped by seducing and corrupting him to make the sub- 
 jugation of his country assured little knew the mettle of 
 the silent and reserved lad who with calm dignity 
 accepted the favours of the English Court. Though still a 
 
^Hugh O'Neill. 35 
 
 boy the desire of his life was formed. He understood the 
 miserable condition of his country. With burning shame 
 he learned how his grandfather and his father had sold the 
 honour of O'Neill, and how he had been chosen by his 
 ■counti'y's enemies as a fitting instrument to complete 
 Ireland's dishonour and svibjugation. He swore in his 
 secret heart a vow of vengeance. He determined to devote 
 liis life to the task of rescuing Ireland. He went to the 
 English Courts. He studied the English language. He 
 learned English modes of warfare. He cultivated the arts 
 of a courtier and iiisinuated himself into the good graces of 
 Elizabeth, who* mighty and crafty to all the world besides, 
 was to the young Irish prince merely a vain woman, who 
 v/hile wishing to use him as an instrument of her policy, 
 became an instiaiment for furthering his own. He 
 gravely accepted the English title of baron, which he 
 was told he inherited from his father. He accepted 
 service in the Queen's army, and on his return to Ireland 
 he carried with him the Queen's commission to levy 
 and maintain an army in her name in Ulster. Thus he 
 obtained education, military knoAvledge, the confidence of 
 the Queen, and the command of an army. He next set 
 about forming alliances with kindred chieftains in the 
 four provinces of Ireland, and having, after years of vax- 
 remitted labour, succeeded in uniting the great body of his 
 fellow-countrymen, and having formed an alliance with the 
 King of Spain, he declared himself in his true colours^ 
 trampled under foot his English titles and his English 
 allegiance, and, as The O'Neill, boldly commenced that war 
 in which he well nigh drove the English from ever}^ pro- 
 vince in Ireland, and would have finally emancipated his 
 country had not internal treachery and disunion paralyzed 
 his arm, and ultimately broke his noble heart. 
 
86 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 In order to understand how matters stood in Ireland 
 •svlien Hugh O'Neill first attained to man's estate, it i? 
 necessary to go back briefly to the time of his grand- 
 father, Conn O'Neill. 
 
 Coim. O'Neill reigned in Ulster when Henry VIII, 
 reigned in England, At that time there was no such thinp 
 r.s an Irish nation. There was no king of all Ireland, 
 there was no National Council. Save the single tie of a 
 cammon language there was no connection whatever 
 between one portion of the island and another. Each clan 
 ];ad its own teriitory and its own chief; and the feud 
 l:)etween the diflferent clans were often far more bitter than 
 the hatred which should have been common to all of them 
 against the English. Yet at this time by far the greater 
 poi'tion of Ireland paid no allegiance or obedience whatever 
 to the English King or English laws. The English 
 colony strictly confined within the Pale came to be 
 treated much in the same way as if it had been 
 p,n independent clan ; and it had far less power than 
 many of the more powerful tribes of Lehister, Munster 
 and Ulster. Yet, by sure, if slow degrees, English power 
 and English foes were sapping the independence of the 
 tribes. In Campion's History of Ireland we read of the 
 disgraceful scene in 1543, when Conn O'Neill, the Eitz- 
 patricks of Upper Ossory, and the O'Briens of Thoraond 
 appear before Henry and receive in return for their sworn 
 allegiance brand-new titles, l^estowed by Letters Patent, 
 under the Great Seal of England. Conn O'Neill, as the 
 most powerful, received the greatest honours. He was 
 summoned to the King's Court at Greenwich ; and there, 
 upon his bended knees, he renounced the title of The 
 O'Neill, and accepted for himself the title of Earl of 
 Tyror^e, and for his son Matthew the title of Baron of 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 37 
 
 Dungannon. Then, having done homage to Henry as 
 King of Ireland, and as Head of the Churcli, he retiirned 
 home to Ulster, a disgraced and dishonoured man. He was 
 not long left in doubt as to what his submission meant. 
 The monasteries and possessions of the ancient Churcli of 
 Ireland were confiscated by Henry, and bestowed plentifully 
 upon all who would renounce their faith and betray their 
 country. This was more than Conn O'Neill could stand, 
 and, accordingly, we find that in spite of his siibmission he 
 insisted upon protecting the monasteries of Ulstei\ But, 
 day by day, his power left him. As The O'Neill he was a 
 great power : as Earl of TjTone he was merely a weak old 
 man. His people distrusted him, and we learn from the 
 ancient chronicles that, at least, he bitterly repented of his 
 folly, and with his dying words enjoined upon his son and 
 heir to re-assert the title and independence of his race. 
 When bestowing his honours upon the O'Neills, Henry had 
 left out of all accomit Conn's second son, Shane, and in 
 Campion's History of Ii eland we are told that Shane was 
 " little esteemed and no proofe," It was this Shane that 
 succeeded Conn, and who went far to redeem the name of 
 O'Neill from the shame which had come upon it. John 
 Mitchel, in his Life of Hugh O'Neill, says : — 
 
 "Unmindful of court intrigue, and little versed in the love of 
 Saxon heraldry, there was, growing up to manhood, amongst the 
 hills of Ulster, a son of Conn, one of the proudest and fiercest 
 O'Neills that had appeared since he of the Nine Hostages, and his 
 name was Shane. Chasing the wolf and deer in the forests of Tyr- 
 owen, learning from the lips of the bards the ancient glories and 
 achievements of Hy Neal. Shane had grown to believe, with all his 
 soul, that the Kinel Eoghain were the hero race most favoured by 
 heaven, that Tyr-owen was the eye of Erin and the very pride of the 
 earth, and that of all noble and roynl titles of honour and sover- 
 eignty, by far the most dreaded and illustrious was ' The O'Neill.' 
 
 " And behold ! just as the impetuous youth had reached manhood. 
 
S8 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 and feels within him the strength and fierce spirit to uphold the 
 honour of his race, that proud name is to be extinguished. The 
 golden colour of an O'Neill, the sacred chair of Tullogh-oge, are to 
 be made of no accouut, lost or forgotten in the unheard of peerages 
 of the stranger. By the soul of Con More this must not be ! Let 
 his father plume himself in his foreign feathers, let Matthew main- 
 tain, as best he may, his estate tail and coronet of Dungannon, he, 
 Shane, will be an O'Neill— The O'Xeill." 
 
 He had iiot long to wait. His father soon sank a broken- 
 spirited man to his grave. In the disturbance which 
 followed, Matthew of Dnngannon fell, and Shane, the 
 Proud, reigned supreme. His only possible ri^al w^as 
 Matthew's son, young Hugh, who was brovight over to 
 England at an early age to be educated and trained, until 
 he should be fitted, as the enemies of Ireland fondly 
 believed, to return to give the last deadly blow to his 
 country's freedom. How he returned, and what sort of a 
 blow he struck, we wall see presently. 
 
 Meantime, Shane ruled Ulster with a turbulent strength. 
 He kept his dominions safe from the armies and the 
 Reformed Church of the Saxon, but, with a singular 
 fatality, his greatest deeds of military renown were per- 
 formed against his own countrymen of other clans. He 
 waged war against the O'Reillys of Cavan, and per- 
 petuated the ancient feud of his family wath the O'Domielts 
 of Tyrconnell. He invaded the territory of the Maguires 
 of Fermanagh, and carried on a continual strife with the 
 Scots. The result was that he surrounded himself with 
 bitter and implacable enemies of his own race. He did 
 not see, as was seen afterwards by his far greater nepliew, 
 that the only hope of Irish freedom lay in a union amongst 
 Irishmen, The consequence was that Shane O'Neill, 
 brave-hearted and invincible though he was, did not ad- 
 vance the National cause of his comitry in the slightest 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 39 
 
 decree. When. Elizabeth ascended, the Ensflish throne she 
 determined to crush Shane O'Neill, Several military 
 expeditions having failed to subdue him, an effort was 
 made to bribe him into surrender. They offered him eveiy 
 title and honour he fancied if only he would renounce the 
 name of " The O'Neill." He proudly and disdainfully 
 refused. 
 
 The Abbe M'Geoghan, in his history, gives a copy of the 
 letter in which Shane replied to the proposals made to him 
 by Elizabeth's Commissioners. In it he said : — 
 
 "If Elizabeth, your mistress, is Queen of England, I am CNeill, 
 King of Ulster. I never made peace with her without having been 
 previously solicited to it by her. I am not ambitious of the abject 
 title of Earl — both my family and birth raise me above it. I will not 
 yield precedence to anyone. My ancestors have been Kings of 
 Ulster ; I have gained that kingdom by the sword, and by the sword 
 I vrill maintain it." 
 
 Then Elizabeth determined on a plan whereby out of his 
 own quarrels his destruction should be accomplished. After 
 a campaign of imusual misfortime for him, he went, attended 
 only by a handful of men, to the encampment of the Scots 
 in Antrim. They, at the instigation of the English, 
 received him with a show of hospitality, biit that very 
 night fell upon him and his followers and cut them to 
 pieces. Shane's head was sent to Dublin, Avhere it v/as 
 gibbeted on Dublin Castle, and thus ended Shane the 
 Proud. Then Queen Elizabeth proceeded to abolish, by 
 Act of Parliament, the very name of The O'Neill, and 
 fondly believed that at long last, by the favour of Providence 
 and the aid of young Hugh, then at her court in England, 
 the complete subjugation of Ireland was at hand. 
 
 She invested Tirlough O'Neill, a grandson of Con More 
 -with the Chieftaincy of Ulster, which he was to hold as her 
 
40 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 vassal and subject, and meantime she herself carefully 
 watched the training of the young Hiigh, who, when his 
 education was complete, was to be sent home to Ulster as 
 the " Queen's O'Neill." Of the career of the young Hugh 
 at the English Court we have but scanty information. 
 We know, on the authority of Camden, that being a youth 
 of goodly presence and winning speech he was in high 
 favour with the Queen. The English historian, though he 
 •calls him the arch rebel and a hypocrite, is fain to acknow- 
 ledge his great qualities. He says : — 
 
 " His industry was great:, his soul large, and fit for the weightiest 
 business. He had much knowledge in military alfairs, and a profound 
 dissembling heart, so as many deemed him born either for the great 
 good or ill of his country." 
 
 Yes, it was true. He had a " large soul " and a " profound 
 dissembling heart." He well knew the value and the 
 meaning of the honours lavished upon him. He understood 
 what the golden chains of England meant when hung 
 around the neck of an Irish Chief. He knew the design of 
 his counti'y's enemies to use him for this shameful task, and 
 his very soul almost burst with indignation and disgust., 
 But he had much to learn in England : their modes oi 
 warfare, their diplomacy, their statesmanship, and their 
 generalship, and he held his peace and bided his time. 
 There is something almost awe-inspiring in contemplating 
 this young man in the midst of the frivolities and honours 
 of a licentious court, pampered in the very lap of royalty, 
 surrounded by luxury and flattery in every shape, silently 
 hugging to his heart his sense of wrong and hatred, and 
 patiently waiting for a day of vengeance and retribution. 
 Those shallow English tyrants who believed in that day, as 
 so many of them do still, that " the jingle of the guinea 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 41 
 
 helps the hurt that honour feels," soon learned the bitter 
 truth : — 
 
 " There never yet was human po-wer 
 That could •withstand it unforsrivpn. 
 The patient watch and vigil long 
 Of him who treasures up a wrong." 
 
 At last the time came for him to return to his country ; 
 his education was complete. The next part of his work 
 was to unite the divided clans of Ulster. It was a difficult 
 task, and it took years to accomplish. While steadily and 
 quietly engaged upon it, he carefully maintained his 
 character as the friend of Elizabeth. In the Geraldine 
 war and afterwards in the campaign against the Scots 
 of Antrim he commanded troops in the Queen's army. Yet, 
 whUe he seemed to be an instrument in the hands of the 
 English, he was in reality using the Deputy and tlie 
 forces of Elizabeth to subdue his own enemies, and 
 to render his power supreme in Ulster. For years he 
 worked silently, strengthening his position, and winning 
 the hearts of the clansmen of Tyrowen. Then he paid 
 .another visit to the English Court at Greenwich. Hume 
 tells us he feigned "love and desire to Elizabeth, and 
 addressed her in the style of passion." He accepted from 
 her the Earldom of Tyrone, and affectionately advised her 
 strictly to enforce the law against the "pestUent and 
 rebellious name of The O'Neill." On his return to Ulster 
 he was commissioned to keep on foot six companies of 
 soldiers. 
 
 The Abbe McGeogan tells us : — 
 
 " The six companies he trained to the art of war, and according 
 as they became well disciplined, sent them home with rewards. 
 Those dismissed were replaced M'ith others, who were instructed in 
 like manner. He gave fire arms to the country people also, to induce 
 
42 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 them to hunt, and thereby made them expert in the use of them, so 
 that in a short time almost the whole province was trained to arma. 
 He obtained the consent of the Council to bring over plates of lead 
 from England under the pretext of roofing his castle at Dungannon, 
 and had them converted into bullets. Besides the private depots 
 which were to furnish the wants of the troops under his orders, he 
 had others into which he secretly collected provisions and warlike 
 stores." 
 
 About this time good fortune afforded him an opportunity 
 for which he had long sought, of opening negotiations with 
 Spain. Some ships belonging to the famous and ill-fated 
 Armada were driven ashore iipon the coast of Ulster. The 
 Spaniards were received with honour at Dungannon by 
 Hugh O'Neill, and on their return to their own land, 
 brought with them overtures to King Philip, which led to 
 an alliance between him and the confederate army of the 
 North. Things were prospering well with O'Neill, and 
 but one thing more seemed necessary to enable hun at long 
 last to unfurl the Red Hand of O'Neill, and give battle to 
 his country's enemies. That one tiling was an alliance 
 with the O'Donnells, Chiefs of Tyrconnell. Between the 
 O'Neills and the O'Donnells^ the two most powerful clans 
 in Ulster, a bitter feud had raged for generations. This 
 O'NeUl determined to end. His first step was a character- 
 istic one ; to woe and wed the fair daughter of the house of 
 Tyrconnell, Judith O'Donnell. The second was to 
 cultivate the friendship of her brother, the famous Red 
 Hugh. The Chief of Tyrconnell was an old man, and it 
 was to the younger generation that O'Neill looked for 
 assistance. Besides this, young Hugh O'Donnell, though 
 only yet a boy in his teens, was already widely known for 
 his daring spirit and his bitter hatred of the English. If 
 this brave youth should become the ruler of his clan, and 
 if the feuds of generations being buried these two Huglis 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 43 
 
 should join in carms, then, indeed, not only Ulster's, but 
 Ireland's freedom were seciu'ed. The English Viceroy seems 
 to have foreseen the danger. Red Hugh had not the pi-o- 
 found dissembling heart of his new brother-in-law and 
 friend. He was out-spoken and open in his hostility to the 
 Englisli, One day he was inveigled on board a British 
 ship, on the pretence that she contained a cargo of Spanish 
 Avine, and before he well knew what had happened he 
 found himself a prisoner on his way to Dublin Castle. 
 
 The capture of O'Donnell was a heavy blov/- to tlie plans 
 and hopes of O'lSTeill. But while it caused him to delay, it 
 never for a moment tempted him to abandon the execution 
 of his design. He occupied himself strengthening his 
 position, and healing the feuds of rival chiefs ; slowly, but 
 surely, moulding out of those discordant elements that 
 Irish nation, v/hich it was the dx'eam of his life to build up. 
 After no less than five years of weary waiting and pre- 
 paring, one day glad tidings of great joy reached the Castle 
 of Dungannon. Hugh O'Donnell had escaped, and was 
 even then on his way to Tyrconnell. It was true. O'Neill 
 hastened to welcome him. The clans of Tyrconnell as- 
 sembled to give a Royal greeting to their young chief. His 
 father abdicated in his favour, and Red Hugh was installed 
 in the seat of power as Prince of Tyrconnell. The moment 
 for which Hugh O'Neill had dreamed and prayed, and 
 laboured, from early j^outh, through years of bitter humilia- 
 tion and heart burnmg, had at last arrived, 
 
 Tirlough O'Neill, who held the nominal chieftaincy of the 
 clan, died, and with all the pomp and solemnity of the 
 olden time, in the sacred chair of royalty on the Rath of 
 Tulloughoge, sm-rounded by his warriors and bards and 
 priests, Hugh was invested with the title of The O'Neill, 
 and publicly renounced the title of Earl, removed the mask. 
 
44 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 and openly declared against Elizabeth and for Ireland. As 
 if bj magic, Ulster sprang to arms. Ancient feuds were 
 forgotten, ancient hatreds were buried ; one thought alone 
 filled men's minds, one feeling alone swelled their breasts. 
 At last Ireland had leaders wise enough and strong enough 
 to rid her of her tyrants; at last the day of liberty had 
 dawned, and Hugh O'Neill was haUed the saviour of his 
 country. Amazement and dismay spread amongst the 
 English. At the Royal Court at Greenwich, feelings 
 deeper than mere resentment were felt against O'Neill. 
 "Was this his gratitude for the favours of the Queen, that 
 he, who had poured out his vows of devotion and passion at 
 her feet should now dare the unholy task of freeing his 
 <50untry from her tyrannical sway 1 It was monstrous ; and, 
 accordingly, no words are too strong to be employed by 
 Enslish historians. O'Neill was a traitor, a rebel, an arch- 
 hypocrite, and, in the v/ordo of the gentle Spenser, a frozen 
 snake. Right little he cared for the resentment of the 
 English, or the wounded vanity of the Queen ; he had 
 ilevoted his life to freeing his people, and he thanked God 
 the day had come when he could end the miserable and 
 humiliating farce of hiding his hatred and contempt under 
 the guise of English titles and the arts of an English 
 courtier. 
 
 The contagion rapidly spread from Ulster to the other 
 provinces, from Leinster, and Munster, and Conuauglit, 
 speedily came promises of support and assistance to Dun- 
 gannon, and the English Viceroy deeming it prudent to 
 abstain for a while from an open attack, endeavoured, with 
 characteristic cowardice and folly, to strike at O'Neill by 
 treachery. Overtures were made to Red Hugh O'Donnell, 
 promising him pardon, provided lie severed himself from 
 O'Neill. The offer of pardon was scouted by Red Hugh 
 
Hugh O'Neill 45 
 
 and deeply resented as an insiilt. The Irish princes, see. 
 ing the hesitation of the English, commenced forthwith 
 offensive operations against their enemies. O'Donneil 
 burst into Connaught, driving the English before him 
 like a whii'lwind, and making alliances on all sides with 
 the Connaught clans. 
 
 O'Neill, on his side, proceeded to the English fortress of 
 Portmore on the Blackwater, the strongest position of the 
 enemy in Ulster, which he utterly demolished. From 
 thence he marched to Monaghan, and as he was about to 
 commence its seige, news reached him that Sir Henry 
 Wallop craved an interview with him on the part of the 
 Queen. O'Neill haughtily refused to see any ambassador, 
 save at the head of his army, and, eventually, the}' met in 
 the pi'esence of both armies on an open plain. O'Neill 
 demanded, as the fii'st condition of peace, that all pre- 
 tences of English interference in the Government or 
 religion of Ulster should cease, and resolutely refused 
 even a short truce, unless this much was first conceded. 
 The interview ended abruptly. The English ambas- 
 sadors returned to Dublin, and the Irish chiefs in their 
 absence were placed upon trial for treason, convicted, 
 and proclaimed as traitors. Rewards were set upon 
 their heads, and then at last reinforcements having 
 reached them from England the English generals 
 advanced upon Ulster, The first pitched battle of the 
 campaign took place about five miles outside Monaghan, 
 at a place called Clontibret, or the Lawn of the 
 Spring. The English were commanded by Sir John 
 Norreys, the most experienced general in Elizabeth's 
 service. The best account or the battle which we 
 possess is that given by John Mitchel. In it he 
 said : — 
 
46 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 " Twice the English infantry tried to make their way to the river, 
 and twice were beaten back, their gallant leader each time charging: 
 at their head. The general, and his brother. Sir Thomas, were both 
 wounded in the conflicts, and the Irish counted the victory won, 
 when a chosen body of English horse, led on by Segrave, a Meathian 
 officer, of gigantic bone and height, spurred fiercely across the river 
 and charged the cavalry of Tyroweu, commanded by tlieir prince in 
 person. fSegrave singled out O'Neill, and the two leaders laid lance 
 in rest for deadly combat. While the troops on each side lowered 
 their weapons and held their breath, awaiting the shock in silence. 
 The warriors met, and the lance of each was splintered on the other's 
 corselet ; but Segrave again dashed his horse against the chief, 
 flung his giant frame upon his enemy, and endeavoured to unhorse 
 him by the mere weigh of his gauntleted hand. O'Neill grasped him 
 in bis arms, and the combatants rolled together in that fatal embrace 
 to the ground : — 
 
 Now gallant Saxon, hold thiue own, 
 
 No maiden's arms are round thee thrown. 
 
 There was one moment's deadly wrestle and a death groan ; the 
 shortened sword of O'Neill was buried in the Englishman's groin 
 beneath his mail. Then from the Irish ranks arose such a wild 
 shout of triumph as those hills had never echoed before ; the still 
 thunder cloud burst into a tempest— those equestrian statues became 
 as winged demons ; and with their battle cry of Larii 'Deaif\j; abu, 
 and their long lances poised in eastern fashion above their heads, 
 down swept the cavalry of Tyrowen upon tlie ranks of tlie astonished 
 Saxon. Tjie banner of St. George wavered and went down before 
 the furious charge. The English turned their bridal reins and fled 
 headlong over the stream, leaving the field covered with their dead 
 — and worse than all, leaving with the Irish that proud red cross 
 banner, the first of its disgraces in those Ulster wars." 
 
 This defeat, for the time being, completely paralyzed the 
 English. For the remainder of that year no further 
 military expedition retm^ned to cross the path of O'Neill, 
 and the closing days of 1595 saw the Irish power supreme 
 in both Ulster and Connaus;ht. England then once more 
 opened negotiations with the Irish chiefs. A commission 
 once more proceeded to Ulster and O'Neill was invited to a 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 47 
 
 conference. These tiresome and tame negotiations sorely 
 tried the patience of the fiery Red Hugh who could hold 
 no parley whatever with his country's enemies. But 
 O'Neill, always prudent and far-seeing, knew the value of 
 delay. He was in communication with the King of Spain ; 
 without foreign aid he despaired of being able ultimately 
 to cope with Elizabeth's power, and he desii'ed above all 
 things to temporise awhile with the enemy so that his 
 Spanish allies might have time to reach the shores of Ire- 
 land. Consequently he consented to meet the English 
 commission, and while assuring them of his desire to live at 
 peace with the Queen he reiterated his demand for the 
 practical independence of Ulster, The Commissioners with- 
 drew, and after months of negotiations — months most 
 valviable to O'Neill's plans — they received the sanction of 
 Elizabeth to conclude a peace with the Irish rebel upon the 
 terms demanded by him, and fixed the 2nd of April for the 
 ratification of the treaty. But O'Neill's object from the 
 first had been the independence, not of Ulster, but of all 
 Ireland, and he refused to be bribed from his allegiance to 
 the cause of National freedom. When April 2nd arrived 
 O'Neill refused to meet the Commissioners and forthwith 
 recommenced active hostilities. Armagh was at this time 
 still in the hands of the English and O'Neill determined 
 forthwith to recover its possession. He laid siege to the 
 town, but not caring to spend the necessary time in a 
 blockade, he had recourse to a stratagem to hasten its fall, 
 and it speedily fell into his hands. The Abbe M'Geoghan 
 thus describes Avhat ensued : — 
 
 *' He got some of his men, both horse and foot, to assume the 
 uniform of the English who were killed, and ordered them to march 
 with English banners towards a ruined monastery that was within a 
 gunshot of Armagh. The Prince pursued these supposed English. 
 
48 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 with the rest of his troops within view of the garrison ; both 
 parties began a discharge of their musketry, loaded only with 
 powder, whereupon, the men as instructed, fell upon every side, 
 without sustaining any injury. This sham batt'e soon attracted the 
 attention of the garrison of Armagh. Stafford, the commander, gave 
 orders that half of the garrison should take up arms and advance 
 rapidly up to the field of battle to the relief of their supposed 
 countrymen. The English found not only O'Neill's troops, but 
 those to whose succour they had come, drawn up iu order of battle 
 and ready to charge them. The English between two iires were 
 cut to pie.es within view of the garrison, and the town at once sur- 
 rendered." 
 
 By this time almost the entire of Leinster as well as Ulster 
 and Connaught was in arms on the side of O'Neill, under the 
 command of Owen O'More and Fiach O'Byrne, and it may 
 be said with accui'acy that the greater part of Ireland was 
 in the power of the Irish. At Tyrrell's Pass, in the County 
 of Meath, one of the Leinster armies, under the command of 
 Richard Tyrrell, utterly demolished one section of the 
 English army, which was on its way to the north ; while 
 in Connaught, Red Hugh O'Donnell completely overawed 
 and held in check the forces of the Queen, shut up in one 
 or two fortresses. Once again in pitched battle, O'Neill 
 shattered an English army this time at Drumfiuich, close 
 by Benburb, where, a couple of generations latei", his 
 nephew, Owen Roe, laid the British standard in the dust. 
 
 Once again Ave read of negotiations and overtures of 
 peace proceeding from Elizabeth. This time the ambassa- 
 dor was no less a personage than the great Earl of Ormond. 
 He met O'Neill at Dundalk, and this time the terms of 
 the Irish Chief had become more ambitious. They were, 
 first: — 
 
 " Perfect freedom of religion, not only in Ulster but throughout 
 Ireland; then reparation for spoil and ravish done upon the Irish 
 country ; and finally, entire and undisturbed control by the Iritih 
 chiefs over their own territories and peoples." 
 
Hugli O'Neill. 49 
 
 At the end of eight weeks' truce, authority arrived from 
 the Queen, giving Ormond power to oflfer her "gracious 
 pardon " to O'Neill, on condition that he disbanded his 
 forces and renounced the name of The O'Neill. We can 
 well imagine the scorn with which this offer of " pardon " 
 was received by the victorious Prince, and with what amused 
 contempt he read of terms which meant surrender on his 
 part just in the moment of triumph. He remained quiescent 
 until the truce had expired, and then once more unfurled 
 the dread Red Hand banner as his answer to the insulting 
 proposals of his enemies. It is a significant proof of the 
 power of O'Neill, and the dread entertained of him by the 
 haughty Elizabeth, that his contemptuous refusal of her 
 overtures had no other effect than making her all the more 
 solicitous to conciliate him. 
 
 At the very moment when he rejected with supreme 
 scorn the offer of pardon, we read that Elizabeth with all 
 due formalities, sealed with the great seal of England, and 
 signed with her own royal hand, the parchment pardon of 
 Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone and Leader of the Irish 
 Rebellion, and sent it by special messenger to Ulster. It 
 was never received by O'Neill, who took good care to evade 
 the envoy who carried it. Yet, in one sense, it served its 
 purpose for the English. Knowing O'Neill's reliance upon. 
 Spanish aid, the English took pains to publish through 
 Europe the news that he had received the gracious pardon 
 of Elizabeth, and thus induced King Philip to believe that 
 the Irish Chief had handed in his submission, and that 
 succour to him would be of no avail now. So sedulously 
 were these false reports circulated that the aid for which 
 O'Neill was waiting was delayed until it became of but 
 very doubtful value indeed. 
 
 Ormond now determined that a supreme effort should be 
 
50 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 made to break CNeill's power, and Marshal Bagnal 
 advanced upon Ulster with a gigantic army composed of 
 the choicest forces in Elizabeth's service. He encountered 
 O'Neill near the banks of the Blackwatei', at beal-an- 
 otabui'De, or the mou.th of the Yellow Ford. Here the 
 greatest battle of the Campaign was fought, and here the 
 power of England met with its most decisive and crushing 
 disaster. The Abbe M'Geoghan gives the following details 
 of the battle : — 
 
 " The battle commenced and the route was terrible. Marshal 
 Bagnal, with twenty-four of his principle officers, and two thousand 
 of his army, were killed upon the spot, and the remainder of his forces 
 put to flight. The loss of the English was heightened by an accident 
 which happened in the beginning of the action in the quarter where 
 the reserve forces lay. The powder magazines having taken fire, 
 five hundred men at least were blown up. The spoils that were 
 wrested from them were also very considerable. Twelve thousand 
 pieces of gold — their warlike stores — thirty-four stand of colours — all 
 their instruments of war — all their artillery and provisions of every 
 kind fell into the hands of t'ue Irish." 
 
 Fifteen hundred English soldiers were made prisoners, 
 and with a clemency that speaks volumes for the honour 
 and humanity of O'Neill, were, when disarmed, sent in 
 safety to the Pale. This victory of Oeal-an-atabtiit)e raised 
 to the very highest pitch the hopes of the Irish people. 
 Its fame spread through the island like wildfire, and on all 
 sides those who had been wavering came in and joined the 
 Irish Chiefs. O'Neill was everywhere sung and toasted as 
 the deliverer of his country. He was now more than ever 
 the recognised leader, the heart and brain of the Irish 
 Confederacy, and with pride and thanksgiving he at last 
 saw the hated power of England prostrated in the dust, its 
 armies well-nigh annihilated, its military stores captured, 
 its Irish allies either crushed or brought back to the side of 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 51 
 
 Ireland and honour. Many Lords of English descent, but 
 of Catholic faith, regarding him as the champion of Catho- 
 licity, joined hands with him. Munster at last roused 
 from her lethargy, and under the Fitzgeralds, and Butlers, 
 and O'Sullivans, took up ai'ms in the common cause, and 
 Ireland north, south, east, and west, was at last united, 
 while there was no spot in any of the four provinces where 
 the troops of the Queen could dare to take the field. 
 
 But Elizabeth was not the sovereign to give up the 
 struggle. The reverses which had befallen her arms made 
 her all the more determined to crush the Irish rebels. The 
 ill-fated Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, next tried his 
 hand at O'NeUl, both by diplomacy and ai'med force, but 
 with as little success as had attended his predecessors. 
 Then O'Neill, having received from the Pope a message full 
 of sympathy, and a present of twenty-two thousand pieces 
 of gold, started on one of the most extraordinary journeys 
 •ever imdertaken by warrior or monarch. He visited every 
 province in Ireland, summoning the Irish Chiefs to meet 
 him to concert plans for the defence of the country and 
 the government of the people. Everywhere he was received 
 with enthusiasm. The people thronged round him, calling- 
 blessings on the head of their deliverer, and it seemed as if, 
 once and for ever, foreign domination and internal dissension 
 were banished from Irish soU, Then he marched with his 
 victorious troops, and accompanied by all the nobility of 
 Ii-eland, to the Abbe}' of Holy Cross, and there before the 
 altar, to defend which they were ready to sacrifice life and 
 liberty, he and they consecrated their swords to the service 
 of their ancient faith and their ancient nationality. Then 
 he turned his face homeward, and calmly awaited the next 
 move of the English. 
 
 That next move was the most formidable they had yet 
 
52 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 made. Lord Mountjoy, the ablest man. in the dominions 
 of Elizabeth, and a distinguished soldier, was despatched to 
 Ireland to take command. He was invested with supreme 
 power. He had placed at his disposal every available 
 soldier of the Queen, and unlimited money. His instructions 
 *>vere short and simple. No toil, or peril, or blood, no 
 treasure, or fraud, or deception, was to be spared which was 
 necessary to crush O'Neill. 
 
 Simultaneously with the arrival of Mountjoy in Dublin, 
 Sir Henry Dowcra arrived in Lough Foyle with a powerful 
 armament. 
 
 O'Neill was busy defending the frontier line of Ulster, 
 and O'Donnell was in Connaught. Dowcra's troops 
 disembarked, and without any considerable opposition 
 succeeded in reaching Derry, which they at once set about 
 fortifying. From this fatal moment fortune seemed to 
 desert the Irish troops. Not that they anywhere sustained 
 any crushing defeat, but such was the activity and restless 
 daring of Mountjoy that the Irish army was kept day and 
 night on the defensive, and gradually but siirely the English 
 troops pushed on to and across the frontier, and into the 
 heart of Ulster. Biit it was not on the tented field that 
 the overthrow of O'Neill was to be accomplished. Mount- 
 joy trusted not to steel, but to treachery, for the subjugation 
 of Ireland. 
 
 The advice given by the celebrated Lord Bacon to the 
 ill-fated Essex, though neglected by him, became the main 
 policy of his more astute successor. Bacon had recom- 
 mended what he called the " pi'incelie policie" of weakening 
 the Irish by disunion, and cheating them by a temporary 
 ^.oleration of the Catholic religion. This policy Mountjoy 
 at once put in force. He put a sudden stop to all attempt 
 at religious persecution, and thereby sought to induce the 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 
 
 people to believe that the freedom of their ancient faith did 
 not depend on the success of the arms of O'Neill. In 
 addition to this every engine of deception was set at work. 
 The ambition of one chieftain, the avarice of another, the 
 fears of a third were acted upon, and, alas ! the day, even 
 in Ulster itself, and amongst the proud clans of Tyrowen 
 and Tyrconnell, traitors and cowards soon appeared. 
 
 Niall O'Donnell and Art O'Neill basely sold themselves 
 for English gold, and their example was speedily followed 
 in Munster by Dermot O'Connor and Florence McCarthy. 
 Showers of gold began to fall, perfidy and intrigue of every 
 kind were set on foot, assassination and threats of assassina- 
 tion were used without scruple, and at last it became 
 evident to O'Neill, who was busily employed withstanding 
 the advance of Mountjoy in Ulster, that the Naitionai 
 party, which it had been the great work of his life to build 
 up, was fast breaking to pieces. But one hope now 
 remained. 
 
 Should the King of Spain at long last keep his promise 
 and send a friendly expedition to the assistance of Ireland, 
 all might yet be well, and the infamous netwoi'k of 
 treachery which Mountjoy was spreading around might be 
 easily torn to pieces. This last hope of his was in one 
 sense realised. A Spanish expedition landed on the coast 
 of Ireland, but its landing, so far from assisting the cause 
 of Irish liberty, hastened the downfall of O'Neill and the 
 triumph of his ruthless and perfidious enemies. 
 
 On the 23rd of September, 1601, a Spanish fleet contain- 
 ing 6,000 men, under the command of Don Juan d'Aguila, 
 landed near Kinsale and took immediate possession of the 
 town. The choice of a place for landing was fatally 
 inappropriate, and the policy of remaining inactive at 
 Kinsale while messengers were despatched to O'Neill and 
 
54 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 O'Donnell requesting them to march thither from Ulster 
 and Connaiight, was, in the circumstances of the case, 
 little better than madness. 
 
 The first result was that the English speedily assembled 
 round the walls of Kinsale an a,rmy of overwhelming 
 strength ; the next was that O'Neill and O'Donnell were 
 forced to march away leaving their possessions in the north 
 and west vindefended. 
 
 O'Neill at a glance saw the trap into which he was 
 about to walk, but he saw also that the only mode of escape 
 was to abandon his Spanish allies to their fate, and to such 
 a course disaster, defeat, death itself seemed preferable. 
 The marvellous marches of O'Neill and O'Donnell from 
 Ulster and Connaught to Kinsale avlII for ever be read with 
 wonder and admiration. How they formed a junction 
 close by the English camp, how they for the firet time 
 disagreed upon the order of battle, how O'Neill waived his 
 better judgment and yielded to the less prudent plans of 
 O'Donnell, how hour after hour for the entire of one long 
 day the battle raged, and how in the end, for the first tune, 
 defeat, crushing, ruinous defeat, rested upon the arms of the 
 Irish, it is needless to narrate. It is a storj' full of humili- 
 ation and pain. Utterly bi'oken the Irish amiy reeled 
 back from Kinsale, and the Spanish troops capitulated and 
 were allowed to return to their own land. 
 
 O'Donnell, stung to madness, took ship for Spain to 
 explain the disaster to King Philip, and to ask for a further 
 expedition, while O'Neill, still full of courage, if not of 
 hope, retired back to Ulster to recruit his shattered ranks 
 from the sons of Tyrowen. But disaster from that day 
 outdogged his steps. In the moment of defeat deserters 
 and traitors sprang up on every side. The magic of his 
 name seemed gone, the spell of his successes had been 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 55 
 
 broken, and day by day his power declined. Roderic 
 O'Donnell was no compensation for the loss of the dauntless 
 Red Hugh, and when at last news reached Ireland from 
 Spain that the gallant young chief, the beloved of Tyrconnell 
 and the hope of Ireland — the right arm of O'Neill — 
 had suddenly died at Yalladolid, there fell over Hugh 
 O'lSTeill a shadow as of the grave, and he felt that from 
 that moment the struggle v/as over, the hope of his life M^as 
 blasted, and all that remained for him now to do was 
 
 " To look aroimd and chose his ground 
 And lay liim down to rest." 
 
 Meantime fire, famine, and slaughter were let loose upon 
 Ireland. Right and left went the armies of Mountjoy 
 slaughtering the people and laying waste the country, until, 
 in the words of the secretary of the English commander, 
 famine and pestilence spread over the land, the crops \7eve 
 utterly destroyed, and thousands of unburied corpses lay 
 rotting in the once fertile valleys of Munster and Ulster. 
 With breaking heart O'Neill witnessed the torture and 
 misery of his countrj', and at last hoping to end these 
 horrors, even though it be by the sacrifice of his own pride, 
 he made overtures of peace. Eagerly Lord Mountjoy seized 
 upon the chance of bringing the redoubtable O'Neill to his 
 knees. On the 30th of March, 1603, the treaty of Mellifont 
 was signed by O'Neill and Elizabeth's depiity. By it the 
 Irish people were assured full and free exercise of their 
 religion, and tlie Irish Chiefs the undisturbed possession of 
 their lands. The war of extermination then raging Avas to 
 cease, and in exchange for these favours O'Neill was to 
 renounce the name of The O'Neill and to swear allegiance 
 to the English Queen. It is not a pleasant scene to con- 
 template, yet it seems to me that those who blame O'Neill 
 
56 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 for this compromise are ungenerous to a noble-hearted man, 
 and unjust to a wise and fai'-seeing statesman. His power 
 was completely broken. Had he consulted his own feelings 
 we may be sure that proud neck of his would never have 
 stooped to the power of England, and his own hand would have 
 probably ended a life whose one motive was now destroyed. 
 But he had to consider his people. By a sacrifice far 
 greater than that of life he could obtain peace for Ireland, 
 and it might be peace with honour and with a promise of 
 religious freedom. That sacrifice he made, and I think in 
 making it he proved only the depth of his love for his 
 country and his utter forgetfulness of self. At the moment 
 when the Treaty of Mellifont was concluded Elizabeth was 
 lying dead, though O'Neill knew it not. The moment the 
 treaty was signed conciliation became the policy of the 
 English rulei*s of Ireland, and although this treaty soon 
 afterwai'ds met the same fate as every other treaty ever 
 made between Engljind and this countrj', still O'Neill had 
 the satisfaction of seeing, as the result of his surrender, 
 peace restored and religion unmolested. It w£is not, 
 however, to last long. 
 
 In July, 1C05, King James issued the famous, or rather 
 the infamous, proclamation in which he "declared to his 
 beloved subjects in Ireland that he would not admit any 
 such liberty of conscience as they were made to expect." 
 Then by degrees recommenced his pei-secution of the 
 Catholics. O'Neill was living in sad retirement in his old 
 home, where he received information that he was about to 
 be charged with contemplating a new rebellion, and as he 
 had no remaining hope of resistance, and no stomach for 
 any further protestations of loyalty, he, accompanied by 
 Roderick O'Donnell, their wives and sons, took ship in 
 Lough Swilly and sailed for Flanders, then proceeded to 
 
Hugh O'Neill. 57 
 
 Nomiandy, and finally to Rome, where Pope Paul V. 
 received them with consideration and honour. Thus Hugh 
 O'Neill, old, broken-hearted and deserted, left the shores of 
 Ireland to whose freedom he had devoted his whole life and 
 heart. The reverend writers of Annals of the Four Masters 
 say : — 
 
 ♦ ' It is certain that the sea has not borne, and the wind has not 
 wafted in modem times a number of persons in one ship more 
 eminent, illustrious, or noble in point of genealogy, heroic deeds, 
 valour, feats of arms, and brave achievements than they. Would 
 that God had but permitted them to remain in their patrimonial 
 inheritance until their children should ai-rive at the age of manhood. 
 Woe to the heart that meditated, woe to the mind that conceived, woe 
 to the council that recommended the project of this expedition." 
 
 Unfortunately, we know little of the last daj-s of O'Neiirs 
 life. They were spent in sad wanderings through the Eternal 
 City. Blindness at last overcame the old warrior chief, and 
 finally in 1616 he died at Rome, where to this day the 
 prayere of countless Irish pilgrims are poured out over the 
 tomb. 
 
 This sketch of Hugh O'Neill has necessarily been hurried 
 and prefunctory. Yet I hope I have said enough to recall 
 to your minds the chief incidents of his career, and to show 
 the injustice of the character for hypocrisy and deceit 
 which English writers enviously attribute to him. I trust 
 the day will never come when Irishmen will read without a 
 thrill of pride and enthiisiasm of Clontibret and Oeal-an- 
 acabuitje, or faU to be moved by the marvellous qualities 
 and the melancholy end of the great Chief of Tyrowen, A 
 couple of generations later, Owen Roe revived the glories of 
 the O'Neills, and the weird legends of Tyrowen and 
 Tyrconnell to this day people many a lovely valley, and 
 many a rugged mountain fastness, with the spirits of the 
 
58 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 great departed. I once stood on the summit of Rojal 
 Ailech — 
 
 " Wliere she sits ever more like a queen on her throne 
 And smiles on the TaEeys of green Innishowen." 
 
 And as I looked upon one of the most lovely panoramas 
 which the universe could afford, I felt my very soul stirred 
 by the legends of the place. At my feet lay Derry city, 
 ■which Dowcra had made a citadel of English powei', which 
 throu,2;h loncj centuries had been the stronghold of the 
 enemies of Ireland, but which to-day is ranged at last upon 
 the side of National independence. Beyond there stretched 
 Lough Swilly, over whose waters sailed Hugh O'NeUl, and 
 whose bosom has since that day borne away from Ireland 
 that they loved so many thousands of other exiles bound, 
 for distant shores. In the distance, on one side, lay 
 Tyrconnell, dark and mountainous, and further away 
 Tyrowen, stretched fair and smiling in the sun. Centuries 
 had passed over this land since Hugh O'Neill and Hugh 
 O'Donnell fought and died for its freedom, yet through all 
 these ages the self-same struggle has gone on without a 
 break through every generation which has passed. The 
 chieftains were dead, but the clansmen lived and the old 
 spirit of Nationality, the old hatred of the rule of the 
 foreigner survived with them. As I stood there musing on 
 the past and dreaming of the future I was told the old legend 
 of Ailech. I was told of the troop of Hugh O'NeiU's horse- 
 men who lie in magic sleep in the dark cave under that 
 hill ; how these bold troopers only wait to have the spell 
 removed to rush to the aid of their country, and I heard of 
 the peasant who, wandering accidently into the cave, found 
 them lying 'beside their horses fully armed and holding 
 their bridles in their hands, and that one of them lifting 
 his head, asked " Is the time come? " 
 
Hugh O'Neill 59^ 
 
 "1,3 the time come?" It is the qviestion which has 
 ■welled up from the hearts of every generation from the days 
 of Hugh O'Neill xintil this moment. The blessed time 
 when by her own bravery and virtue, our country will be 
 able to work out for herself to the full the glorious future 
 which the Princes of Tyrowen and Tyrconnell foresaw for a 
 united Ireland. Is the time come ? Once, thrice, say 
 oftener, since the days of Hugh O'Neill, the allotted time 
 of National suffering seemed about to end, but as often 
 disaster came, and the horsemen of Ailech waked not from 
 their slumber. Is the time come yet ? Have we learned 
 as yet the lessons of our historj^, the value of self-restraint 
 and self-reliance, the absolute necessity for forbearance and 
 toleration. I believe in my heart we are nearer to-day to 
 a united nation that at any time since ueal-an-acabuiT)e. 
 We have a chief as far seeing and as intrepid as Hugh 
 O'Neill, and we have allies in every freedom-loving nation 
 in the world. AVhile we have vmited ourselves, we have 
 divided the ranks of our hereditary enemies, and have suc- 
 ceeded in winning the hearts and convincing the minds of at 
 least one-half the people of Great Britain. A little further 
 straggle, and the work of Hugh O'Neill and Red Hugh 
 O'Donnell will be completed. A little further patience and 
 courage and wisdom, and the time will have come at last, 
 God grant we may all live to see it, when the charmed sleep 
 of the horsemen of Ailech will be broken, and the nations 
 of the world will welcome within their ranks the most 
 ancient and sorely tried of their sisters, her honour 
 vindicated, her martyrs justified and her freedom won. 
 
WAS THE LATE LAND LEAGUE RESPON- 
 SIBLE FOR CRIME ? 
 
 LECTUKE DELIVERED IN MELBOURXE, VICTOBIA, 
 ON 13th JUNE, 1833. 
 
 III. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — You Avill, I am 
 sure, pardon me if I commence my remarks to-night by 
 repeating a statement vf hich I made a few days ago. I wish 
 to repeat the statement that neither now, nor at any fuUire 
 time, will I enter upon any vindication of myself. Accusa- 
 tions have been made against me personally in this city — 
 accusations of a gross and libellous character, but I refuse 
 to notice them. To those accusations which impute to me dis- 
 honourable motives and sj'mpathy with crime, I have only 
 one answer, and that is my contempt. But the duty which I 
 am called upon to fulfil to-night is far different. Like many 
 another public duty, it is an intensely unpleasant one ; but I 
 feel it incumbent upon me not to shrink from the perform- 
 ance of what appears to me a manifest duty, not only to my 
 absent colleagues and the cause which I advocate, but to 
 the Irish people of these colonies, every one of whom is 
 included in the accusation of those who say that money is 
 being subscribed in this land for criminal objects. I ask 
 this audience to bear with me, while I deal as calmly as I 
 can with the accusations against the late Land League, and 
 
Was the Land League responsihle for Crime'? 61 
 
 the present leaders of the National movement. Let me try 
 if I can fairly state what they are. As I take it, the first 
 is that the late Land League was responsible for outrage 
 generally from its very inception. The second is, that 
 what is called in journalistic parlance the " terrible indict- 
 ment " of Mr, Parnell by Mr, Forster remains unanswered. 
 The third seems to be that the Land League and the 
 present leaders of the people were responsible, by sympathy, 
 and even by connection, for the deplorable assassinations 
 in the Phoenix Park. Fourth, that the money subscribed 
 to the Land League has never been accounted for, and 
 may have been used for illegal and cruninal purposes. And 
 the last and most absurd of them all is that the leaders of 
 the present movement are responsible for what I might 
 call the " dynamite policy." Now I think any fair man 
 will acknowledge, that I have impartially stated the main 
 accusations against the cause of Ireland and the Irish 
 leaders. Let me deal with them sepai'atel^-. Let me take 
 the first — that the Land League was the source and cause 
 of outrage generally from its very inception. We have 
 an answer to that accusation, and it will divide itself into 
 four points: First, if the accusation is true, the Land 
 League created agrarian outrage. But where is the child, 
 who has read Irish history, who does not know that it is as 
 old as the hills, or, to speak more accurately, as the land 
 system, which is its parent and source ? Show me, if you 
 can, the period of Irish history in the past, since the pre- 
 sent land system came into use, when agrarian crime in 
 Ireland was not known? At erery period of distress in 
 the history of the land war there has been agrarian crime 
 in Ireland, and the fii-st point I make in answer is, that 
 agrarian crime existed in Ireland long before the Land 
 League or its leaders were heard or dreamt of. Now for 
 
62 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 xay second point. Turn to the past history of Ireland, and 
 what do you find in reference to agrarian outrage? 
 Wherever you find famines — and they are plentiful inthe 
 pages of our history — there you will find an enormous 
 increase of agi'arian outrage and agrarian disturbance. It 
 is but natural. When famine comes, the opportunity 
 arrives to enforce the monstrous and unjust power of 
 eviction ■which the landlords possessed — eviction for no other 
 fault on the part of the tenants than that they were un able 
 to pay exhorbitant rent, not through any fault of their 
 own, but owing to " the act of God " in the shape of bad 
 seasons. Turn to the years 1833 and 1848, and you will 
 find famine and its invariable result — an enormous increase 
 of agrarian outrage and crime. In the whiter of 1879, you 
 are aware a famine fell upon Ireland, one whose severity 
 was recognised in Australia by all creeds and classes, who 
 contributed generously to alleviate the sufferings of the 
 people. But turn to the records of crime in that famine, 
 and what do you find 1 What never occurred before in 
 the whole history of the nation ; a famine of terrible 
 severity visiting three-fourths of the land, and unaccom- 
 panied by any increase of outrage and crime. Every other 
 famine resulted in an enormous increase of agrarian outrage 
 and agrarian crime; for the first time m the history of 
 Ireland, the winter of 1879 and the commencement of 1880 
 witnessed a famine which was absolutely shorn of its usual 
 increase of crime and outrage. Surely, this is a remarkable 
 fact. Why did not the famme of 1879 produce the same 
 effect as the famines of previous years 1 I challenge those 
 men, who accuse the Land League of having been from its 
 inception the parent of agrarian outrage and crime, to 
 answer this question. Let me see what the answer is. 
 Was it that the Government took immediate steps to 
 
Was the Land League resjyonsible for Crime? 63 
 
 mitigate the famine, and thus destroy the provocation to 
 lawlessness ? We have it on record that the Chief Secre. 
 tary, the Hon. James Lowther, stated in the House ot 
 Commons that all the talk about famine in Ireland was 
 absvxrd; that in point of fact there was greater destitution 
 in England than in Ireland; and we have the further 
 fact that not one step was taken in Parliament, or by the 
 irenerosity of English individuals, till the leaders of the 
 Irish people declared that there was a veritable famine 
 there — till they had appealed to the world, and Mr. Parnell 
 had sped across the Atlantic to beg bread for his famishing 
 country. It was, then, no action of the Government in 
 providing relief that deprived the famine of 1879 of the 
 usual increase of crime. What was it then 1 Was it that 
 the Government took any steps to prevent evictions? Here 
 also we have the records, and pray mark that during the 
 remainder of my speech I say nothmg on my own avithority ; 
 for every statement that I make I quote my authority, 
 chapter and verse. In the beginning of 1880, when the 
 famine was raging in Ireland, the Government introduced 
 a Bill called the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. The 
 effect of that Bill, roughly speaking, would have been this, 
 that in any part of the country which was scheduled as a 
 disti-essed part, landlords for a limited time should not be 
 allowed, without payment of a fine, to evict any tenant 
 from his home if he could prove to a court of law that the 
 reason he was unable to pay his rent was the famine. That 
 Bill passed the House of Commons, and it went up to the 
 House of Lords where it Avas defeated, and the Government 
 never stirred hand or foot, never uttered one word of pro- 
 test, but let the Bill go by the board, and let the people 
 meet the future as best they could. Consequently, it was 
 not legislation on the part of the Government that pre- 
 
64 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 vented the famine of 1879 from being marked with crime 
 as other famines — as every other famine had been in the 
 past. Was it the benevolence of the landlords? We 
 happen to know a good deal of landloi'd benevolence in 
 Ireland in times of famine. We happen to know that in 
 the year 1848, when the people were dying on the road- 
 sides in Ireland of famine, the Imperial Parliament was 
 actually obliged to pass into law a BUI — what for? To 
 make it illegal for landlords to evict tenants on Christmas 
 Day and Good Friday. And in the winter of 1879 and the 
 commencement of 1880, the landloi'ds of Ireland utilised the 
 famine, as they had utilised past famines, as a means to en- 
 able them to clear their estates of obnoxious tenants. Then, 
 it was not the benevolence of the landlords any more than it 
 was the action of the Government, in starting relief funds, 
 or passing Acts of Parliament, that prevented the famine of 
 1879 from resulting the same as every other famine that 
 had preceded it in the history of Ireland in the increase of 
 outrage ? What was it then ? Well_, I will tell you. 
 
 In 1879 the Land League sprung into existence. The 
 fii'st duty which the Land League had to pei'form was the 
 duty of saving the lives of the people whose lives had been 
 neglected by the Government when the Disturbance Bill 
 was rejected. The Land League had to appeal to the 
 whole world for charity, and I may say incidentally that I 
 hope in my heart and soul that the day will never come 
 again when Ireland wUl be obliged to appear as a beggar 
 at the door of every nation in the world for charity. The 
 leaders of the Land League set relief funds in motion all. 
 over the world, and they collected a vast sum of money, 
 but they also did what was very much more important 
 than that ; they undertook the work of putting a stop to 
 eviction in Ireland. Evictions in Ireland have always 
 
Was the Land League responsihle for Crime? 65 
 
 been the forerunner of crime. The Land League undertook 
 to check evictions — that is, they undertook to do what the 
 Government tried to do in the Disturbance BUI, but which 
 they had failed to do. The Land League perhaps took 
 rough and ready methods; but, the lives of the people 
 were at stake, and it would not do to wait for another 
 session of Parliament, and for another Bill. They called 
 upon the people to combine, and they promised them that 
 if they did they would put down eviction. They preached to 
 them the doctrine that no tenant in Ireland should be found 
 base enough to take a farm from which another tenant had 
 been evicted unjustly. That doctrine was carried out by 
 the people, who then united as they never united in their 
 previous history. Before two months had elapsed, eviction 
 was checked in Ireland, and in checking eviction the Land 
 League effectually checked the tide of outrage and crime, 
 Now, gentlemen, let me not be misunderstood. I do not 
 say that during this famine there were no agrarian out- 
 rages. I do not claim for my colleagues the performance of 
 a miracle, but I claim this — that the famine which, judged 
 by the past history of famines in Ireland, ought to have 
 been marked by an enormous increase of crime, witnessed 
 a state of the country in which crime was kept down 
 absolutely loAver than what I might call its normal 
 condition. Now, let me verify these facts. I find from 
 statistics taken from returns presented to the House of 
 Commons, that there were 
 
 In 1837 
 
 172 homicides and murders. 
 
 1845 
 
 137 
 
 
 1846 
 
 17G 
 
 
 1848 
 
 171 
 
 
 1849 
 
 203 
 
 
 1850 
 
 113 
 
 
 1851 
 
 118 
 
 
66 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 In 1852 
 
 69 homicides and murders. 
 
 1853 
 
 73 
 
 ,j 
 
 1854 
 
 53 
 
 f 
 
 1855 
 
 55 
 
 >) 
 
 1856 
 
 50 
 
 J, 
 
 1857 
 
 52 
 
 
 1858 
 
 36 
 
 •» 
 
 1S59 
 
 4-5 
 
 
 And in the year 1879-80, that is, taking the time covered 
 by the famine, there were in all Ireland exactly eight 
 murders of all kinds, and, five of them only were alleged 
 to be agrarian. By way of comparison, and not of invidious 
 comparison necessarily, I may state that in England, in the 
 same year in which there were in Ireland eight mui'ders of 
 all khids, there were 61 persons tried for murder, 40 for 
 attempted murder, and 328 for stabbing, shooting, and 
 manslaughter. I find, by referring to the records, that the 
 whole teaching and tendency of the Land League were in 
 the direction of the repression of crime. Of cotirse, I might 
 spend a whole night in quoting from the speeches delivered 
 by various members of the Land League, and were I 
 egotistical enough I might quote speeches of my own, 
 because it is a fact which can be verified by any man who 
 takes the trouble to refer to our speeches reported in 
 Hansard, and to be found in the libraries of this city, that 
 all through the Land League agitations myself and others 
 never spoke from our places in the House of Commons 
 without addressing to the Irish people earnest words of 
 warning — words of entreaty that they would abstain from 
 ruining their cause and blasting the reputation of their 
 ancient nation, by havmg recourse to violence and crime. 
 The same thing occurred in Ireland. I suppose I have 
 spoken on hundreds of Land League platforms, and on the 
 hill -sides in Ireland, and I never spoke at a meeting in 
 
Was the Land League responsihle for Crime? 67 
 
 Ireland whei'e I did not hear the most responsible men 
 present denouncing outrage in the most uncompromising 
 way. But these are only statements of my own^ and, 
 consequently, may have little weight with outsiders, and I 
 propose to read two or three quotations from the leaders 
 of the Land Leagvie, and I choose these particular ones 
 because the first is from a speech made at the very first 
 Land League meeting after the opening of the campaign in 
 Ireland ; the second is from a speech made about the middle 
 of the campaign, and the third contains absolutely the last 
 public words spoken by any man at the last public Land 
 League meeting in Ireland before its suppression. I find 
 that at Balla, in the County , Mayo, in December, 1879, Mr. 
 Parnell used the followmg words : — 
 
 "I congratiilata you upon your attitude to-day — calm, seK-reliant, 
 determined, but within the law. In this way we shall teach our 
 rulers that although they may violate the Constitution, although they 
 may rush into illegal acts, we are not going to be induced to foUow 
 them, ... I would exhort you with aU the little power of 
 force I possess to maintain the attitude that you have maintained up 
 to the present, and not to allow any provocation to draw you away 
 from your duty. Even if your leaders are torn from you, let them 
 go ; others will take their places. JLet us remain within the law, and 
 within the Constitution, and let us stand, although we have to stand on 
 the last plank of the Conslliution — let us stand until that plank is torn 
 from under our feet." 
 
 I find that at Kilburn, in the County of Cork, on 17th 
 January, 1881, Mr. Michael Davitt said: — 
 
 "Despite the efforts that are being made to drive you from 
 a stern, passive attitude into loose and violent action, adhere to 
 the programme of the League, and repel every incentive to oiitrage 
 and every inducement to give your enemies an opportunity of 
 \\iping out this movement in the blood of Irishmen. 
 But glorious, indeed, will be our victory, and high in the esti- 
 mation of mankind will our grand old fatherland stand, if we can 
 
68 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 BO curb our passions and control our acts in this struggle for free land 
 as to marcli to success tkrough provocation and danger witliout resort, 
 ing to the wild justice of revenge, or being guilty of anything which 
 could sully the character of a brave and Christian people." 
 
 At the last Land League meeting held before the 
 suppression of the Land League, the chairman, the Rev. 
 James Cantwell, Administrator to the Archbishop of Cashel, 
 in dissolving the Central League on the 19th October, 1881, 
 used these words : — 
 
 " I appeal and exhort each one of you in conclusion, that you 
 yourselves, and, so far as your influence goes over others, will abstain 
 from using violence of any sort in the country. Our position is passive 
 resistance. We are an unarmed people, and eoery man of sense ivho 
 loves his country, loho wishes to do nothing to bring disgrace and injury 
 . upon it, will do all he can to prevent violent action. " 
 
 These are samples of what were the invariable teachings 
 of the Laud League leaders. That their object was success- 
 ful is proved bv the fact that the winter of 1879-80, though 
 Ireland was suffering terrible provocation, was stained by 
 less crime than any winter for fifty years previously. Now 
 let me keep the thread of my argument. I am proving 
 that the Land League was not responsible for crime in 
 Ireland generally from its inception ; and first I showed 
 you that agrarian outi'age was of much older origin ; 
 secondly, that the winter, which from the history of past 
 famines ought to have been marked by crime, was less 
 marked by it than any for the fifty years previously, and 
 that that was directly traceable to the Land League having 
 stopped evictions, and to the invariable teachings of its 
 leaders. Let me get on. There came a time when agrarian 
 outrage and crime increased, although there was less provo- 
 cation, because the famine had passed away. What was 
 that time, and what was the reason of the increase o£ 
 
Was the Land League respansihle for Crime f 69 
 
 crime ? The time when outrages began to increase was the 
 time when Mr. Forster's Coercion Act was carried into law. 
 The winter of 1879 saw Ireland almost for the first time 
 for half a century without a Coercion Act and an Arms 
 Act. and yet this winter was free from serious crime. 
 Towards the beginning of 1881 crimes began to increase, 
 though the famine had passed away. Mr. Forster's ill-fated 
 Coercion Act had been passed into law. It had been 
 presented to Parliament by him upon the plea that it was 
 absolutely necessary to ensure tranquillity to the country, 
 and he sought to prove that the covxntry was not tranquil 
 by the production of a return of outrages which showed a 
 very large total. He could not increase the number of 
 murders — five ao;rarian ones — but he said there was a lar^e 
 number of minor outrages, and we who lived in Ireland 
 were somewhat staggered to find that outrages were com- 
 mitted all around us without our knowledge. In my own 
 peaceful County of Wexford there had been fifty. Knowing 
 the people, and having lived all this time amongst them, I 
 took the trouble to inquire, and found that out of the fifty 
 "outrages" forty were threatening letters. Now, I do not 
 want to palliate threatening letters. I have received some 
 threatening letters myself since I came to Australia, but if 
 I received a million I would not think of calling them a 
 million outrages perpetrated by the people of Australia. 
 We find that a most ingenious method of piling up the 
 agony had been invented, Mr. A. M. Sullivan tells us how 
 a certain young man had a grudge against another young 
 man, the son of a widow^ and that he broke into the 
 widow's house and broke her son's head. Breaking into the 
 house was made one outrage, striking the son was another, 
 threatening to do it again was a third^ and the upsetting of 
 the widow's pail of milk was a fourth. In this way the 
 
70 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 number of outrages was piled up, but it was useless for us 
 to expose this as we did. Unfortunately, in a moment of 
 weakness, which no one regrets more to-day than he, Mr. 
 Gladstone yielded to Mr. Forster, and passed the Coercion 
 Act. The direct outcome was real serious crime. Sir John 
 Pope Hennessy, late Governor of Hong Kong, and present 
 Governor of Mauritius, said, speaking before the Social 
 Science Congress in London, a few months since : — 
 
 "He could hardly conclude the opening address of that section 
 without saying a word on that which had recently occupied public 
 attention — the repression of crime in Ireland. He had just come 
 from Ireland, where he had seen the clearest evidence that in endeavour- 
 ing to repress crime, crime had been ina eased. Here, again, it was the 
 old story ; the history of penal laws was the history of centuries of 
 Slate-created crime. Last year hundreds of men ' suspected ' by the 
 Executive were arre.-ted ; most of them were politicians ; some 
 of them were actually the persons of greatest influence in certain districts 
 in repressing outrages. As the arrests increased in numbers, the number 
 of outrages increased also. Whether it be ten thousand miles away, or 
 nearer to the heart of the Empire, one general principle seemed to 
 hold good — that the machinery for the repression of crime was cheaper 
 and more elFective where prudent government had secured, on the 
 side of the law, the sympathy and support of the people." 
 
 Do not let it be said the Government had not ample 
 warning of the result of this course Of action. "We warned 
 them in the House of Commons by the past history of 
 
 ■ coercive legislation in Ireland. We challenged them to 
 show that any single one of the fifty-one Coercion Acts 
 passed since the union had been effective in repressing 
 crime, and we told them that they ought to have known 
 from the history of every land in the world, where similar 
 legislation had been tried, that the suppression of open 
 agitation would have the effect of driving the people into 
 
 ; secret organisations. Unfortunately, our warning was 
 neglected. Let me read the warning given by the Rev. 
 
Was the Land League responsible for Crime? 71 
 
 Mortimer O'Connor, P.P., of Bally bxmion, Co. Kerry, 
 who spoke at a meeting of the Land League shortly before 
 
 its suppression : — 
 
 "I established a branch of the Land LeagTie in my parish and 
 became its president. Every householder in the pariah— farmer, 
 labourer, and tradesman — joined it, with the result that the most perfect 
 tranquillity prevails, and serious ainie is altogether zmlcnown. The 
 restraining influence of the League is clearly visible. The same is the 
 tone of the surrounding parishes. It also applies in a greater or lees 
 extent to all Munster. Should the Government suppress this organi- 
 sation, which walks openly in the light of day, and hides nothing, the 
 populatio!! wiU bo brought face to face with the armed forces of the 
 realm. fTithout restraining or controlling influences in their struggle 
 for existence, our suffering fellow-countrymen will be driven into a course 
 which reason and religion alike condemn." ■. 
 
 Mr. A. M. Sullivan, whose words I am glad to say are 
 quoted and approved of by the journals of this land, and 
 who is, notwithstanding, one of the leaders of the present 
 movement, has thus summed up the result of Mr. Foi-ster's 
 regime in Ireland : — 
 
 " He (Mr. Forster) found Ireland alarmed and disturbed. He left 
 it a volcano of human passions on one side, a Bastile of Government 
 vengeance and caprice on the other. The ' village ruffians ' and 
 * midnight marauders ' went apparently untouched — nay, multiplied 
 in numbers and increased in insolence of crime ; while mayors, 
 magistrates, members of Parliament, public representatives of every 
 degree were seized and flung into gaol on mere suspicion, without 
 
 accusation, evidence, investigation, or proof The 
 
 inevitable result appeared. The secret societies became masters of the 
 situation. Crime grew rampant." 
 
 Unfortunately, it is true that crime did grow rampant. 
 From the very commencement of the operation of the 
 Coercion Act crime began to increase, but the catalogue 
 reached an alarming and horrible total when the Coercion 
 Act was vigorously put in force; when the leaders were 
 arrested, the Land League and its branches suppressed, the 
 
72 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Press of the country gagged, and public meetings declared 
 iUecal. Let me read this miserable record of State-created 
 crime : — 
 
 " In the first quarter of 1881, when the Coercion Act just came into 
 full operation, there wei-e in Connaught and Mimster 568 outrages of 
 all kinds ; in the second quarter there were 769 ; in the third there 
 were 735 ; and in the fourth quarter, when the League was suppressed 
 and the leaders imprisoned on suspicion, there was the enormous total 
 of 1,127. 
 
 " From the commencement of the Land League movement up to the 
 day of its suppression in October, 1881, there were only five agrarian 
 murders in aU Ireland ; within the six months after the suppression 
 of the League and the destruction of the influence of its leaders by 
 arbitrary imprisonment, there were, in the three counties of Kerry, 
 Limerick, and Clare alone, eight agrarian murders." 
 
 What does this prove 1 Any intelligent or honest man 
 must say it proved on the face of these facts that this 
 enormous increase of crime, when there was less provocation 
 than in 1879, was directly traceable to the action of the 
 Government and Mr. Forster. When the Coercion Act 
 came into force, the power of the Land League to suppress 
 eviction was curtailed. When the Coercion Act was put 
 vigorously in force; when our mouths were gagged, and 
 we were menacled; when public meetings were declared 
 to be illegal, and the Press confiscated, then our power to 
 check evictions was gone, and evictions multiplied. They 
 multiplied with horrible rapidity, and wherever they 
 appeared, there came in their train agrarian outrage and 
 agrarian crime. Picture to yourselves for a moment the 
 position of the leaders of the Irish people at that time — 
 some of them manacled in their prisons, untried and un- 
 accused of any crime ; others of them in exile, their organi- 
 sations shattered, their organs of public opinion silenced, 
 public meetings declared to be illegal. Picture to yourselves 
 the position of Mr. Parnell in his prison cell; picture his 
 
Was the Land League resporisible for Crime ? 73 
 
 porsition, looking out, powerless and helpless, at the increase 
 of crime throughout the land ; picture his feelings when he 
 saw from his prison cell the passions that he had restrained 
 breaking loose ; when he saw that by the mad and guUty 
 action of the people deprive 1 of their leaders, without hope 
 and without counsel, they were destroying bit, by bit, the 
 work which he had built up by three years of unparalleled 
 labours and sacrifices, and picture, if you can, his feelings 
 when, released from prison, he found himself taunted with 
 being the source and cause of the crime which occurred 
 when he was manacled and silenced, and his organisation 
 shattered. There came a time when these crimes began 
 to diminish just as suddenly, and apparently with as little 
 reason as they had commenced to increase, From a certain 
 day and date agrarian crime in Ireland began to diminish. 
 What was that day and date ? Every one knows that it 
 was the day and date when Mr. Forster left the Government, 
 a discredited politician, when his policy was at last discai'ded 
 by the man whose reputation wUl not be the greater because 
 he ever allowed himself to be duped by his Irish Chief Sec- 
 retary— ^the time when the leaders of the people were 
 released without a wovd, when the public Press of the 
 country once again became free, when public meetings 
 ceased to be illegal, and when we were once again free to 
 organise an open agitation for our rights, I am not stating 
 on my own authority that agrarian crimes then diminished. 
 We have it on the very best authority. We have it on the 
 authority of Lord Spencer, the Viceroy of Ireland, and we 
 have it on the authority of the Judges of Assize in 
 Ireland, that the number of ofi'ences was less than at the 
 corresponding period during the last three years. At 
 Longford there was only one indictment. The Leitrim 
 Assizes were finished in a few hours. At Clare the cases 
 
74 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 were neither numerous nor serious. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, 
 in his charge to the Grand Jury, commented with much 
 satisfaction " on the diminution of crime," and so on from 
 all parts of Ireland. There seems to be an idea in this 
 country that Ireland to-day is in a state of disturbance and 
 lawlessness. I can understand the idea in the public mind, 
 which is excited by the discovery of the perpetrators of the 
 horrible assassination in Phoenix Park more than a year 
 ago. But these things did take place more than a year 
 ago. Ireland to-day, notwithstanding a new Coercion Act, 
 notwithstanding a partial famine, is practically in a state of 
 peace and tranquility. To sum up my answer to the first 
 accusation, that the Land League was the cause and source 
 of crime generally from its inception, there are these four 
 points : — Firstly, agi-arian crime existed long before the 
 Land League; secondly, the famine of 1870-80 was saved 
 from crime by the Land League; thirdly, crime began to 
 increase as soon as the Coercion Act of Mr. Forster was 
 passed, and it multiplied into terrible proportions as soon as 
 the Land League was suppressed; and, fourthly, crime 
 diminished as soon as Mr. Forster's policy was disregarded, 
 and open agitation was once more declared to be legal. 
 
 Now I come to the second accusation, which is that 
 what is called Mr. Forster's terrible indictment of Mr. 
 Parnell remained unanswered. What was that terrible 
 indictment by Mr. Forster ? I will not weary you by any 
 comments of my own, but I may be permitted to say that I 
 have heard every word of that indictment from Mr. Forster's 
 lips at least twelve times in the last three years. There is 
 not one word new in this indictment, and it has only caught 
 the public eye and ear now because the public mind is 
 excited by recent discoveries in Ireland. To begin with, 
 Mr. Forster charges Mr. Parnell with " conniving at 
 
Was the Land League responsible for Crime'? 75 
 
 murder," Any schoolboy knows to connive at murder is a 
 crime in the sight of the law. Who is the man that accuses 
 Mr. Parnell of conniving at murder? Does he represent 
 the Government of the country whose duty it would be to 
 charge Mr, Parnell with such a crime? No. Does he 
 represent the law officers of the Crown, whose duty it would 
 be to prosecute Mr. Parnell ? No ; the Government of 
 the country have made no such charge, and Mr, Gladstone, 
 the head of the Government, has never breathed one 
 syllable in his life to hint even at a suspicion that Mr. 
 Parnell was guilty of such a crime. No, the man who makes 
 this charge is a discredited and disgraced politician. He is 
 the man who owes his fall from power directly to the 
 opponent whom he accuses — a man who never again, were 
 he to live the age of one hundred, can hope or expect to 
 take his seat as a member of any English Government ; a 
 man who has been false to Ireland — which, being unable to 
 govern, he calumniated — and false to his own colleagues, 
 whose most intimate secrets he betrayed as soon as they 
 discarded him. Who is the man 1 Why, he raised his 
 hand to rebuke Mr. Parnell, and accuse him of conniving 
 at murder; look upon his hand, that hand is red with 
 blood. I do not speak these words lightly. His hand is 
 red with the blood of Ellen McDonagh, aged eighteen 
 years, stabbed to death by the bayonets of emissaries. His 
 hand is red with the blood of the five children, all of them 
 under the age of ten years, shot down with buck-shot in 
 the streets of Ballina. His hand is red with the blood of 
 the men slaughtered during his term of office in Ballina 
 and Ballyragget, and other places in Ireland. Allow 
 me to read a portion of a speech in answer to this man, 
 delivered by Mr. Jvistin McCarthy, in the House of 
 Commons ; — 
 
76 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 "Mr. Justin M'Carthy, M.P., made a striking point, and showed 
 that in 1864 Mr. Forster had been accused both in the House and in 
 the newspapers of conniving at assassination. Mazzini had written a 
 letter entitled 'The Story of the Dagger,' in which the patriot said, 
 ' Blessed be the knife, blessed be the dagger ; ' and talked of these 
 instruments as weapons of 'irregular warfare.' This letter was read 
 in the House, whereupon the member for Bradford rose and said, 
 ' Mazzini, whatever his faults, is a man of bigh character, and I shall 
 not be ashamed of being his friend." 
 
 So much with reference to the charge of conniving 
 at murders, proceeding from such a man, Mr. Forster, in 
 his indictment, to use the journalistic phrase, goes on to 
 accuse Mr. Parnell with i-eference to certain passages which 
 appeared in the Irish World. First of all, at the com- 
 mencement of the Land League movement the Government 
 stopped the entry into Ireland of that paper. They would 
 not allow it to circulate, they suppressed its copies in the 
 post ofl&ce and destroyed them. But Mr. Parnell and 
 myself were supposed, not only to have the time to read 
 every line, but to be able to defeat the Government and to 
 obtain regularly copies of a paper which was denied circula- 
 tion in the country by Mr. Forster, More than that, at 
 the time some of these quotations appear-ed, Mr. Parnell 
 was in Kilmainham Prison ; so that, first of all, there was 
 this difficulty in his way in following this paper, that it was 
 not allowed to enter the shores of Ireland, and even if it 
 ■were it woiUd not be allowed to penetrate Mr, Parnell's 
 prison cell ; but stUl we are told we are responsible for 
 every word that appeared in that paper, because we 
 accepted money sent to it. I notice that the Argus has 
 started a fund in aid of a distressed Irish landlord, and I 
 notice that in the last ten days the magnificent sum of £6 
 has been collected. I wish my words could reach that 
 distressed landlord ; I would say to him, beware how you 
 
Was the Land League responsible for Crime ? 77 
 
 receive this money. If you are an honest man, before you 
 receive it you are bound to come to Melbourne to obtain 
 files of the Argus and to read these files, for the last two 
 years, through and through, and if you find any syllable in 
 the Argus which you disapprove of, you must not accept 
 the contributions. Otherwise, according to the logic of our 
 opponents, this distressed landlord, to whom I wish every 
 benefit, if he accepts this money, thereby makes himself 
 responsible for every syllable that was ever written in the 
 Argus for the last two years. Now, I am afraid I must 
 detain you still longer. I come to the third accusation — 
 namely, that the Land Leagiie was responsible, by sym- 
 pathy and by connection with the Phoenix Park murders. 
 On this matter it is useless for me to express my own 
 opinions. I have spoken mine in many places in Australia, 
 and at one of the largest meetings which I have ever 
 addressed, held in the Freetrade Hall, Manchester, the 
 next day after the assassination — the Sunday after the 
 Saturday upon which they were perpetrated — when a 
 resolvition was passed expressing the national horror and 
 indignation at the occurrence. But I wish to answer the 
 charge that the Land League was responsible for those 
 crimes. First, in sympathy. The day after the murders 
 this manifesto was issued to the people of Ireland : — 
 
 " To the People of Ireland. — On the eve of what seemed a bright 
 future for our country that evil destiny which has apparently pursued 
 us for centuries has struck at our hopes another blow which cannot be 
 exaggerated in its disastrous consequences . In this hour of sorrow- 
 ful gloom we venture to give expression to our profoundest sympathy 
 with the people of Ireland in the calamity that has befallen our cause 
 through this horrible deed, and with those who determined at the last 
 liour that the policy of conciliation should supplant that of terrorism 
 and natural distrust. We earnestly hope that the attitude and action 
 of the Irish people will show to the world that an assassination such 
 as has startled us almost to the abandonment of hope of our country's 
 
78 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 future is deeply and religiously abhorrent to their every feeling and 
 instinct. "We appeal to you to show by every manner of expression 
 that, amidst the universal feeling of horror which the assassination 
 has excited, no people feel so deep a detestation of its atrocity, or fo 
 deep a sympathy with those whose hearts must be scared by it, as 
 the nation upon whose prosperity and reviving hopes it may entail 
 consequences more ruinous than those that have fallen to the lot of 
 unhappy Ireland during the present generation. We feel that no act 
 that has ever been perpetrated in our country, during the exciting 
 struggles of the past fifty years, has so stained the name of hospitable 
 Ireland as this cowardly and unprovoked assassination of a friendly 
 stranger, and that, until the murders of Lord Cavendish and IVIr. 
 Burke are brought to justice, that stain vrill sully our country's 
 name. (Signed) 
 
 " Chas. S. Paeneli, 
 
 " John Dillon, 
 
 " Michael Davitt." 
 
 I find that the Land League in Amei'ica issued a similar 
 manifesto. It said this : — 
 
 " To the Land League of America. — The execrable and cowardly' 
 assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish, the newly-appointed 
 Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Under-Secretary Bvu-ke, has horrified 
 the world, and is especially painful and abhorrent to every true friend 
 of Ireland. We denounce the awful crime, and exhort our brethren 
 in Ireland to use every effort to bring its perpetrators to justice, and 
 show their detestation of the fiendish act, which only an arch enemy 
 of our race or some irresponsible idiot could have conceived or 
 executed. — James Mooney, President of the Irish National Land 
 League of America." 
 
 On this question of sympathy with the Phoenix Park 
 murders, surely our most bitter opponents will acknowledge 
 that Sir William Harcourt, the Home Secretary, is an 
 impartial witness, and yet he used these words in my own 
 hearing, five days after the murders, in the House of 
 Commons : — 
 
 "No man is unjust enough to doubt the sincerity of the indigna- 
 tion which the Irish people have expressed at the crime which has 
 sullied their soil. . . . That the heart of the mass of the Irish 
 
Was the Land League resioonsihle for Crime / 79 
 
 people is sound, the voice tliat comes to us now from every province 
 of that land amply testifies. Though the body of Ireland is sound, 
 there is a fearful plague spot upon it, and I firmly believe that the 
 Irish, no less than the English nation, desire that the plague spot 
 should be removed. There is a cancerous sore in Ireland. It is a 
 sore which springs from the baneful existence of secret societies." 
 
 Sir William Harcourt, it will be observed, does not say 
 that the cancerous sore in Ireland sprang from the baneful 
 existence of open agitation or the Land League, but of 
 secret societies. I find that the brother of one of the 
 murdered gentlemen, Dr. Burke, of Lafayette, America, 
 spoke thus immediately after the deed : — 
 
 " I know that his death will be speedily avenged. I know that no 
 Liind League in Ireland, and no Land League here, had a hand in 
 this cowardly deed. Ireland and England are on the verge of a true 
 reconciliation, and no true patriot, no true Irishman, ever committed 
 the fearful and dastardly deed." 
 
 And Mr. Davitt, who was interviewed in London im- 
 mediately after the crime, said : — 
 
 *' Had I been permitted to continue my crusade against outrage — 
 to liave levelled all the influence of the Land League against the 
 commission of murder and the mutilation of cattle, I could have 
 prevented numbers of crimes that now stain the name of Ireland and 
 have averted the horrible deed of Saturday last." 
 
 And to conclude on this point, I will read from an inter- 
 view which recently took place between Mr. Parnell and an 
 eminent journalist in Paris. Mr. Parnell speaks thus : — 
 
 '• M. Comely. — But what about agrarian crimes ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — We condemn them. The English try to put the 
 responsibility for them on us, as certain Republicans in France try to 
 make the Monarchists responsible for the acts of the revolutionists, 
 and especially for the late manifestations. We are opposed to 
 rioletice. Our speeches, our writings, are there to prove it. Violence 
 leads to no good, but rather plays the game of the landlord party 
 
80 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 " M. Comely. — As in the case of the assassination of Lord 
 Frederick Cavendish ? 
 
 "Mr. Pamell. — The knife that killed Lord Frederick Cavendish 
 came near killing with the same blow the Land League. "We were at 
 that time in a splendid position. My friends and myself, as you 
 know, had been put in prison. Then disorders broke out in Ireland. 
 The Government found itself unable to repress the outragps, and 
 came to us to ask us to intervene. "We were liberated. "Wo said to 
 the Government, 'You mufet take certain measures. It is necessary 
 that the Land Act should be honestly administered, and that the 
 tribunals charged with applying it should not be permitted to defeat 
 the intentions of Parliament/ "We were in some sort the arbitrators 
 of the situation when, four days after our liberation, Lord Cavendish 
 was assassinated. By that act nearly all the ground we had gained 
 was lost. The English Press never ceased its efforts to make us 
 responsible for that crime. In truth, we should have been mad to 
 have even thought of it, because if men had been paid to discredit us 
 they could not have found a more abominable or a more efEcctive 
 means to do so." 
 
 la the face of these statements, where is the man who 
 will tell me that the leaders of the Irish people to-day had 
 3,ny sympathy with the commission of that horrible deed ? 
 The men who make that accusation, unless they be political 
 fools, do not believe in it. Shortly after the commence- 
 ment of the Land League movement Mr. Davitt appeared 
 in the Round Room of the Rotunda, Dublin, to deliver a 
 lecture in aid of the Land League, and the country was 
 horrified by reading the next day that the meeting was 
 broken into by a body of men, who extinguished the lights 
 and dispersed the assemblage, and that these men called 
 themselves " Nationalists." It came out a few days after 
 that the person who led this mob was James Carey. I have 
 experienced some of the sympathy of Mr. Carey and his 
 friends. I attended a Land League meeting in Blackburn, 
 Lancashire, and in the middle of the meeting about a 
 hundred men seized the chairs, manufactured shillelaghs 
 
Was the Land League responsible for Crimed 81 
 
 out of them, drove us off the platform, and broke up the 
 meeting effectually ; and I found that these were sympa- 
 thisers with the Dublin rowdies, who never from the begin- 
 ning disguised their open hostility to us and ovir movement. 
 It is a fact of which I have personal knowledge that within a 
 week after the Land League manifesto was issued the men 
 who signed it received private information — they knew not 
 from what source — that if they did not withdraw it they 
 would be assassinated ; and I know that many of us besides 
 these three men, were obliged to go about armed, because 
 we knew we had excited the enmity of men who would 
 hesitate at no villainy. 
 
 Now, was there any connection between the Land League 
 and these assassinations ? It was stated that James Carey 
 was a Land Leaguer. I do not know the value of the oath 
 of such a man, but there is his evidence, and in it he stated 
 that he was never a member of any branch of the Land 
 League. Not one of the men convicted was ever a member of 
 the Land League. On the contrary, we had very good 
 reason to know they were amongst its most bitter opponents. 
 They hoped to work by desperate means ; the Land League 
 was a stumbling block in their way, and they rejoiced 
 when Mr. Forster suppressed it. It is said that money was 
 supplied by the Land League to the Assassination Com- 
 mittee. Upon what evidence ? The evidence of Carey. 
 Did he swear it ? Nothing of the kind. He said he did 
 not know where it cajne from, and being pressed, he said, 
 *' Some of vis thought the money came from America, some 
 from the Land League." This is the evidence upon which 
 the Land League is to be convicted of supplying the funds. 
 I am told that a certain amount subscribed to the Land 
 League never was accounted for. When the statement was 
 first made, the sum unaccounted for was stated to be 
 
82 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 £98,000. I notice it has grown to £155,000, and I would 
 like to draw attention to the fact that this story originated 
 in the brain of poor Lady Florence Dixie. Now, what is my 
 answer to that 1 Here is my answer, the existence of which 
 was well known to the Press of this colony, but which was 
 deliberately suppressed. I ask, are they going to report 
 my answer to-night. Here is the balance-sheet of the Land 
 League, dealing with all moneys received from the com- 
 mencement of the movement down to October of last year* 
 that is to six months after these murders were committed. 
 It may take a few minutes, but I trust to your patience to 
 allow me to read it : — 
 
 From Commencement of Movement to October. 
 Dr. 
 Belief Fund 
 
 Land League Fund to 3rd Feb., 1881 
 Defence Fund per Land League ... 
 Do Freeman's Journal ... 
 Land League Funds from 3rd Feb., 1881 ... 
 Amount Coupons on Investments, 65,196 francs at 
 
 25-25 ... ... ... ... ... 2,582 
 
 Profits realised on sale of 91,000 dols. U.S. 4 per cent 
 bonds .„. .- 1,250 
 
 .. £59,178 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 ... 30,825 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 .. 6,563 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 ... U,514 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... 129,907 
 
 
 
 
 
 £244,820 3 3 
 
 Or. 
 
 Relief of Distress in 1879-80 £50,000 
 
 State Trials, Dec, '80, and Jan., 81 ... ... 15,000 
 
 Expenses, support of evicted tenants, providing 
 wooden houses, law costs, sheriff's sales, defence 
 against ejectments, law costs, and general expenses 
 
 of organisation ... ... 148,000 
 
 Balance invested in names of Justin M'Carthy, M.P., 
 
 and C. S. Parnell, M.P 31,820 3 3 
 
 £244,820 3 3 
 
 Audited and certified as correct. Eev. Eugene Sheehy, C.C., John 
 
 Dillon, M.P., Mathew Harris, Patrick Egan, Treasurer. And Mr. 
 
 Justin M'Carthy, M.P., has also certified to the correctness of these 
 
 accounts. 
 
Was the Land League resijonsible for Crime'? 83 
 
 That is my answer to the man who says that a smgle 
 farthing of our funds went towards illegal or criminal pur- 
 poses. If any of it did so go, it must have been with the 
 guilty knowledge of the auditors who signed the balance- 
 sheet, and with men who would make such an assertion I 
 will have no argviment whatever. Such men there are no 
 means of satisfying, unless — I presume they would then be 
 satisfied — I went back and got the books and vouchers of 
 the Land League, and made as auditors, for a new audit, 
 the editors of the Age and Argus. The men who subscribed 
 to the funds expressed themselves satisfied. To those who 
 did not subscribe to the funds that is my answer, and that 
 only. It has been stated Mr. Egan refused to allow an 
 audit, and went to America the other day to prevent its 
 possibility. The absurdity of this is evident. First, as I 
 have shown you there has been an audit. Second, Mr, 
 Egan going to America could not prevent an audit. He 
 is no longer the treasurer. Last October he resigned, and 
 handed over the books and vouchers to his successor, Mr. 
 Alfred Webb, of Dublin, in whose possession they are to- 
 day. 
 
 Now, there was a little piece of incidental evidence which 
 has been seized upon in the country in connection with 
 these trials. Mullet said he had received a cheque while in 
 prison from the Ladies' Land League, and that is held to be 
 a proof that the Land League supplied money to this man, 
 but nobody takes the trouble to inquire the period he was 
 imprisoned, and how he came to be imprisoned. It is 
 a remarkable fact that ought to be noted, that both 
 Carey and Mullet were arrested as suspects by Mr. Forster, 
 and strange to say, were unconditionally released by him two 
 months before they say the Invincible Society was instituted. 
 The Freeman^ s Journal, in Dublin, which is the leading 
 
84 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 organ of public opinion, but not the organ of the Land 
 League, started a fund when the Coercion Act came into 
 orieration, called the Political Prisoners' Sustentation Fund 
 which was to supply money to all prisoners arrested on 
 suspicion, to enable them to buy food to obviate the 
 necessity for their living on the prison diet, and one oi 
 the conditions made by the Freeman was that every 
 prisoner should accept the same amount, or that none 
 would be given; and so rigorously was this carried out 
 that Mr. Parnell and other men who were not in the want 
 of money to buy food, actually consented to accept from 
 this fund their £1 per week. The Freeinan! s Journal found 
 that Mr. Forster arrested a thousand men, and conse. 
 quently their fund grew large and their duty heavy, and 
 they asked the Ladies' Land League to distribute the money 
 and they consented. Their only duty was to fulfil the 
 conditions of the Freeman, and to send a cheque for £1 a 
 week to every man, and amongst others they sent one to 
 Mullet ; but, strange to say — and of course this fact has been 
 suppx'essed — Mullet, on receipt of the first remittance from the 
 Ladies^ Land League, returned it in a letter full of insult, 
 saying that he would have nothing to do with any money that 
 catfie from any Land League source, and that he would 
 sooner starve in prison, than accept money of a Land League 
 while he was a suspect. Now, sir, I think all ordinary 
 men will feel that I have sufficiently answered this charge 
 of sympathy and connection with these murderers, because 
 no man of ordinary intelligence believes for one instant in 
 the tiiith of that charge. Every child knows that if the 
 infernal powers had been called upon to suggest the best 
 means for injuring us and our cause and blackening our 
 reputation, they could not have hit upon a scheme more 
 likely to accomplish their purposes than the perpetration of 
 
Was the Land League res'ponsihle for Crime ? 85 
 
 these murders, and we would have been madmen or worse 
 if we sympathised or had any connection with a crime 
 which, I care not what circumstances may surround it, must 
 remain, as long as Ireland is a nation, a stain upon her 
 honour. I have now dealt with the accusations that the 
 Land League was responsible by sympathy and connection 
 with the crimes committed, and also that the money sub- 
 scribed for the Land League was never accounted for. I 
 now come to deal with the last accusation, namely, that we 
 are responsible for, and have sympathy with, the policy of 
 dynamite. I will not enter at length into this matter. I 
 will not humble myself by being coerced into expressing 
 disapproval of a policy which shocks humanity itself, but I 
 call attention to the fact that two whose voices are listened 
 to by Irishmen throughout the world have spoken, and in 
 no uncertain tone on the matter. I wUl refrain from 
 quoting Mr. A. M. Sullivan's letter to the Irish people of 
 America, because my friends of the Press have been 
 quoting it as an example of what Land Leagues ought to 
 be ; but they made a little mistake in the matter, for the 
 man they are quoting is actually one of the leaders of the 
 Land League. He appeals to the few in America who 
 have adopted these means to abandon them, and in 
 scathing words denounced the injustice and the dishonour 
 of such a course of action ; and I find that Mr. Michael 
 Davitt, who is supposed to be more extreme than Mr. A. 
 M. Sullivan, iised these words in a recent letter : — 
 
 " What Irishmen require more than anything else at the present is 
 soixnd political education, which will temper patriotic enthusiasm 
 with patience, and teach that patient, plodding perseverance, on a 
 slow but winning line of action, is the only sure road to victory in a 
 just and moral cause. Impatience of results, and passion's mastery 
 over judgment and discretion, are our weak points politically, and in 
 the present state of the national movement we are made to see the 
 
86 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 disastrous results tliat follow from a recklessness that is bom of 
 political ignorance working upon our Celtic impulse. I prefer, if 
 necessary, twenty years of slow work, which, will tell bit by bit for 
 Ireland, to the indulgence of that feeling which is sung about by the 
 poet, when he says, ' Kevenge upon a tyrant is sweetest of all ' — a 
 feeling like that of most pleasure, which is not only transitory as they 
 are, but which leaves a terrible penalty for Ireland to pay a power 
 that can play at revenge also. All the labours of the past are in 
 danger of being so much wasted energy, because a few political idiots 
 have their ravings about revenge reported in the Press of America 
 and England. Of all ike insane projects ever condemned by common 
 sense as plans certain to defeat a just and moral cause, the dynamite policy 
 is the most idiotic and criminal." 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have finished. I have, I 
 think, dealt fairly and candidly, fully and honestly with 
 each one of these five accusations. Let me sum up in two 
 or three words. The first accusation, that the Land League 
 was the source and cause of outrage generally from its very 
 inception, I have disproved by four points. First, that the 
 Land League did not create agrarian crime, which dates 
 back to the origin of the land system. Second, that in the 
 famine of 1879 Ireland was saved from an increase of crime, 
 which ought to have resulted, judging by the history of the 
 past. Third, that crime increased after the Coercion Ate 
 was passed, and multiplied after the arrest of the leaders 
 and the suppression of the Land League ; and fourth, that 
 outrage only diminished when the leaders were released, and 
 open agitation once again became legal. Then, I have 
 answered the indictment of Mr. Forster, by pointing out its 
 absurdity, and showing you the character of the man who 
 made these accusations. Thirdly, I have shown you that 
 the charge that the Land League was responsible by 
 sympathy and connection with the Phoenix Park murders 
 is a slander that could only be uttered by men who are 
 ignorant of the circumstances of the political situation in 
 
Was the Land League responsible for Crime ? 87 
 
 Ireland. Fourthly, I have shown you the falsity of the 
 accusation, on the testimony of the balance-sheet duly 
 audited, that a single farthing of our funds were ever given 
 to illegal or criminal purposes, or that a single farthing 
 remains unaccounted for ; and fifthly, I have shown you, 
 by the statements of Michael Davitt and A. M. Sullivan, 
 the way in which we of the present movement in Ireland, 
 regard what Mr. Davitt happily calls the "ravings of 
 political idiots " about dynamite, I believe that the 
 trials and vicissitudes through which Ireland has passed 
 during the last two years wUl have a beneficial efi"ect 
 upon her fortunes in the future. I believe that the people 
 are rapidly learning the lessons of political moderation and 
 self-restraint as well as of religious toleration, and upon 
 these three things I base my hope for a near future of 
 trimnph for our cause. It would be out of place for 
 me to allude to the very absurd comments which have 
 recently been made upon the action of the Holy See in 
 Irish matters ; but as his Holiness has, for the first time, 
 become infallible in Melbourne — not, mark you, in spiritual 
 but in temporal matters — I may be permitted to read a few 
 words from the last encyclical letter to the bishops in 
 Ireland — words of weight, of wisdom, and of affection for 
 the Irish people : — 
 
 "The faithful people should be firmly persuaded, as we have 
 already reminded them, that the standard of honesty and utility is 
 one and the same ; that the national cause should be kept distinct 
 from the aims, purposes, and deeds of unhallowed associations ; that 
 ■while it is just and lawful for those suffering oppression to seek their 
 rights by lawful means, it is not allowable to make use of the pro- 
 tection which crime affords ; and that Divine Providence allots to 
 the virtuous the enjoyment of the fruits of patience and well-doing, 
 but subjects the evil-disposed, after their fruitless labours, to heavy 
 punishments from God and men. So long as these rules are observed, 
 it is lawful /or the Irish to seek relief from their misfortunes : it is 
 
88 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 lawful for them to contend for their rights, for it cannot be thought that 
 what is permitted in every other country is forhiddan to Ireland.^' 
 
 His Holiness' words breathe the spirit which animates 
 the leaders of the national movement in Ireland. They 
 breathe that spirit liberally. We say that our ca.use is a 
 great and a holy one, " the holiest cause that tongue or 
 sword or mortal ever lost or gained." We say that that 
 cause cannot be advanced a^ means that are inconsistent 
 with morality or religion. We repudiate such assistance, 
 " non tali aiixilio nee defensoribus istis " ; not by aid 
 like this, not by such defenders, is the cause of an 
 ancient and honourable nation to be advanced. No end, 
 however great or honourable, can justify the commission of 
 a single crime. There is no man, I believe, in this room 
 who would be more willing than I am to make any 
 earthly sacrifice for the liberties of my native land, 
 but I say deliberately that the liberties of Ireland 
 would not be worth having, purchased by the perpetra- 
 tion of one single act of national dishonour or of national 
 crime. 
 
 God of Right, preserve tis, 
 Just as we are strong, 
 
 Let no passion swerve us 
 To one act of wrong. 
 
 Let no thouglit unholy- 
 Come our cause to blighl ; 
 
 Thus we pray Thee lowly — 
 Hear us ! God of Right I 
 
THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE IRISH 
 J^ ATI ON A L LEAGUE. 
 
 LECTURE DELIVEBEB IN TOWN HALL, ADELAIDE 
 
 SOUTH AUSTRALIA, 9tH FEBRUAKT. 
 
 MR. C. C. KINGSTON, M.P., IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The cordiality with which you have received me this even- 
 ing will considerably diminish the difficulty which I must 
 experience in the performance of the important duty which 
 I have undertaken. The true significance of that cordiality 
 I fully appreciate. It is not so much a compliment to 
 myself as an expression of your confidence in the leaders of 
 the National movement in Ireland, in whose name I speak 
 and an emphatic expression of your loyalty to that cause 
 which we trust we are destined in our day to see triumphant. 
 Of the fortunes of that cause I am here to-night to speak 
 I am here, as one who has shared in the struggle, to tell 
 you how the fortunes of the day are going, to recount to 
 you what the land movement has accomplished in Ireland, 
 and what it has yet to do, and then to ask you to send 
 across the world assistance in their dire distress to those 
 who are waiting for the result of this movement for permis- 
 sion to live on the land which the Almighty gave to Irish- 
 men to be their homes, and strength and support to the 
 men who are waging a holy but unequal contest. When I 
 
90 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 left Ireland, she was in. a sad condition. The shadow of 
 a coming famine had once a^ain fallen in the far west and 
 the far north, and we felt our hearts almost stand still with 
 fear as we thought of what might, perhaps, be before our 
 country in the near future. What preparations, you will 
 ask, had the Government made to meet the coming disaster? 
 Absolutely none. The warning cry of famine has been 
 met by the English Parliament — first, with incredulity, and 
 then with the heartless recommendation of emigration. 
 What have the leaders of the National movement done? 
 I will tell yovi. They have taught the lesson that the 
 scenes of 1847 shall never again be enacted upon Irish 
 soil, and that, come what may, the people shall have 
 food. This brings me to the commencement of my story 
 — a story of what the land movement has done, what 
 it is now doing, and what we believe it is destined to 
 do in the future. A few words first of retrospection. The 
 land question in Ireland may be said really to date from 
 the first incursion of the English. Since then, the land of 
 Ireland has been confiscated many times over. The last 
 confiscation was that carried out by Cromwell. The land 
 of the country was then parcelled out amongst his successful 
 followers, and it is an absulute fact that two-thirds at least 
 of the present owners of land in Ireland owe their titles to 
 their estates to ancestors who earned them as military 
 marauders. By this means, a land system was created in 
 Ireland, so vicious in principle and so brutal in practice, 
 that we look in vain for its parallel in the history of the 
 civilised world. The native Irish had at one blow been 
 struck down from a position which was practically that of 
 proprietor to the position of serfs. Their new lords, who 
 for the most part had gained their estates by rapine and 
 murder, were alien in race and bitterly hostile in religion. 
 
Objects of the Irish National League. 91 
 
 They sought to retain all political and social influence iu 
 their hands, and they possessed absolute power over the 
 lives and properties of their unfortunate tenants. As time 
 went on things did not improve. If tenants were rash 
 enough to reclaim or improve their land they were forth- 
 with obliged to pay over the full value of these improve- 
 ments in the shape of rack-rent to their landlords. The 
 latter, hating and hated by the people, began to live in 
 large numbers abroad, merely sending to Ireland to 
 collect to the last farthing their exorbitant rents. A 
 natural result followed. Poverty, misery, famine, discontent 
 and unsuccessful rebellion followed each other in dismal 
 sequence, generation after generation. Then the process of 
 consolidation of estates began to creep in, and it has gone 
 on so steadUy ever since that to-day we have the astounding 
 fact that 740 men own one half of Ireland, and a little over 
 10,000 men own the whole of it. Every act of the British 
 Parliament was conceived in the interests of the landlords 
 and against the tenants, until in 1870, startled into a 
 momentary consciousness of the enormity of the system 
 which they were supporting by their blood and their 
 treasure, the English Parliament passed a Land Act which 
 professed to protect the improvements of the tenants, but 
 it left the old power of raising rents and of eviction in the 
 hands of the landlords, and proved a useless and hollow 
 mockery. From that date down to the establishment of the 
 Land League, a period of less than ten years, no less than 
 thirty-one Bills were introduced into the House of Commons 
 to amend the land system, and, though all of them were 
 supported by an overwhelming majority of the Irish 
 Members they were all defeated by majorities composed of 
 Englishmen and Scotchmen. The most extreme of these 
 measures was less revolutionary than the Land Act which 
 
92 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 in 1881 the League forced the Government to pass, and 
 they were all conceived in a spirit of conciliation towards 
 landlordism. The fact is that at any time for fifty years 
 before the establishment of the Land League the people 
 would have been willing to have made terms with the land- 
 lords. All they wanted was permission to live, permission 
 to remain so long as they paid a fair rent in undisputed 
 possession of their poor homes, dearer to them than their 
 palaces to the rich. Their summum bo?iuvi was fixity of 
 tenure and sufficient food, and they were for ever begging 
 for justice, and holding out the hand of conciliation. All 
 they wanted was bread for their children, and permission 
 to so on enrichinor the soil with their labour for the benefit 
 
 o O 
 
 of the landlords. But, no ! the absolute power of land- 
 lordism would not be 3'ielded, and generation after genera- 
 tion the landlords of Ireland rudely repulsed the hand of 
 friendship held out to them by the people. But they did it 
 once too often. Weary of begging and petitioning, with 
 their intelligence awakening to the power which after all 
 rested with themselves, a new spirit sprang to life amongst 
 the people. They had begged for compromise, and com- 
 promise had been refused. They had held out the hand of 
 friendship, and that hand had been repulsed time after 
 time. So be it. They covild be uncompromising as well as 
 the landlords, and not one moment too soon they adopted 
 from the standai'ds of their enemies the watchword of " No 
 surrender," Henceforth they said their demands should be 
 for their right, and their right was the land. Fixity of 
 tenure meant fixity of landlordism, and they would have 
 none of it. The day of patience was passed, and with one 
 voice the cry went up to heaven that landlordism should go 
 — " The land for the people." The men who first raised 
 that cry were few in number. At their head were Charles 
 
Objects of the Irish National League. 93 
 
 Stewart Parnell and Michael Davitt. Before many weeks 
 had passed they found that their words had sunk deep into 
 the hearts of the people, and that they had the manhood of 
 Ireland at their backs. They speedily assembled the lead- 
 ing men together, and the Land League was formed. From 
 the very commencement, the principles of the Land League 
 were plain and unmistakable ; the people — the tillers of the 
 soil — should become the owners of it. But it was not 
 proposed to enquire into the titles of the estates of any 
 landlord ; and with a sense of justice — nay, even, I believe, 
 of generosity — which the impartial historian of the future 
 will record with wonder and admiration, the representatives 
 of this people, plundered and oppressed, degraded and 
 done to death by landlordism, proposed that they 
 should only resume possession of the land upon pay- 
 ment of its full honest value to the landlords. They 
 called upon the State to advance the money necessary for 
 this transaction, as had been done in Prussia and other 
 European countries, but meantime they called upon the 
 people to combine, to organise, and refuse to submit any 
 longer to the imposition of rack-rents. You know what 
 followed. The scheme was denounced as revolutionary and 
 communistic; we have lived to see it adopted and recom- 
 mended by a Committee of the House of Lords. The 
 Government refused to move in the matter, the landlords 
 refused reductions, and the struggle commenced. 
 
 One of the regularly recurrent famines fell upon the land 
 in 1879, and Mr. ParneU sped across the Atlantic to beg 
 bread for the people. But before he went he gave the 
 people certain words of advice. He told them to " keep a 
 firm grip of their holdings." He told them to feed them- 
 selves and their children before paying their rent. He told 
 them where their rent was excessive to demand reductions 
 
94 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 from the landlords, and he assured them that all the power 
 of England was not sufficient to carry out a policy of 
 universal eviction, and that all that was necessary to ensu.re 
 success was union. His words rang through the cou.ntry. 
 It was the preaching of a new gospel — a gospel of life and 
 hope — and the people hearkened to it, and combined as 
 never in their long and chequered history had they combined 
 before. The result soon became apparent. The famine 
 was averted. Before the winter was over the landlords 
 had yielded, and substantial reductions of rent were every- 
 where the order of the day. But the Government, between 
 two fires, hesitated, and the Government that hesitates is 
 lost. It yielded to the landlords on the one side, and it 
 introduced a degradmg, a galling, but a useless Coercion 
 Act. It yielded to the Land League on the other side, and 
 it introduced a weak, a halting, and an impotent Land Act. 
 In both of these policies it was half-hearted, and in both of 
 these policies it failed as it deserved to fail. There is no 
 sane politician now who does not condemn the failure of 
 Forster's Coercion Act, and I thiuk before I sit down I will 
 be able to prove to you the failure of Gladstone's Land Act. 
 That Land Act was regarded by the Land League as a stage 
 of the road upon which they were travelling. It contauaed 
 the recognitions of great principles for which generations of 
 Irishmen had contended in vam, but it was based upon 
 wrong lines, and it was unmistakably introduced with a 
 view to bolster up a rotten system. But the Land League 
 recognised that it afforded protection to some, at any rate, 
 of the tenants, and that it contained germs which might be 
 developed mto useful and even valuable enactments. 
 Hence the League did not reject it. On the other hand, 
 the League would have been false to its principles if it had 
 accepted the Land Act as a settlement of the land question. 
 
Ohjccts of the Irish National League. 95 
 
 What attitude then did it adopt ? An attitude of reasonable 
 and statesmanlike character, an attitude legal and consti- 
 tutional, and now proved to have been most wise. It 
 determined to test the Act, No one knew how the newly- 
 constituted law courts would construe its provisions, but 
 everybody knew that if four or five hundred thousand tenant 
 farmers applied to these courts all at once a hopeless block 
 would be the result. If the Act proved a valuable one its 
 only hope was that, when a few cases in a district had 
 been decided, the other landlords wovild consent to make 
 agreements out of court on the same basis in the remaining 
 cases, and thus save time and endless legal expenses. This 
 was the meaning of testing the Land Act. Now mark — 
 how did the Government meet this action of the Land 
 League ? In a moment of blind folly the members of the 
 Government listened to the counsels of Mr. Forster, and 
 under the outraged name of the " resources of civilisation " 
 they invoked all the worst resources of oppression and of 
 brute force. In that moment the Government tore the mask 
 of constitutionalism from its face, and an absolute reign of 
 terror commenced. The pitch cap and the triangle of a 
 bygone day were not more horrible in their exquisite 
 cruelty and their cold barbarity than were the devices 
 resorted to by Mr. Forster to crush the spirit of the people. 
 The Land League was suppressed first by the arrest of all 
 the leaders, then by a proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. 
 A thoitsand men, most of them men of moderate political 
 views, of good social standing, and of stainless character, 
 were seized upon, and thrown on suspicion, untried and 
 unaccused, into the prisons of the country. Martial law in 
 all its horror, though not in its name, was proclaimed 
 throughout the land, and absolute power over the lives and 
 properties of the people Avas vested in the hands of six 
 
96 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 military magistrates, all of them men like Mr. Clifford 
 Lloyd, who had gained their experience by riding roughshod 
 over the coolies of British India. Public meetings through- 
 out the country were suppressed, the national Press of the 
 country was muzzled, the land was flooded with spies and 
 informers, and day after day the people were shocked and 
 maddened by the accounts of the brutalities of the agents of 
 the Government in molesting and beating, aye, and, as I will 
 show you, sometimes in murdering the defenceless people. 
 Then, and not till then, the leaders of the people had 
 recourse to the last weapon in their armoury — -a weapon 
 against which they knew all the power of the Government 
 was useless, but a weapon which, in spite of temptation, 
 they had up to that moment refrained from using, because 
 they knew that its use must entail unmerited suffering upon 
 individuals. Ladies and gentlemen, a name conceived in 
 malice has before now ruined a movement. The " No-rent 
 Manifesto " was so named by the enemies of Ireland. " No- 
 rent" was never and is not to-day the policy of the Land 
 League, The document in question was not in its true 
 sense a no-rent manifesto. It was simply this — a call upon 
 the people to suspend the payment of what they acknow- 
 ledged as a debt for a certain definite time, and, although 
 that call was only partially responded to, it achieved its 
 object, and before six months were over the Government 
 had to acknowledge itself defeated, Mr. Forster was dismissed 
 from office, and the leaders of the people were released 
 But meantime a winter of unutterable horror had passed 
 over Ireland ; innocent blood had been shed, and the 
 friends and enemies of Ireland alike stood aghast at the 
 daily record of outrage and of crime. This is a difficult and 
 painful subject, as you will understand, for me to speak 
 upon, but it is my duty to vindicate my countiy from the 
 
Objects of the Irish National League. 97 
 
 responsibility of what occurred. From its commencement 
 the Land Leaa;ue set its face against violence and ciime of 
 every kind, and if there be a man present who hears me, 
 or if there be a man outside of the hall who may read a 
 report of my words who says otherwise, I defy him to 
 contradict my statement when I say, as I do say conscien- 
 tiously and solemnly, that up to the moment of the 
 suppression of the Land Leagvie in October, 1881, there 
 never was so large a movement which had accomplished so 
 great a work in any nation with less cost of human blood 
 and human suffering. When the Land League was 
 suppressed, and its leaders imprisoned, our responsibility 
 for the peace of Ireland ceased, because our restraining 
 influence was destroyed. We had warned the Government 
 what would happen. We pointed out to the Government 
 that when open agitation is suppressed the history, not only 
 of Ireland but of every nation, goes to prove that the 
 passions of the people will find vent in secret organisation 
 and in crime. We pointed out to the Govei^nment that 
 the Land League was an organisation which had a branch 
 in almost every parish of Ireland, and that every branch 
 was presided over by the local clergy, and had the names of 
 most of the richest farmers placed on its roll of membei's; 
 and we contended with irresistible force that such an 
 organisation meeting in the open light of day must of 
 necessity possess a restraining influence on the side of peace ; 
 and we pointed out that the central executive of the Land 
 League had issued a circular drafted by the hand of 
 Michael Davitt, calling upon the people to put down 
 violence and outrage of every kind ; and we warned the 
 Government what would happen if that restraining influence 
 were destroyed. Alas! that our words fell on heedless 
 ears. Michael Davitt was sent back to herd with English 
 
 H 
 
98 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 criminals in Portland prison. The Land League was 
 suppressed, its leadex's imprisoned, and every man of 
 influence and popularity with the people throughout the 
 length and breadth of the land was seized on suspicion and 
 cast into prison. Then the Government found themselves 
 face to face with a maddened and despairing people. We 
 all know how near akin desperation is to crime; how 
 misery and sin go hand in hand. The immortal words in 
 which Shakespeare makes Romeo tempt the poverty and 
 the misery of the apothecary contain the burden of the 
 temptation which was for ever ringing in the ears of the 
 Irish people during that terrible winter : — 
 
 " Famine is in thy cheeks, 
 Need and oppression starveth in thy eyes, 
 Upon thy back hangs ragged misery, 
 The world is not thy friend, nor the world's law ; 
 The world affords no law to make thee rich ; 
 Then be not poor, but break it." 
 
 The Irish people found themselves stripped of all. 
 The evictions which, during the progress of the Land 
 League movement, had been checked, now again began 
 to be carried out ruthlessly all over the land. They 
 were carried out with armed force, with all the pomp 
 and circumstance of war. And the vex'y ladies who, like 
 angels of mercy, came to the side of the evicted families, 
 and provided homes for the homeless and bread for the 
 hungry, wei'e seized as malefactors and flung into prison. 
 Do we always realise what these wholesale evictions mean 1 
 Some know what they mean by a bitter experience. But 
 does the outside public realise the meaning of a scene of a 
 wholesale eviction in a country like Ireland % Will you 
 allow me to read to you a few words written on this 
 subject — written by the Most Rev. Dr. Nulty, Bishop of 
 
Objects of the Irish National League. 99 
 
 Meath. The bishop in a pastoral, dated 20th February, 
 1871, concerning evictions in previous years in the County 
 of Westmeath, writes : — 
 
 " In the very first year of our ministry as a missionary priest in this 
 diocese we were an eye-witness of a cruel and inhuman eviction, which 
 even still makes our heart bleed as often as we allow ourselves to think 
 of it. Seven huiidred human beings were driven from their homes in 
 one day, and sent adrift on the world to gratify the caprice of one 
 who, before God and man, probably deserved less consideration than 
 the last and least of them. And we remember well that there was not 
 a single shilling of rent due on the estate at the time, except by one 
 man, and the character and acts of that man made it joerfectly clear 
 that the agent and himself quite understood each other. The crowbar 
 brigade, employed on the occasion to extinguish the hearths and 
 demolish the homes of honest, industrious men, worked away with a 
 will at their awful calling until evening. At length an incident 
 occurred that varied the monotony of the grim, ghastly ruin which 
 they were spreading all around. They stopped suddenly, and recoiled 
 panic-stricken with terror from two dwellings which they were 
 directed to destroy with the rest. They had just learned that a 
 frightful typhus fever had those houses in its grasp, and had already 
 brought pestilence and death to their inmates. They, therefore, 
 supplicated the agent to spare those houses a little longer : but the 
 agent was inexorable, and insisted that the houses should come down. 
 The ingenuity with which he extricated himself from the difficulties 
 of the situation was characteristic alike of the heartlessness of the 
 man and of the cruel necessities of the work in which he was 
 engaged. He ordered a large winnowing-sheet to be secured over the 
 beds in which the f.ver victims lay — fortunately they happened 
 to be perfectly delirious at the time — and then directed the houses to 
 be unroofed cautiously and slowly, ' because, ' he said, ' he very much 
 disliked the bother and discomfort of a coroner's inquest.' I admini- 
 stered the last sacrament of the Church to four of these fever-victims 
 next day ; and, save the above-mentioned winnowing- sheets, there 
 was not then a roof nearer to me than the canopy of heaven. The 
 norrid scenes I then witnessed I must remember all my life-long. 
 The wailing of women —the screams, the terror, the consternation of 
 children — the speechless agony of honest, industrious men — wiun<;- 
 tears of grief from all who saw them, I saw the officers and men 
 of a large police force, who were obliged to attend on the occasion, 
 cry like childi-en at beholding the cruel sufferings of the very people 
 whom they would be obliged to butcher had they offered the least 
 
100 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 resistance. The heavy rains that usually attend the autumnal 
 equinoxes descended in cold, copious torrents throughout the night, and 
 at once revealed to those houseless sufferers the awful realities of their 
 condition. I visited them next morning, and rode from place to 
 place, administering to theaa all the comfort and consolation I could_ 
 The appearance of men, -women, and children as they emerged from 
 the rxiins of their former homes — saturated with rain, blackened and 
 besmeared with soot, shivering in every member from cold and misery 
 — presented positively the most appalling spectacle I ever looked at. 
 The landed proprietors in a circle all round— and for many miles in 
 every direction — warned their tenantry, with threats of the diresfc 
 vengeance, against the humanity of extending to any of them the hos- 
 pitality of a single night's shelter. Many of these poor people were 
 unable to emigrate with their families ; while at home the hand of 
 every man was thus raised against them. They were driven from the 
 land on which Providence had placed them, and in the state of society 
 surrounding them every other walk of life was rigidly closed against 
 them. What was the result ? After battling in vain with privation 
 and pestilence, they at last graduated from the workhouse to the tomb ; 
 and in little more than tiiree years nearly a fourth of them lay quietly 
 in their graves. The eviction which I have thus described, and of 
 which I was an eye-witness, must not be considered an isolated excep- 
 tional event which could occur only in a remote locality, where public 
 opinion could not reach and expose it. The fact is quite the reverse. 
 Every county, barony, poor-law union, and indeed every parish in the 
 diocese, is perfectly familiar with evictions that are oftentimes 
 surrounded by circumstances and distinguished by traits of darker and 
 more disgusting atrocity." 
 
 God knows I have no desire to palliate crime, but I say 
 here, with a full sense of my responsibility, that I believe 
 la my heart and conscience that the outrages committed by 
 the people during that terrible winter were not greater in 
 their enormity in the sight of a just God than the outrages 
 committed during that winter in the desecrated names of 
 law, order, and justice by the agents of the Government. 
 Such outrages were of constant occurrence. I will give 
 you, if you wUl bear with me, one example. Do you 
 remember the story of Ellen M'Donagh ? I will tell it. 
 Away in the far west of Ireland an army had assembled to 
 
Ohjects of the Irish National League. 101 
 
 carry out some evictions among a number of poor people 
 who were absolutely unable to pay the accumulation of 
 arrears of rack-rent which had been the result of a suc- 
 cession of bad harvests. The people were thoroughly hope- 
 less and helpless ; they could not, even if they would, resist. 
 But a crowd, composed principally of women and children, 
 collected near the home of one of the tenants, and began to 
 groan the police and the soldiers. This, of course, was an 
 outrage against law and order, and the officer of the police 
 ordered his men to fix bayonets. This not overawing the 
 crowd, a further order was given to charge. Well, at the 
 first sight of that phalanx of steel advancing against them, 
 the crowd broke and ran ; but the faster they ran the more 
 fiercely charged the policemen. In the confusion which 
 ensued, a young giil stumbled and fell. She was about 
 eighteen or nineteen years old. She was the daughter of 
 one of the tenants about to be evicted, and her name was 
 Ellen M'Donagh. The police came up to her as she lay 
 face downwards on the ground. A cry of madness broke 
 fx'om the people as they saw these ruffians lift their weapons 
 and stab her fiercely and madly until life was extinct. Then 
 they carried her back to her poor home, where her widowed 
 mother was waitmg for the decree which was to make her 
 and her children outcasts upon the world. As they crossed 
 the threshold, a young man, with the fury of a demon in his 
 eye, sprang across it and attacked the police. He was 
 quickly knocked down. He was only the brother of the 
 murdered girl, and he soon had the gyves upun his wrists. 
 Picture that scene to yourselves. The poor cabin half-filled 
 with policemen and soldiers. On one side the widowed 
 mother, wailing over the corpse of her murdered darling; 
 on the other her only son about to be led away as a criminal 
 because he had proved that he had the heart of a man in 
 
102 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 his breast. Picture the scene to yourselves, Irish men and 
 women, and tell me can you wonder if that aged mother 
 lifted her hands to heaven and cursed the Government which 
 permitted such enormities. Picture that scene to yourself, 
 you stern moralists, who rail against Irish crime, but know 
 nothing of English provocation. Picture that scene, you 
 fireside philosophers, who would reform humanity on theory, 
 but make no allowance for human nature and human 
 passion, and tell me can you wonder if the people of that 
 whole countryside, their blood turned to flame by the sights 
 they had witnessed, deprived of the advice of their leaders, 
 and stript of every hope, were driven to desperation, to 
 madness, to outrage, and to crime. Let no man misunder- 
 stand me. I deplore Irish crime. I detest it. I denounce. 
 it ! but I say that Irish crime is due to English misgovern- 
 ment ; that England has sown the wind and is reaping the 
 whirlwind; and that upon her head rests the primary 
 I'esponsibility of mvich of the innocent blood which has been 
 spUt in Ireland. But I have paused too long upon a painful 
 subject. Let me get on. Let me come to the present. You 
 all know how the policy of imprisonment by suspicion broke 
 down; and how Mr, Forster was dismissed from office a 
 discredited politician in England, and a man whose very 
 name is execrated in Ireland. Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt 
 and the suspects were released, and at once their influence 
 on the side of law and order became apparent, and agrarian 
 outrages diminished. It is true that since then some 
 instances of crime of a horrible character, which have 
 shocked the whole community, have occurred. It was not 
 to be supposed that the evil passions aroused by the action 
 of the Government could be suppressed in a day. But it is 
 a solemn fact, from the moment of the release of the suspects 
 and the dismissal of Mr. Forster down to the present 
 
Objects of the Irish National League. 103 
 
 moment agrarian crimes in Ireland have steadily and rapidly 
 diminished. When the leaders were released they at once 
 faced the situation. They saw that the great work which 
 the Land League had undertaken to accomplish was but 
 half achieved, and they determined to at once take up that 
 work exactly where it was left when they were arrested. 
 They faced the difficulties of the situation. They found 
 themselves face to face with a new Coercion Act — an Act 
 under which they knew that the Government had the 
 power in their hands to suppress any movement which they 
 disliked, no matter how constitutional or legal. But they 
 knew also that they had a cause which was founded upon 
 justice. They knew that their objects were legal and con- 
 stitutional, and they determined, at whatever risk to them- 
 selves, that they would pursue their course fearlessly and 
 resolutely. The Land League was suppressed. On its ruins 
 they speedily created a new organisation upon the same 
 principles, having the same objects ; and to-day the National 
 League is a power throvighout the land. The settlement of 
 the land question which it advocates is the same as that 
 advocated by the Land League. Its leaders are the same • 
 but its platform has been widened so as to include not only 
 the emancipation of the tenant farmers of Ireland, but of 
 the nation generally, and the restoration of National self- 
 government. 
 
 I said at the commencement that the Land Act had 
 been a failure. Let me shortly prove that statement. 
 The Land Act had two main objects. The first was 
 to bring redress within easy reach of every tenant in 
 Ireland who could prov« that he was suffering from in- 
 justice ; and the second — which depended upon the success of 
 the first — was to conciliate the good will of the Ii-ish people, 
 and to spread peace and prosperity throughout the land. 
 
104 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 In. neither of these objects has it been successful. 
 The Land Act has been in operation for a year and a half. 
 Of the 600,000 tenant farmers in Ireland only 80,000 have 
 applied to its courts, and of that 80,000 only 37,000 have 
 as yet had their cases decided; and of these decisions 
 60 per cent, have been appealed against. The total 
 amounts of reduction of rent have only been £70,000 ; and 
 to achieve that miserable result the tenant farmers have 
 paid £100,000 in costs, the landlords have paid another 
 £100,000 in costs, and it has cost the State £150,000 for 
 the working of the Land Commission ; whereas the Land 
 League, with rough and ready measures, had obtained a 
 reduction for the people of considerably over a million. 
 The rents fixed by the land courts lasted for fifteen years, 
 but at the present rate of progress it will take twenty years 
 to decide all the cases of disputed land in Ireland. Mean- 
 while what are the tenant farmers to do 1 The neAv rents 
 date, not from the time of application to the courts, but 
 from the time of the decision of the question of the rent by 
 the final court. So that the most rack-rented tenant may 
 find on applying to the court that he has yeare to wait, and 
 that meantime he is liable to eviction for non-payment of the 
 old rent. This is a direct inducement for the landlords to 
 appeal from one tribunal to another, and of itself will be 
 sufficient to clog the entire machinery of the Act. But it 
 is a small defect compared with some of the others. The 
 entire class of leaseholders — 130,000 of the most rack- 
 rented tenants in Ireland — are entirely excluded from all 
 the benefits under the Act. It is difficult to imagine on 
 what principle of justice or logic this has been done. I 
 will give you a single instance how it works, I know a 
 tenant in Ireland who holds a fann under a lease. Some 
 time ago upon that farm he erected a substantial house, 
 
Ohjects of the Irish Natio^nal Leac/ue. 105 
 
 and there opened the business of a general country store. 
 His business became prosperous and valuable, and when 
 his lease fell in his landlord knew he could not afford to 
 lose the farm, and for the privilege of renewing the lease 
 he made the man pay £500 for the very house he had built 
 himself. If that man held his farm under the ordinary terms 
 from year to year he would be able to bring his landlord 
 into court, and have an allowance made for that £500 which 
 was robbed from him. But under the new Act, because 
 he holds under a lease, the redress is denied him. The one 
 real blot upon the rent fixing clauses of the Land Act is 
 the manner in which the improvements of the tenant are 
 confiscated. As the Land Act left the House of Commons 
 its one valuable clause was the Healy clause, whereby it 
 was enacted that no rent should be charged in respect to 
 any improvements made by the tenant or his predecessor 
 in title. Now the House of Lords, which as you know, 
 has a knack of interfering with Irish matters, amended 
 this clause by adding the words, " Unless the tenant shall 
 have been paid or otherwise compensated for these improve- 
 ments by the landlord." A perfectly fair and reasonable 
 amendment no doubt you would think, but the chief Land 
 Commission in Dublin, composed, I may add, entirely of 
 landlords, has construed that provision or amendment to 
 mean that compensation for improvements is the same as 
 the enjoyment of improvements by the tenant. It has 
 held that enjoyment or use of his own improvements by the 
 tenant for twenty years is to be taken as compensation for 
 them, and that at the end of that time they became the pro- 
 perty of the landlord. So that if a man twenty years ago 
 built a house on his farm and lived in it, at the end of 
 twenty years it ceases to be his and becomes the pro- 
 perty of the landlord, upon which increased rent may ba 
 
106 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 charged. Now, I appeal to every fair-minded man in this 
 assemblage whether it is necessary for me to say a single 
 word more to prove to you that the Land Act under which the 
 property of the tenant can thus be shamelessly confiscated 
 is not little better than a mockery, and must of necessity 
 be a failure. Last year, when Mr, Parnell was lying in 
 Kilmaiuham Gaol, I introduced into the House of Commons 
 a Bill to amend the Land Act of 1881. One portion of my 
 Bill was accepted by the Government, and the Arrears Act 
 of Mr. Gladstone, which I am happy to say when I left 
 Ireland was working veiy fairly, was copied word for word 
 from my Bill. The proposals which I then made in the 
 name of the Irish Members in the House of Commons 
 contain to-day the full demands of the Irish National 
 League and of the Irish people for the settlement of the 
 land question. My Bill first dealt with the rent-fixing 
 clauses of the Act of 1881, and it remedied the defects which 
 I have already pointed out, but it did not stop there. We 
 recognised that no regulation of the relations between land- 
 lord and tenant could settle the Irish question. The rent- 
 fixing clauses we sought to amend and make workable, but 
 the most that we expected from them is that they will act 
 as a stop-gap, and aff"ord protection to the tenants while we 
 are working out upon different lines the ultimate solution 
 of the problem. In a word, we propose to do for Ireland 
 what has been done for Prussia, and for other countries in 
 Europe with the happiest results. That is, we propose to 
 transfer by State aid the ownership of the soil from the 
 privileged few to the people. Our scheme I will explain 
 in very few words. We propose to call upon the State to 
 advance the whole of the money necessary to enable the 
 tenant to purchase his holding, and we call upon the 
 tenant to repay that sum to the Government by means of 
 
Ohjects of the Irish National League. 107 
 
 yearly instalments at the rate of 3^ per cent, for a period 
 of sixty-three years. Now, allow me at once to dispose of 
 the idea that we are asking English taxpayei's to permit 
 this money to be advanced out of the general revenue. 
 Nothing of the kind. We only ask for Ireland the benefit 
 of the Imperial credit on which Government can borrow at 
 3 per cent. For a scheme of this kind to be successful, it 
 must not only be honest in itself but it must hold out in- 
 ducements to the landlords to sell and to the tenants to buy, 
 for we do not propose to make the scheme compulsory upon 
 anybody. Let us see how our plan would work. Let me 
 take, as an example, the case of a tenant whose fair rent is 
 £75. Taking then twenty years' purchase as a fair value 
 for the land, the State would be called upon to advance 
 to that tenant £1,500 to enable him to purchase his holding, 
 and he would be called upon to pay to the State 3^ per 
 cent, upon that — £52 10s. a year — for a period of sixty- 
 three years, at the end of which time the land would be his 
 or his children after him. So that, from the tenant's point 
 of view, he would have achieved this : — Instead of paying 
 £75 a year rent for ever, he would be only called upon to 
 pay £52 10s. a year for a term of sixty- three years, after 
 which the land would be his. From the landlord's point of 
 view this scheme is equally attractive. It may safely be 
 said, and those who know anything of the condition of 
 Ireland will bear me out when I state it, that landed pro- 
 pei'ty in Ireland is mortgaged to at least two-thirds of its 
 value at this moment. It has been proved that the rcn>;- 
 fixing clauses of the Act will reduce the rentals paid in 
 Ireland at least 25 per cent, all round, and will thereby 
 ruin the majority of the present landholders. Their only 
 hope is in the scheme of purchase such as we propose, 
 whereby they would obtain a fair value for their land in 
 
108 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 cash down, and then be able to pay off their liabilities and 
 have something to live upon. Hence it is that the very 
 men who, when we started our scheme three years ago, 
 denounced it as revolutionary and communistic, are now to 
 be found in favour of it ; and a committee of the House of 
 Lords composed entirely of landlords — and presided over by 
 that arch Tory Lord Cairns — actually adopted and I'e- 
 commended the scheme which I now propose. The Marquis 
 of Lansdowne, and almost all the prominent Irish land- 
 lords, are urging the Government to adopt our scheme, so 
 we have to-day the strange sight of landlords and tenants, 
 the two parties interested, both asking the same settlement. 
 This, and this only, is the demand of the Irish people for 
 the settlement of the land question. I appeal to all im- 
 partial men in this land whether that scheme is not a just 
 one, whether its objects are not legal and constitutional 
 ones; and I appeal to all justice-loving men to aid the Irish 
 people in obtaining them. Our scheme affords to the land- 
 lords a means of escape from a certain future of ruin, and 
 to the people it affords a complete concession of their 
 demands and an end of a system which has pauperised and 
 depopulated Ireland, and which is stained with the tears 
 and blood of countless thousands of her children. Of course 
 objections to this scheme are urged in Eagland and in the 
 House of Commons. I always like to face objections, and, 
 if I can, to overcome them. There are only two objections 
 to the scheme of any weight. The first objection comes 
 from those who say that in times of distress it may be 
 difficult to collect the yearly payments from the people; 
 that in other words, that the security of the Government 
 would not be ample enough. Now, I might answer that 
 objection by referring to experiences of other countries 
 where a similar scheme has been tried. I mio;ht answer it 
 
Objects of the Irish National League. 109 
 
 by pointing out that year after year the tenant farmers of 
 Ireland would be acquiring an interest in their holdings 
 — an interest which they could mortgage or sell, and that 
 every earthly inducement would tend to make them 
 punctual in the payment of these instalments. But I pre- 
 fer to answer these objections by referring to actual ex- 
 periences in Ireland itself. As you are, no doubt, well 
 aware, in the Ii^ish Church Disestablishment Act of 1869 
 the Irish Church Temporalities Commission was charged 
 with the duty of transferring the ownership of the Church 
 land to the occupiers of it. By that scheme 6,000 tenant 
 farmers were changed into proprietors on the same lines as 
 we propose, and although they purchased at what seems to 
 VIS now ruinously high rates, down to this moment, during 
 the land agitation, and during the period of distress through 
 which Ireland has passed, they have not been, and they 
 are not to-day, one sixpence in arrears with their instal- 
 ments. That, I contend, is a complete answer to this 
 objection. The second objection comes from those who say 
 that there are tenants in the west of Ireland, and in the 
 north of it who say that they could not live upon the land 
 if they could get it for nothing, so poor is the soil and so 
 dense the population, and they recommend emigration as 
 the only remedy for them. 
 
 Now, the over-population of certain districts in Ireland is 
 a fact, but none the less is it a fact that there is room in 
 Ireland for every soul within her shores. Tracts of fair 
 and fertile land can be seen in the centre of Ireland which 
 have been depopulated by landlordism, and allow me to 
 remind you that at this moment there are four millions 
 and upwards of acres of land — of reclaimable waste land — 
 in Ireland. "We propose to employ people from the over- 
 populated districts on works of reclamation upon these 
 
110 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 lands, and then we propose to settle them as owners of the 
 soil which they have won back from the mountain and the 
 moor. It seems to me that any man who recommends 
 emigration as a panacea for all the ills of Ireland cannot 
 have read aright the history of Ireland since the great 
 famine. Three millions of Irish people have left the shores 
 of Ireland within the last thirty years. Of these 75 per 
 cent, have been under the age of 35 years. What does this 
 mean 1 It means that the old, the weak, and the decrepit, 
 those least able to assist the industries or increase the wealth 
 of the country, remaia, and the able, the strong, those who 
 .shou.ld be the wealth producers of Ireland, go. As emigra- 
 tion has gone on, so has increased the general poverty and 
 misery of the country. As emigration has gone on, so has 
 increased the amount of acres of land which every year are 
 going out of cultivation and back to waste, and we aie 
 determined to use what influence we possess to prevent the 
 young blood of the nation being drained away any longer 
 by hundreds of thousands of her people leaving her shores. 
 In the Ireland of to-day there is an awakened intelligence, 
 a wider education, and a sterner spirit than in the Ireland 
 which many of you left. Conscious of the justice of their 
 cause, the people are willing to endure suffering and to with- 
 stand calumny. They know that time is working on their 
 side, that day by day the public opinion of the civilised 
 world is awakening to the justice of their demands, and 
 they know, although there may yet be a weary time before 
 them to wait, that an inevitable day of triumph and of 
 justification is at hand. They may have to wait, but they 
 only have to wait because the system of government under 
 which we live is an anomaly and a scandal. We are 
 mocked with the empty fonn and not the substance o£ 
 representative government. Representative govemmem 
 
Objects of the Irish National League. Ill 
 
 means government in accordance with the constitutionally- 
 expressed will of the majority of the people — government 
 carried out by a Ministry constitutionally responsible to the 
 people. The government of Ireland is based upon diametri- 
 cally opposite principles. The government of Ireland is 
 caiTied out in direct opposition to the constitutionally- 
 expressed will of the majority of the people, and is carried 
 out by a Ministry responsible, not to the people whom they 
 govern, but to the people of another nation. In England 
 all that is necessary to ensure the enactment of reform is 
 that the people of the English nation shall be in favour of 
 it. In Ireland, even where the people of the Irish nation 
 are unanimously in favour of certain reforms, they cannot 
 be carried out without the consent of the people of England, 
 who, to say nothing harder of them, are for tlie most part 
 ignorant of our wants. What has been the history of 
 eighty-two years of the so-called union with England ? A 
 history of ruined prosperity, of embittered passions, of 
 poverty, misery, famine, insurrection, bloodshed, and murder 
 — a history of reforms refu.sed to peaceful agitation, only to 
 be granted afterwards to violence ; and, from the days of 
 Catholic Emancipation down, the same lesson taught to the 
 people, to hope nothing from England's sense of justice, but 
 everything from her fears. Such a system of government 
 stands self-condemned before the world, and cannot last. 
 Here, where the paralysing fingers of centralisation have 
 not laid their withering grasp, where a free Parliament 
 legislates for a free colony, it ought not to be necessary for 
 me to argue in favour of Irish legislative independence. 
 By Irish legislative independence I mean, and the National 
 League mean, and the Irish people mean, this and this only 
 — that the will of the majority of the people of Ireland 
 should be as powerful in the government of purely Irish affairs 
 
112 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 as the will of the people of South Australia is powerful in 
 the government of South Australian affairs, I know there 
 are men here as there are in England who pretend that 
 they think that by Home Rule we mean a dismemberment 
 of the Empire. The dismemberment of the Empire is a fine 
 phrase, I am not quite sure that I exactly understand 
 what the gentlemen mean who use it in this connection, but 
 I am speaking here as the representative of the National 
 League, of the leaders of the people, and of the people 
 themselves, and I think I have a right to claim that my 
 definition of self-government shall be accepted. What we 
 mean is this — a measure of self-government, similar to that 
 which you possess here, and the recognition of our nation- 
 ality similar to that which Austria recently made to 
 Hungar}^ Were I so disposed, I might base Ireland's 
 claim for self-government upon England's failure to govern 
 her, upon the disastrous effects which the Union has entailed 
 upon every Irish industry and every Irish interest. In a 
 word, I might base our claim upon grievances, but, although 
 I know that a claim so based must be powerful in the 
 minds of all impartial men, at the same time I will not be 
 so dishonest as to pretend that either I or the Irish people 
 base our claims for self-government upon grievances alone. 
 We believe that our claim has a firmer basis. Grievances 
 may pass away, but Ireland's nationality will remain. 
 Grievances may pass away, but Ireland's divine right to 
 self-government is imperishable. Do what England may, 
 she cannot make Ireland a part of herself. She cannot 
 make Ireland other than a separate country. The Almighty 
 so willed it when He traced the lines of the universe, and 
 gave to the Ireland that we love a separate existence. He 
 so willed it when He gave to Irish intellects and Irish hearts 
 a distinct and unmistakable individuality. He so willed it 
 
Objects of the IrisJi National League. 113 
 
 when He reserved for the Ireland of old the glorious 
 mission of being the educator and evangeliser of the world. 
 I know that Englishmen find it difficult to understand the 
 wild, passionate love which we Irishmen have for our 
 nationality. Will they allow me to remind them that our 
 nationality has come down to us sanctified by the blood and 
 sufterings of our forefathers. Seven centuries of vindying^ 
 struggles, seven centuries of sacrifices, of suffering, of defeat, 
 of disaster, of undying faith, living through it all, look 
 down upon us this day and make the sentiment of our 
 nationality the master-passion of our lives. There is no day 
 that the sun rises which does not bring to us the memories 
 of the past, the voices of the dead, binding our hearts to 
 stronger allegiance to the nationality for which the bravest 
 and best of our race have laid down their lives. It may be 
 that there is sufTering in store for the present generation of 
 Irish as there was for their sires and their grandsires. If 
 so, let sufl'ering come. There is but one thing impossible 
 for Ireland, and that is the abandonment of her nationality 
 so long as there beats under the vault of Heaven one Irish 
 heart. I fear I have wearied 3'ou. The mission which I 
 have brought to the country reqviires, I believe, but few 
 words of explanation. I have come here to appeal for the 
 renewed sympathy and support of my fellow-countrymen in 
 Australia, but I have not come to appeal to them alone. I 
 desire to appeal to the entire people of these colonies ; I 
 desire to be permitted to place before them in their true 
 colours the real demands of the Irish people ; I ask their 
 permission to endeavour to prove to them, as I think I am 
 able to do, that the cause of Ireland is founded upon justice . 
 that the objects of the National League are legal and con- 
 stitutional and patriotic, and that they are deserving of the 
 support of every impartial and justice-loving man, I car© 
 
114 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 not what his nationality or his creed may be. No doubt 
 you will say that is an arduous task to have been entrusted 
 to so young a politician as myself. Well, I am very deeply 
 impressed with the responsibility of my position here. 
 When I undertook this work I knew that I was about to 
 appeal to a people who had proved before the Avorld their 
 sj^mpathy with the sufferings of Ireland by an u.nparalleled 
 and never-to-be-forgotten generosity, and I said to myself 
 these are a people who, if once I can convince them that 
 our cause is founded upon justice, will not allow prejudice 
 to interfere with their minds, but will give that cause 
 sympathy and support. I trust that I am not too sanguine 
 when I say that I hope the little I have said to-night will 
 do something to burst those clouds of ignorance and prejudice 
 which unfortunately everywhere I go I find surrounding 
 the Irish question. To my fellow-countrymen in Australia 
 I appeal with unbounded confidence. Ireland's chief hope, 
 and her greatest glory, consists to-day in her exiled sons 
 throughout the world. Englishmen often boast that the 
 sun never sets on the dominions of the Queen. Well, we 
 have as proud a boast, for, wherever the rays of that sun 
 fall all round the circle of the world, there are to be found 
 Irish men and women faithful to the fortunes of their 
 country. " Condemned to death, but fated not to die," the 
 grand old Celtic race has to-day foimd a home wherever the 
 foot of man has trod, and at this moment Ireland is 
 receiving tokens of s^'mpathy, allegiance, support and 
 affection from her exiled sons in every quarter of the globe. 
 Fellow-countrymen, my last words to you to-night will be 
 words of encoiiragement and hope. I believe in my heart 
 and conscience that Ireland's night is well-nigh over. True, 
 her plains and her valleys still lie shrouded in darkness, but 
 the watcher on the tower sees a break in the far east, and 
 
Ohjects of the Irish National League. 115 
 
 a ruddy glow upon the mountain top, and he knows that 
 the God of the day has risen, and that anon he will flood 
 every nook and corner of the land with his broad, glad 
 light, and that darkness and things of darkness shall 
 disappear. When that moment comes — that moment for 
 wliich our forefathers so wildly and so vainly prayed, and 
 wept, and struggled, there will go up to Heaven a cry that 
 will be echoed over the ocean and wafted by the four winds 
 to the corners of the earth, that will be chorused in 
 America and re-echoed here under the Southern Cross, and 
 the sea-divided Gaels wherever they may be will hear that 
 ciy, and they will rejoice, for they will know, their glad 
 hearts Avill tell them, that the God of justice, who has 
 decreed that those who sow in tears shall reap in joy, has at 
 last rewarded the tears and sufferings of a faithful people, 
 and that Ireland, their Ireland, is free. 
 
IRISH PROTESTANTS AND HOME RULE, 
 
 LECTURE DEI.IVEEED IN THE EOTUXDA, DUELIN, 
 
 29th NOVEMBER, 1886. 
 
 THE LORD MAYOR IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 In cliooiing a subject for my lecture to-night, I have been 
 guided by a consideration which ought, I think, to be 
 present to the mind of eveiyone who properly appi'eciates 
 the position in which the National cause is placed at this 
 moment. That cause, which in the time of our own fathers 
 appeared to be a losing one, associated, as it was, with 
 memories of almost unbroken disaster and defeat, has 
 suddenly experienced that turn of fortvme which is ever in 
 store for a cause founded upon truth. We have seen the 
 cause of Irish liberty advanced in our day to the very 
 threshold of victory. We have seen our friends multiply- 
 ing and our enemies disappeaiing ; we have seen the heart 
 of the civilized world touched by the spectacle of Ireland's 
 constancy and devotion, and minds and ears that were long 
 closed by prejudice and ignorance against the demands of 
 Ireland are now open to the voice of reason. Up to the- 
 present it has been a blind struggle of might against right. 
 Force, and not reason, has been the guiding principle in 
 the government of our country ; but to-day England, if she 
 has not conceded our demand, has, at any rate, laid aside- 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Rule. 117 
 
 the sword, and consented to listen to argument. When 
 once, to a cause founded upon right, the test of argument is 
 thus applied, the triumph of justice is assured. The last 
 elections in Great Britain disclosed Wales and Scotland in 
 agreement with Ireland, and disclosed England not so niucli 
 hostile as perplexed, hesitating, and doubtful. She was 
 willing to listen and to learn, but she knew not whom to 
 trust or whose story to believe. Her doubts and per- 
 plexities alone stand between us and the final triumph of 
 our cause to-day. These doubts and perplexities are, in my 
 opinion, for the most part, sincere and honest ; and the one 
 great duty of the moment for Irish Nationalists is to ex- 
 plain them away or to satisfy them. 
 
 In fulfilment of this duty I have selected my subject for 
 to-night, and instead of speaking simply as a Nationalist to 
 an audience of Nationalists, I prefer to address myself to 
 the task of grappling with one of those difficulties which 
 many Englishmen do honestly see in the way of a concession 
 of Home Rule to Ireland. 
 
 The charge made against the mass of the Iiish people of 
 religious intolerance, is, perhaps, the most insu.lting accusa- 
 tion which could be levelled against a nation struwo-linaj to 
 be free, and, if proved, would go far, indeed, to justify the 
 refusal of free institutions to a people who themselves had 
 not conceived the fundamental ideas of freedom. Such a 
 charge against any nation at this time of the nineteenth 
 century to ordinary persons would seem a little exaggei^ated; 
 but coming from the people of England against the people 
 of Ii'eland, such a charge must seem to anyone who knows 
 the facts, and has read the pages of history, little short of 
 absurd and ridiculous. Still this accusation was freely 
 made against our people during the last elections. The 
 English people were told by statesmen, who well know the 
 
118 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 contrary to be the truth, that it would not be safe to give 
 Home Rule to Ireland, because Ireland was made up not of 
 (j&ie nation but of two, and that the Protestant Irish nation 
 being in the minority would suffer persecution and injustice 
 at the hands of a Xational Parliament in Dublin contain- 
 ing a majority of Catholics. Absuixl as this accusation is, 
 there is reason to believe that it had considerable weight 
 with manj' Englishmen, and it undoubtedly constitutes one 
 of the difficulties v/hich still stand in the way of the con- 
 cession of self-government to Ireland. It consequently 
 becomes our duty to expose its fallacy, to show its inherent 
 impossibility, and to appeal to the pages of liistory in support 
 of our argument, 
 
 I propose shortly to prove — first, that there are no two 
 nations in Ireland to-da}', and secondly, that all the history 
 of the past disproves the assertion that Catholic Irishmen 
 ever were guilty of religious persecution, and all the expe- 
 rience of the present shows them to be incapable either of 
 intolerance or bigotry. I assert that there are no two 
 nations in Ireland to-day — that all the people of this land 
 — Catholic, and Protestant, and Presbyterian — of Celtic, or 
 Norman, or Saxon exti'action — are all children of one nation 
 bound together not only by common interests, but by com- 
 mon traditions, memories, and history. In order to prove 
 my assertion, it is necessary briefly to glance at the history of 
 Protestant patriotism in Ireland, and to show how the 
 English Protestant colony became in fact and in substance 
 incorporated with the native Irish, as the Normans had 
 been incorporated with them before, and how what was 
 established as an English garrison, in the end became con- 
 verted into the garrison of the national rights and liberties 
 of Ireland. In tracing this story I will at one and the same 
 time show how much Ireland owes to her Protestant patriots, 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Rule. 119 
 
 and how strong are the bonds which unite into one nation 
 Irishmen of every religious persuasion. At one time it 
 could truly be said that there wex-e two nations in Ireland, 
 if indeed the native Catholic masses could be said to exist 
 at all after the violation of the Treaty of Limerick, and the 
 departure of Sarsfield and the Irish soldiery to France ; and 
 if the narrow, self-seekmg, and intolerant Protestant faction 
 Avhich monopolized all power and privilege, deserved to be 
 dignified by the name of a nation. From 1691, for nearly 
 one hundred years, the native Catholic masses as a nation 
 may be said almost to have disappeared. They were penal 
 ized and ovitlawed. They were banished from Parliament 
 and deprived of the franchise ; they could not possess pro- 
 pert}', or practise their religion, or educate their children. 
 Their leaders vvere in exile, fighting under the standards of 
 foreign monarchs, and those at home in Ireland beaten to' the 
 groimd were hopeless and helpless. What went by the 
 name of " the Irish nation" was the colony of English Pro- 
 testants who had undertaken the government of the country, 
 who had become possessed of the lands of the Catholics, and 
 who were so chvided from the masses of the people by reli- 
 gion and sentiment that they seemed to think their only 
 safety lay in forging penal chains for the native Irish. At 
 that time indeed there were two nations in Ireland ; but I 
 think no history in the world affords a parallel to the extra- 
 ordinaiy result which speedily followed. 
 
 These two nations coalesced, not by the weak persecuted 
 native nation bowing to the stronger English colony, but by 
 the awakening in the hearts of the English colony of a spirit 
 of Irish nationality and patriotism, which speedily fused into 
 one nation strusfglins; for its rio;hts, Catholic and Protestant, 
 English colonist and native Irish. The manner in which 
 this happy consummation was brought about was charac- 
 
120 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 teristic of the treatment Avhich Ireland had ever received 
 from the government of England. 
 
 The Protestant colony was expected by England to enslave 
 the Irish nation ; but having done so, it was expected also 
 to submit to slavery itself. " Your ancestors," said John 
 Philpot Curran to the Irish Parliament a hundred years 
 afterwards — " your ancestors thought themselves the oppres- 
 sorsof theirfellow-countrymen, but they were only their jailors; 
 and the justice of Providence would have been frustrated if 
 their own slavery had not been the punishment of their vice 
 and folly." The Protestant colony had succeeded in com- 
 pletely suppressing the native Irish. It had absolutely 
 excluded the Catholics from power. It had made the execu- 
 tive of the country exclusively Protestant; but when it 
 aspired to freedom for itself, it was speedily taught that it 
 was nothing more than the agent of England, and that the 
 only freedom it could claim was the freedom to oppress and 
 trample on the ancient Irish nation. In point of fact, as 
 soon as the colony had succeeded in enslaving the Irish, 
 England set to work to enslave the colony. The colony 
 had deprived the Catholics of a share in Parliament. 
 England thereupon robbed the Parliament of its indepen- 
 dence. The colony had condemned the Catholics to poverty, 
 England thereupon restricted the trade and destroyed the 
 prosperity of the colony. 
 
 The claim of the English Parliament to control, direct, 
 and bind the Irish legislature was of old origin. Poyning's 
 Law, which enacted that no Bill could be originated in the 
 Irish Parliament until the heads of it had been sanctioned 
 by the English Privy Council, was, it is true, passed so early 
 as 1495. But repeatedly the Irish Parliament had endea- 
 voured with more or less success to free itself from the 
 fetter. In 1640 it asserted its right to legislative indepen- 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Rule. 121 
 
 dence. Later on, the Confederation of Kilkenny asserted 
 the same right in a still more unequivocal manner. In 1689 
 the so-called Catholic Parliament of James II. repealed 
 Poyning's Act, and again asserted the legislative indepen- 
 dence of Ireland, But after the triumph of William III. 
 the Irish legislature definitely sank to the level of a com- 
 mittee of the English Parliament, and the more the colonists 
 suppressed the liberties of the Catholics, the more England 
 suppressed their own privileges and degraded their own 
 Parliament. In 1699 a fatal blow was struck by England 
 at the commercial prosperity of the colonj^. The woollen 
 trade was practically suppressed. All exports of woollen 
 cloths were prohibited except to England and Wales, and 
 even this exception was delusive, for heavy duties, amount- 
 ing to a prohibition, prevented Irish cloth being imported 
 into England or Wales. All trade between Ireland and the 
 colonies was prohibited by the Navigation Laws. Mr, 
 Lecky says in his History of the Eighteenth Century ; — 
 
 " Protestants then began to find that they were as little thouglit of 
 as the Catholics. The suppression of the woollen trade brought ruin 
 upon twelve thousand Protestant families in Dublin, and thirty 
 thousand in the rest of the country. By her commercial laws 
 England deliberately crushed the prosperity of the Protestant colony 
 of Ireland, drove thousands of them into exile, arrested the influx of 
 Protestant population from Great Britain, and inspired the Presby- 
 terians of the north with a bitter hatred of her rule." 
 
 In point of fact a deliberate system was established to put 
 down alike the political pretensions and the commercial 
 prosperity of the Protestants of Ireland, who then found 
 themselves in this extraordinary situation. They had prac- 
 tically conquered Ireland and enslaved the Irish people, and 
 in return they were expected to calmly accept the position 
 of slaves for themselves. Then there was born in the 
 
122 Histo7'ical and Political Addresses. 
 
 breasts of those men the first spark of that sentiment of 
 nationality which was destined to win for them and their 
 country commercial freedom and legislative independence, 
 and eventually to weld into one nation Irishmen of all 
 creeds and of all bloods. This spirit at first was very timid, 
 very narrow-minded, and selfish. It never seemed to occur 
 to these men that to constitute a nation, and to assert its 
 independence, the concession of liberty to all Irishmen was 
 essential. 
 
 At first their ideas of nationality included only the Pro- 
 testants of Ireland. We shall see by and by how this idea, 
 fructified and developed, until in the minds of Grattan and 
 his colleagues, the Irish nation for which they had struggled 
 included their countrymen of every creed. The first evidence 
 of this growing spirit of revolt against English oppression 
 was furnished by the publication of the celebrated Case of 
 Inland Stated, which was a book written by Mr. William 
 Molyneux, Member for Dublin University, in which he 
 conclusively proved that England had no legal or equitable 
 ri^jht to interfere in the lecfislation of the Irish Parliament. 
 It was, in truth, as a voice crying in the wilderness. Men 
 were amazed at its audacity, and English statesmen were 
 horrified at what they called its revolutionary doctrines. The 
 book was burned by order of the English Parliament by the 
 hands of the common hangman, but the spirit of which it 
 was an evidence survived, and from that day forward the 
 patriot party amongst the Protestants of Ireland may be 
 said to have existed. 
 
 It was at this period of Ireland's history, when the idea of 
 nationality was slowly developing in the minds of the Pro- 
 testant colony, that there appeared upon the political stage 
 the striking and eccentric figure of Jonathan Swift, Dean of 
 St. Patrick's. Swift Avas one of the strangest characters 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Ride. 12.S 
 
 in Irish history — an odd mixture of patriotism and narrow 
 bigotry, of genius and eccentricity. Ho never made the 
 slightest effort to mitigate the persecution of the Catholics ; 
 be never for an instant included them in his "idea of Irish 
 Nationalit}' ; yet he did as much, probably as any man in 
 history to lift Ireland into the position of a nation ; and he 
 not only paved the way for, but he rendered absolutely 
 inevitable, that fusion between the Protestant colony and 
 the native Catholics, which, in the end, won independence 
 for the country. He urged the people to meet the restric- 
 tions placed upon their trade by boycotting foreign goods, 
 and advised them to " burn everything English except their 
 coals." He seized upon the question of supplying Ireland 
 with a new copper coinage, as an opportunity for vindicating 
 the independence of the countrj^, and in the D rapier Letters 
 he boldly asserted the ideas which were rajDidly maturing in 
 the minds of the Protestants. He asserted the legislative 
 independence of Ireland, and the nullity of those measures 
 which had not received the sanction of the Irish Lemslature. 
 He avowed his entire adherence to the doctrine of Molyneux; 
 he asserted that Ireland was rightfully a free nation, which 
 implied a right of self-government, " for government with- 
 out the consent of the governed was the very definition of 
 slavery." In vain England sought to insist upon Wood's 
 halfpence. Swift, in fighting this issue, was fighting the 
 battle of Irish independence. He persevered; he united 
 the people of all creeds at his back, and in the end he 
 carried his point. Speaking of this contest, Mr. Lecky 
 says :— 
 
 "This contest deserves to be placed in the foremost ranks in the 
 ■annals of the Irish race. There is no more momentous epoch in the 
 history of a nation, than that in which the voice of a people has first 
 spoken, and spoken with success. It marks the transition from an 
 
124 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 age ox semi-barbarism to an age of civilization, from the government 
 of force to the government of opinion. Before this time, rebellion 
 was the natural issue of every patriotic effort in Ireland ; since then, 
 rebellion has been an anachronism and a mistake. Tiie age of 
 Desmond and O'Neill had passed ; the age of Grattan and O'Connell 
 had begun." 
 
 Swift now became the idol and leader of the Ii'ish people. 
 He taught them their jfirst lessons in self-reliance. He led 
 them to victory when oppression had well nigh broken their 
 spirit, and when the exile of all their own leaders had 
 robbed them of hope; he held up before their eyes the 
 possibility — soon afterwards to be in part realised — of a 
 fusion of the two sections into one nation ; and consequently, 
 in spite of his well-known intolerance and bigotry, he 
 became the most viniversallj- popular man in Ireland. His 
 ending was singularly tragic. The great controversialist, 
 the energetic patriot, the brilliant wit, sank into his grave 
 in a hopeless state of idiocy. 
 
 " Last scene of all, 
 That ends this strange, eventful history 
 Is second childishness and mere oblivion." 
 
 Swift passed away, but the cause of Irish nationality 
 which he had championed never afterwards passed away 
 from the minds either of the Protestants or the Catholics of 
 Ireland. 
 
 Flood then stepped into the position of leader of the 
 patriotic part}-, and at one step we may pass on to the 
 history of the Volunteers. In 1778 the Irish Parliament 
 sanctioned the enrollment of a volunteer force for the 
 defence of the countrj-. Mr. Lecky thus describes what 
 then occurred. He says : — 
 
 " Then arose one of those movements of enthusiasm that occur 
 two or three times in the history of a nation. The cry to arms passed 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Rule. 
 
 il'5 
 
 through the laiul, and was speedily responded to by all parties and by 
 all creedn. Beginning with the Protestants of the North, the move- 
 ment soon spread to other parts of the island, and the war of 
 religions and of creeds, that had so long divided the people, vanished 
 as a dream. The inertness produced by centuries of oppression was 
 speedily forgotten, and replaced by the consciousness of recovered 
 strength. From Howth to Connemara, from the Giant's Causeway 
 to Cape Clare, the enthusiasm had passed and the creation of an 
 army had begun." 
 
 The Irish Volunteers were at first an exclusively Protes- 
 tant organization, but so anxious were the Catholics from 
 the fii'st to participate in the movement, that in the City of 
 Limerick, when forbidden to bear arms themselves they 
 svibscribed £800 to purchase arms for their Protestant 
 fellow-countrymen. It was a happy omen of the fusion of 
 the two nations which was about to take place. It was 
 now that public spirit in Ireland began at last to be tin,ily 
 National. Henry Grattan saw in the Volunteers a means 
 of uniting Irismen, and owing largely to his exertions 
 Catholics were at last admitted into the ranks of the 
 National army. From that day forward the ivio nations had 
 ceased to exist- Shoulder to shoulder, Catholic and Protestant 
 Irishmen united to demand free trade and a free parliament. 
 In the words of Flood : — " A voice from America shouted 
 ' liberty ' and every hill and valley of this rejoicing land 
 answered 'liberty!'" In 1780 the Volunteers obtained 
 for this country a first instalment of libert}^ in the con- 
 cession of complete free trade — that is the fi'eedom of their 
 trade from all restrictions placed upon it by any authority 
 other than the legislature of Ireland. The next step was 
 the assertion of the independence of the Irish Parliament 
 from interference by England. Day by day the fusion of 
 the two nations was becoming more perfect ; da}^ by day 
 the fell spirit of sectarian hate was dying out. The 
 
12b Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 "Volunteers declared at Dungannon, in Convention as- 
 sembled, that: — 
 
 " We hold the right of private judgment in matters of religion to 
 be equally sacred in others as in oui'selves, and v/e conceive the 
 measure of relaxation of the Penal Laws against the Roman 
 Catholics to be fraught with the happiest consequences of the Union 
 and prosperity of the inhabitants of Ireland." 
 
 And Grattan repeatedly voiced the determination of the 
 leaders of the patriotic party to base Irish liberty upon the 
 recognition of the entire people. In one of his speeches he 
 made this remarkable declaration : — 
 
 "So long as the Penal Code remains we can never be a great 
 nation. . . I would not keep two millions of my fellow-country- 
 men in a state of slavery. I desire not a Protestant settlement, but 
 an Irish nation." 
 
 How Legislative Independence was von in 1782 every 
 one knows, and how the Protestant Parliament, having 
 broken its own fetters, set themselves instantly to the task 
 of admitting Catholics to their full rights will never be 
 forgotten. The work of emancipation was slow, but sui'e. 
 In 1793 Catholics were admitted to the franchise, the 
 juries, the professions, and the Universities ; and when two 
 years later Lord Fitzwilliam arrived in Ireland, we have 
 that nobleman's own authority for the statement, " that 
 the Protestants of Ireland had generall}'^ accepted and 
 approved of a policy of complete and immediate emancipa- 
 tion." 
 
 Unfortunately, English statesmen had at this time 
 deteniiined to force a scheme of legislative union upon the 
 country, and they knew that such a policy would be im- 
 possible if once the Catholics were admitted within the 
 constitution. Primate Boulter, more than half a century 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Rule. 127 
 
 before, had said, " When Papist and Protestant unite, good- 
 bye to the English interest in Ireland," English ministers 
 detennined that this union should not take place. Accord- 
 ingly, the policy of emancipation was wrecked, and an 
 intolerant Irish faction was utilized for the purpose of 
 stirring up religious animosities and driving the people into 
 insurrection. The diabolical plan succeeded only too well, 
 and Ireland was robbed of her Pai-liament. 
 
 But neither then nor since has England ever been able to 
 divide Ireland again into two nations. Protestants M'on 
 the Parliament of '82 ; Protestants organized the Society of 
 United Irishmen, and filled its ranks both before and after 
 it became a revolutionary body ; Pi'otestants gave the 
 franchise to Catholics in 1793; Protestants led the rebel 
 armies in 1798; Protestants gallantly, but vainly, defended 
 Irish constitutional liberty in 1800; and from that day to 
 the present no movement has ever been started, either on 
 behalf of national independence or religious freedom, which 
 Protestant Irishmen have not shared in or led. 
 
 It is true that all this time there had been an intolerant 
 anti-Irish and anti-Catholic faction in Ireland. The men 
 who in 1793 opposed the claims of the Catholics, who 
 brought about the recall of Fitzwilliam in 1795, whose 
 bigotry and fanatical oppression drove the people into arms 
 in '98, who posed as the English garrison in 1800, and sold 
 their country's liberty, and who from that day to this hour 
 have ever been the despised tools of English misgovernment 
 in Ireland — these men no one can seriously say constitute a 
 nation. They have never risen above the tactics or the 
 aspirations of a faction. The only nation in Ireland to-day 
 is the one nation of Irishmen, bound together by devotion 
 to the land that bore them, by hatred of oppression and 
 love of liberty, and by the memory of the scenes when their 
 
128 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 forefathers, Catholics and Protestants alike, shed their 
 blood in defence of religious toleration and national 
 freedom. 
 
 This, then, is our answer to the statement that there are 
 two nations in Ireland to-day. The history of the past and 
 the realities of the present alike protest against it as an 
 absurdit}' and an affront. 
 
 More difficult is it adequately to reply to the second part 
 of the accusation, which is in the nature of a prophecy, 
 that under a Home Rule Parliament the Catholic majority 
 would persecute and oppress their Protestant fellow-country- 
 men. Grattan once said : — " You cannot argue with a 
 prophet, you can only disbelieve him." In the case of this 
 evil prophecy v/e can happily in addition apply to it the 
 test 01 experience and history. 
 
 AVhen and where and how have Catholic Irishmen evinced 
 a spirit of relig".ous persecution and intolerance ? If it be 
 possible to show, as I contend that it is, that Irish Catholics 
 are almost the only people in the world's history who have 
 never persecuted for conscience sake, that when they had 
 the supi'emacy in the past they never oppressed their 
 Protestant fellow-countrymen, and that in matters in which 
 they hold power to-day they make no distinction between 
 men of different creeds — if it is possible to prove all this, 
 what becomes of the evil prophecy of our enemies ? There 
 are four distinct times in the history of Ireland when the 
 Catholics possessed supremacy and had the power to 
 persecute and oppress their Protestant fellow-countrymen. 
 These periods were (1) in the reign of Queen Mary; (2) in 
 1641 ; (3) at the time of the Catholic Parliament of 1689 . 
 and (4) at the present time, when Catholics have sufficient 
 power in the commercial, social, and municipal life of 
 Ireland to make a man's creed a disability to him if the 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Rule. 129 
 
 spirit of religious intolerance were abroad. Let me briefly 
 deal with these four periods. 
 
 In the reign of Mary the Catholics were suddenly restored 
 from persecution to power. They were fresh from oppression, 
 for conscience sake, of the most horrible character. In 
 England the change from persecution to power was marked 
 by oppression of the Protestants by the Catholics. Mary 
 burned to death her Protestant svibjects ; but the Irish 
 Catholics did not persecute a single individual, and, on the 
 contrary, it is admitted that the Corporation of Dublin of 
 that day rented seventy-four houses and invited over 
 English Protestant merchants from Bristol, and when 
 Mary's persecution ceased, sent them and their families 
 back safely to their homes. Leland, a Protestant historian> 
 writing on this subject, says : — 
 
 "Such was the spirit of toleration that many English families, 
 friends of the Reformation, took refuge in Ireland, and there enjoyed 
 their opinions ■without molestation." 
 
 And a Protestant writer, Taylor, in his History of the 
 Civil IVars of Ireland, testifies as follows: — 
 
 " The restoration of the old religion was effected without violence ; 
 no persecution of the Protestants was attempted, and several of the 
 English, who fled from the furious zeal of Mary's inquisitors, tound a 
 safe refuge among the Cathohcs of Ireland. It is but justice to this 
 maligned budy to add, that on thi-ee occasions of their obtaining the 
 upper hand, they never injured a single person in life or limb for 
 professing a religion diffeient to their own. They had suffered, 
 persecution and learned mercv, as they showed in the reign of Mary, 
 in the wars from 16il to 1618, and during the brief triumph of 
 James II." 
 
 I pass now to the second period of the Catholic power — 
 namely, IGll. As a sample of what the British electorattt 
 
130 Histov'nal and Political AdJresscx. 
 
 vero iniluoptl to bcliovo Inst July, it will be intorosting to 
 you to hoar n. few words ou this hubjocL from a loalk-t issued 
 from Mr. Sidcbottoni, the succossful Tory caiididato for 
 Jiydo :— 
 
 "Q. Miivo tlio Trisli rvor bml Homo Tiiilo, and how diil Uicy 
 I)ehave ? 
 
 "A. They imtriloroJ i-vory Eu^linlnnau ;nul rroicstaiit. tUoy could 
 lay tlioii: ImjidH on in 1641. Thoy wcro Kot on by the i^ricstn, who 
 said that Protpstnnts -wcro dovils and sn'vcd tho dovil, and that the 
 killiufj; of ihnn WRS a meritoriouN aot. AUos'oihor ihoy killed iu lliat 
 voar 150,000 rrotostunts— nion and wonu-u and children." 
 
 This ]mls iu ;i. soiiii'wh.'it rx;i<jgoratod form a vory com- 
 luon ac'cusjitiim in llir moiUlis of your i>aemies. The story 
 of a wholosahi massacre of Protrslauts in tlio rising of 1641 
 lias boon rcpoatodly proved to hv \itterly groundless. Mr. 
 Leek}', whoso bias cannot be said to be in favour of either 
 the Catholics or Nationalists of Ireland, sprak.s df it .as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Tli<> ivhcllion only nssumod its goiioral rharactor in oonsoquoiico 
 ot the rosolnlion of tho Enjjlish IIouso of Connnong, that no toleration 
 8ho\dd bo hoiu'oforlh f<Tantod to tho Catholic volii>:ion in Ireland. It- 
 was this ]iolicy that drove tho Catholic gentry of Ireland very re 
 luctantly into r(4)eUion. The rebellion wa^ a defensive woi', entered into 
 in order to neeuro a toleration of the religion of tha Irish people. . . . 
 // mai/ hohily be asscrtnl that the K/atcniciU of a pcncia! and orfjanizcd 
 massacre is itfltrl;/ and ahsolulchf vntruc i\K is .ilnuxit tho easo with 
 popular risings, there were in tho lirst outbreak of tlio rebellion sonio 
 inuiilers, but there were very fow, and there was nothing whatever in 
 llio nature of u massacre. . . . Tho rebellion was not ono duo to 
 any single cause, but it represented tho neoumxilatod wrongs and 
 animosities of two generations. All the long train of agrarian wrongs 
 from Jlullaglunast to the latest inquisitions of Went worth, nil tho 
 long Ruceession of religious wrongs from the Act of Uniformity of 
 lili/.aboth to the Confiscation of tho Irish College under Charles 
 contributed to the rcsidti" 
 
Irish, F)-uLeslaiits and *l/oin.r Ride. V.\\ 
 
 Tho Protestant histomn, Leliincl, sayH : — 
 
 " TIic {!;ii.liiili(: ])iioHts labourod zealously to modorato tho oxcorsoh 
 of wnr, nncl fic'(|ii()iilly protoctod Prot.'HtantH whon danger tliroatcncd 
 iliem, l)y comMUiliiig thoni in tlicir placoH of worHliip, luid ov<ui iiiidcr 
 thoir alLarH." 
 
 Ami tli(>, liisloiy of Dr. Hcclcll, ilio Protostiiut Fiisliop of 
 Droinore, wlio dnritig a consi(l(U'!iblo portion of tlui rising 
 enjoyed tlio respect of the insurgents, and on liis <lc.dli was 
 followed to his grave by one of CNoill's roginicnts, is j)roof 
 enough of the abiJurdily and untruthfulness of tlie utory of a 
 general massacre of Protestants. 
 
 The rebellion culminated in tho assembling of the Con- 
 federation of Kilkenny, which was really ;i, Catliolit; Pailia- 
 ment, and our enemies will s(;arch its records in vain for 
 any single measure evincing a spirit of persecution. 
 
 I pass now to the third period, that of James's Parliament 
 of 1689. In this Parliament there were only six Protestants 
 members of the House of Commons, and some ten or twelve 
 in the House of Lords. Yet, so far were the Catholics from 
 excluding Protestants as Protestants from Parliament, that 
 six Protestant Hishops sat in the House of Peers, and no 
 Catholic Prelate w.as admitted a(, ;i,ll. This Parliament 
 consisted then for i\w most part of Catholics animat(ul l)y 
 the m(;mory of the most bitter wrongs. They wen; th(( sons 
 of men who witliout trial and without compensation had 
 been robbed of their estates. The confiscations of Ulster 
 tho fraud of Charles, the atrocities of Strall'ord, were to 
 them recent and vivid events. At last, power had changed 
 hands and rested with thcni. How did they use it ? To 
 persecute and oppress? To r(;ta,liate for old wrongs if No i 
 The first act of tli^t Parliament was to establish perfect 
 religious equality, and to guarantee to Protestants full 
 liberty of professing, practising, and teaching their religion. 
 
132 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 On the evidences of religious toleration in the past history 
 of Ireland, Mr. Lecky says : — 
 
 " Irish history contains its full share of violence and masiacre, but 
 vhoever will examine these episodes with impartiality, may easily 
 convince himself that their connection with religion has been most 
 superficial. Eeligious cries have been sometimes raised, religious 
 enthusiasm has been often appealed to in the agony of a struggle ; 
 but the real causes have usually been the conflicts of races and 
 classes, the struggle of nationality against annihilation. Amongst 
 the Catholics at least, religious intolerance has never been a prevail- 
 ing vice, and those who have studied closely the history and charac- 
 ter of the Irish people, can hardly fail to be struck with the deep 
 respect for sincere religion in every form which they have commonly 
 evinced. Their original converaion to Christianity was probably 
 accompanied by less violence and bloodshed than that of any equally 
 considerable nation in Europe ; and in spite of the fearful calamities 
 which followed the Eeformation, it is a memorable fact that not a 
 single Protestant sufifered for his religion in Ireland during all the 
 period of the Marian persecution in England. The treatment of 
 Bedellj a Protestant prelate, during the outbreak of 1641, and the 
 act establishing liberty of conscience, passed by the Irish Parlia- 
 ment of 1CS9, in the full flush of the brief Catholic ascendancy under 
 James II., exhibit very remarkably this aspect of the Irish characler." 
 
 The same spirit was displaj^ed by Irish Catholics to the 
 first Quaker mission; and it is recorded that in 1712 James 
 Hoskins, accompanied by several Dublin Quakei-s, went 
 preaching his doctrines thx'ough Connemara, which was 
 exckisively Catholic, without meeting with the slightest 
 molestation. The experience of Wesley, half a century 
 later, was similar. He has recorded in his journal that he 
 fovxnd more respectfu.1 hearers amongst the Catholics of 
 Ireland than in most parts of England; and he speaks in 
 warm appreciation of " the tolerant spirit of the Catholics 
 of Ireland." 
 
 One word now as to the present, and I have done. At 
 the present day Catholics have not the power of persecution 
 by fire or sword; but they possess a supremacy in many 
 
Irish Protestants and Home Rule. 133 
 
 <lirections which, if guided by a spirit of intolerance, could 
 effectually harass and oppress the Protestant population. 
 All the world knows how that power is used. When, in 
 1873, the representatives of the Irish people met in confcr- 
 •ence in this room to assert their demand for Home Rule, a 
 resolution was unanimously adopted, and I am glad to 
 remember it was proposed by my own father, in these 
 words : — 
 
 •' "While we believe that in an Irish Parliament the rights and 
 liberties of all classes of our coutitrymen would find their best iind 
 surest protection, we are willing that there should be incorporated in 
 the Federal Constitution articles supplying the amplest guarantees, 
 that no lej^islation shall be adopted to establish any religious ascend- 
 ancy in Ireland, or to subject any person to di- abilities on account of 
 his religious opinions." 
 
 From that day to this the Catholic majority has acted 
 upon that principle. The most Catholic constituencies in 
 Ireland return to-daj' Protestant members to Parliament. 
 Catholic cities elect Protestants to the highest civic honours. 
 Catholic Corporations employ Protestant officials ; and last, 
 but not least, the leader of the Irish race, to whom his 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen are bound by the strongest 
 links of personal afiectioa and political devotion, is a 
 Protestant Irishman, No ! we Catholic Irishmen repudiate 
 this accusation of intolerance with scorn and indignation. 
 We do not even understand the meaning of the words 
 religious bigotry. By the Irish nation we do not mean any 
 class, or sect, or creed. By Irish independence we mean 
 liberty for every Irishman, whether in his veins runs the 
 blood of the Kelt or the Norman, the Cromwellian or the 
 AVilliamite, whether he professes the ancient faith of Ireland, 
 or that newer creed which has given to our country some of 
 the bravest and purest of her patriots. We are banded 
 
184 Historical and Political Addresses, 
 
 together in a straggle for our National rights, and, as a 
 Catholic Irishman, I assert my belief, that never again 
 would the Catholics of Ireland lift hand or voice to obtain 
 an Irish Parliament did they not know that the edifice of 
 National freedom which it would raise would be based upon 
 the most perfect civil and religious libei'ty of every Irish 
 man, of every class and creed. 
 
 In conclusion, it only remains for me to saj' that I trust 
 I have establislied my propositions to your satisfaction, and 
 to thank you for the indulgent patience with which you 
 have heard me. 
 
TH MA S DR UMM OND. 
 
 LECXrEE DELIVERED IN THE EOTtlXDA, DIIJLIN^ 
 
 OS' 18TII FEBRCAIIY, 1889. 
 
 THE LORD MAYOR IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The subject which, after long consideration and with much 
 diffidence, I have chosen for my lecture to-night is the Irish 
 career of Thomas Drummond from the year 1835 until his 
 death in 1840. My object in choosing this subject is to 
 recall to the memory of the public the one solitary eftbrt of 
 English statesmanship, prior to the days of Mr. Gladstone, 
 to give effect to the promises upon the faith of which the 
 Union of 1800 was carried, and to rule Ireland as au 
 integral portion of the United Kingdom by just and equal 
 laws. Many of those Englishmen who to-day acknowledge 
 that Home Rvile is inevitable, often think with a sigh of 
 vain regret of what might have been had the Unioa 
 promises been fulfilled, or, at least, had English statesman, 
 ship made an honest effort to remove Irish grievances, to 
 satisfy Irish wants, and to respect Irish ideas. I desire 
 to-night to show that such an effort was made, that it was 
 made honestly and courageously, and to point the moral 
 that its complete and ignominious failure proves the inhe- 
 rent impossibility of a successful government of Ireland by 
 an English Parliament and an EngHsh Executive. In the 
 years of fierce agitation, of famine oppression, and insur- 
 
136 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 rection which filled the decade immediately succeeding the 
 overthrow of the Melbourne Administration, the memory 
 of the courageous efforts of Thomas Drummond to rule 
 Ireland justly was well-nigh lost ; and from that day to this 
 the tracUtions of English mi^government have been so 
 Eteadily maintained in Dublin Castle, that men have grown 
 almost to forget that there ever was an English Adminis- 
 tration which desired and honestly attempted to rule this 
 country by confidence in her people and upon the principles 
 of liberty and justice. The I'imes in which we live to-day 
 are, happily, more suitable for the recalling of such 
 memories. The English people ai'e at last beginning to 
 understand this Irish question, and to appreciate the 
 character of our struggle for national existence. So also 
 the day has passed when Irishmen can speak any longer of 
 the masses of the English people as their enemies, and the 
 time has come when we can afford openly to testify our 
 gratitude to those fev/ English statesmen who in the past 
 strove according to their lights to govern our country in 
 the spirit of the Constitution. 
 
 My object to-night is, therefore, not only to show that 
 government from Westminster, even when administered 
 with sympathy and honesty of purpose, has proved an utter 
 impossibility, but also to do justice to the memory of a man 
 who, though a British official exercising his rule from Dublin 
 Castle, loved Ireland and her people, deeply sympathised 
 with their wrongs, and, in a certain sense, may be said to 
 have sacrificed his life in an effort to redress them. The 
 career of Thomas Drummond may be regarded as the history 
 of a lucid interval in the mad misgovernment of Ireland. 
 At this time the Union had been thirtj'-five years in exist- 
 ence. The very year it was passed the United Parliament 
 carried a Coercion Act for Ireland, and during twenty-three 
 
Thomas Drummond. 137 
 
 out of the thirtj^-five years which had elapsed, the Habeas 
 Corpus had been suspended. Catholic Emancipation, which 
 was dangled before the eyes of the prelates and people of 
 Ireland as a bi'ibe to tempt them to accept the Union, had 
 only just been granted — not as a concession to justice, but 
 as a concession to fear — after a long and fierce struggle 
 inspired by the enthusiasm and directed by the wisdom of 
 Daniel O'Connell. The Irish people had regarded Emanci- 
 pation as a weapon by which they could with ease and 
 promptitude wring all other reforms which were necessaiy. 
 By the year 1835 they had found out that it was litUe 
 better than a mockery and a dekision. Irish Catholics had 
 been admitted in theory within the pale of the Constitution, 
 and had even been permitted to hold seats in Parliament, 
 but they were still excluded from all positions of real power, 
 and the old s^^stem of governing Ireland in accordance with 
 the wishes and interests of the Protestant Ascendancy 
 remained in full force. 
 
 "In 1S33," says Mr. Lecky, " there was not in Ireland a single 
 Catholic judge or stipendiary magistrate. All the high sheriffs, with 
 one exception, the overwhelming majority of the unpaid magistrates 
 and of the grand jurors, the five inspectors-general, and the thirty- 
 two sub-inspectors of police, were Protestants. The chief towns were 
 in the hands of narrow, corrupt, and, for the most part, intansely 
 bigoted Corporations. Even in a Whig Government not a sin;:le 
 Irishman had a seat in the Cabinet, and the Irish Se jretary was Mr. 
 Stanley, whose imperious manners and unbridled temper had ninde 
 him intensely hated. For many years promotion had been steadily 
 withheld from those who had advocated Catholic Emancipation, aiid 
 the majority c.f the people then found their bitterest enemies in the 
 foremost places." 
 
 In truth, thougli Emancipation had been granted in 
 theory, up to the year 1835, it had not commenced to exist 
 in practice. The tithe war had raged for some years, and 
 
138 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 the clergy of the rich church of the ascendency faction col- 
 lected their dues from the poverty-stricken Catholic peasantry 
 by the aid of tlie bayonets and bullets of soldiery and police, 
 and in the midst of scenes of misery and bloodshed. The 
 state of poverty and misery of the agricultural popvdation 
 of the coimtry was almost beyond description. Every effort 
 to legislate in the interest of the tenantry had failed, fhe 
 Poor-law inquii-y of 1835 reported that 2,235,000 persons 
 were out of work and in distress for thirty weeks in the 
 year. O'Connell had boldly and consistently maintain^ed 
 that the only remedy alike for Irish discontent and Irish 
 poverty was Repeal of the Union. But O'Connell was » 
 far-seeing and reasonable man. He recognised the Union 
 of 1800 as one of those great acts in the history of nations 
 which, once accomplished, cannot easily be undone, and as an 
 experiment which English statesmen could not be expected 
 to abandon without a full and fair trial. It had lasted for 
 35 years, and had been the undoubted source of poverty, 
 misery, degradation, and disaffection ; but he was fain 
 to confess that it had never as jQt received a fair trial. 
 O'Connell well knew that the mainspring of Irish hatred of 
 the Union was the National spirit of the people, and that 
 government from an English Parliament, even though well 
 and wisely administered, never could come to be regarded 
 as other than a state of slaveiy, and that no gilding of the 
 chain could make it acceptable to the captive. But this 
 was a lesson which he foresaw must be learned by English 
 statesmen before the Union could be repealed. 
 
 Up to 1835 the Union had meant subjection, degradation, 
 and tyranny in every form. The experiment had }'et to be 
 tried of honestly attempting to fulfil the promises of Pitt 
 and Clare and Castlereagh by basing the Union upon equa- 
 lity of liberties, and laws, and pinvileges. In 1800 the Irish 
 
Thomas Dvummnnd. ISO' 
 
 people were promised that the Union would mean the ad- 
 mission within the Constitution of the native race and the 
 recognition of the National religion ; that Protestant ascen- 
 dancy would cease to exist ; that Ireland would become an 
 integral part of the Empire, to be governed as England, and 
 Scotland, and "Wales, with equal laws and equal rights ; and 
 that the administration of Irish affairs would be entrusted 
 to men possessing the confidence of the Ii-ish people, as the 
 administration of English and Scotch aftairs was entrusted to 
 men possessing the confidence of the English and Scotch 
 peoples. The three nations were in a word to be welded 
 into one kingdom, with common interests, aims, liberties, 
 and laws. O'Connell well knew these promises were inca- 
 pable of fulfilment, but he was ready to welcome every 
 means whereby the failure of the Act of Union could be 
 tested. The opportunity oftered in 1835, and O'Connell 
 willingly accepted it. The general election of that year 
 made him master of the Parliamentary situation. He held 
 the balance of power between the two rival English parties. 
 He possessed a personal following of 44 members from Ire- 
 land, and by their votes he could turn the scale one way or 
 the other in the House of Commons. Sir R. Peel held the 
 reins of G overnmeiit. The Liberal leaders were Lord Mel- 
 bourne, Lord Althorp, afterwards Earl Spencer, and Lord 
 John Russell. By the aid of the Irish vote the Peel Govern- 
 ment were driven from ofiice, and on April 7th Lord Mel- 
 bourne formed his Administration. 
 
 This Administration depended for its existence from da}' 
 to day upon the support of the Irish Party, and it was formed 
 as the i-esult of what is known in history as the Litchfield 
 House compact, whereby O'Connell entered, upon certain 
 terms, into an alliance with the Liberal Party. There is no. 
 act in the life of Daniel O'Connell about which opinion is 
 
140 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 more sharply divided amongst his admirers than this alliance 
 ■of his with the English Whigs, As viewed by its results 
 its disadvantages are plainly discernible to-day. The 
 National movement for Repeal was suspended for five years 
 — five years most precious to a political leader already 
 approaching old age. When in 1841 the Repeal movement 
 was revived O'Connell was an. old man. His energies were 
 diminished, and much of his old power and vigour had 
 departed, and it may truly be said no legislative boons 
 obtained from the Melbourne Administration compensated 
 either Ireland or himself for the five precious years which 
 had been lost. However, it is no part of my duty to-night 
 to enter into any very elaborate criticism of the Litchfield 
 House compact. It is sufficient for my purpose to explain 
 its nature, and to show that Avhether it was, from the point 
 of view of an Irish Nationalist, a wise alliance or not, it at 
 any rate was one entered into upon honourable terms by 
 both the contracting parties. O'Connell was willing, if 
 possible, to conciliate English public opinion, and Lord 
 Melbourne ma}', I think, be credited with an honest desire 
 to redress Irish grievances. The terms upon which the 
 support of the Irish Party was promised to the new Admin- 
 istration were as follows : — Tithes were to be abolished, the 
 surplus revenues of the Established Church were to be 
 •appropriated to purposes of general utility, the Corporations 
 were to be reformed, the Parliamentary franchise was to be 
 extended, and all coercive methods of government were to 
 be abandoned. Thus the programme was twofold — legisla- 
 tive and executive. The legislative efforts of the Melbourne 
 Government to do justice to Ireland may with truth be said 
 to have ended in absolute failure. Of that failure I ha, e 
 little to say to-night, save to emphasise the fact that it 
 rendered all the more arduous, and indeed impossible, iho 
 
Thomas Drumniond. 141 
 
 attempts of the Executive Government to restore pnblic 
 order aiul trr.nquility in Ireland. Lord Mulgrave was 
 appointed Lord Lieutenant, and Lord Morpeth Chief Sec- 
 retary for Ireland, but the real genius of the new Adminis- 
 tration was Lieutenant Thomas Drummond, who received 
 the office of Under Secretary. Drummond was by birth a 
 Scotchman, and at the time he accepted office in the Irish 
 Government he was thirty-eight years old. He had served 
 for some j'ears in the Royal Engineers, and subsequently he 
 learnt his first lessons in the arts of statesmanship as 
 secretary to Lord Althorp during that nobleman's Chan- 
 cellorship of the Exchequer. In. 1831 he was appointed 
 head of the Boundary Commission in connection with the 
 Reform Eill, He was no stranger to Ireland. Between 
 the years 1824 and 1830 he was engaged on the Ordnance 
 Survey of this country, and then acquired a thorough know- 
 ledge of Irish wants, Irish aspirations, and Irish character. 
 M'Lennan, in his memoir of Drummond, says : — 
 
 " Nearly the whole of 1S27, 1828, and 1829 he spent in Ireland, 
 passing the suinmer months in the country and the winter months in. 
 Dublin. In town and country he was an interested listener to dis- 
 cussions on Irish politics. No one could be in Ireland in those years, 
 when the whole land was profoundly agitated by the final strugg'lo of 
 the Catholics for liberty, -without going back on the history of this 
 long enslavement and gradual emancipation. Lying on the mountain 
 side at night, with the stars over his head, he would ' draw out' the 
 Irish peasants who came to the engineers' station from motives of 
 curiosity or the hope of chance employment. No Cockney impudence, 
 no sneer of superiority was ever visible in Drummond as he lis-tened 
 to the melancholy narration of some tale of suffering, Drummond 
 liked to see all tilings with his own eyes. He saw, he studied, and, 
 with his genial sympathy he felt the Irish character and nature. He 
 believed that Government might work wonders in Ireland, and he had 
 a head teeming with projects of reform, and a heart overflowing with 
 affection for the Irish people. He sympathised with their sufferings, 
 he felt their wrongs, he understood their history, and he yearned to 
 
142 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 come amongst them and, by good government, to call forth tbeir best 
 insthicts and to allay that spirit of resentment and vengeance -which 
 centuries of oppression and misrule had created." 
 
 Such was the man into whose hands the Executive 
 Government of Ireland was committed in 1835. Never 
 since the day when Lord Fitzwilliara landed in Dublin, 
 amid the acclamations of the people, had a British Governor 
 come to tliis country armed with so firm a purpose to da 
 justice and amid such high hopes of success. In many respects 
 the two epochs in Irish history bear a close resemblance. 
 The old Ascendancy faction which rose in anns against 
 Lord Fitzwilliam in 1795, which thwarted his policy of 
 conciliation and finally drove him from the country, still 
 held Ireland in its iron giasp in 1835. It confronted 
 Drummond as it had confronted Fitzwilliam. He faced it 
 with courage and detemiination, he checked its insolence 
 and cvirbed its turbidence. For a thne he triumphed over 
 its power, but in the end the old anti-Irish and anti- 
 Catholic prejudices of the English people came to the rescue 
 of the Ascendancy, just as happened in 1795, and the 
 policy of conciliation was wrecked. The government of 
 Drummond must not be judged by its ultimate success or 
 failure. In common justice let us judge it by its courage, 
 its humanity, its high and honourable motives, knowing as 
 we do that from the very nature of things its failure in 
 making the Union acceptable was from the first inevitable. 
 Drummond ruled Ireland from 1835 until his death in 
 1840. To do more than briefly enumerate the chief 
 incidents of those years would be manifestly impossible 
 within the narrow limits of time at my disposal this evening. 
 His title to the affection and respect of the Irish people 
 mainly rests upon these facts. He abandoned coercion as 
 a method of s'ovei'nment. He arrested the tithe war. He 
 
Thomas Dnanmond. 143 
 
 repressed the Ascendancy faction. He rebuked the land- 
 lords. He clipped the wings of a corrupt magistracy. He 
 gave a death blow to faction fights. He discouraged the 
 employment of informers. He put a stop for the time 
 being to the iniquitous system of jury-packing. 
 
 Let me say a few words on each of these matters. It was 
 no small thing for an English Ministry to discard the 
 familiar weapon of coercion in the government of Ireland. 
 From the day the Union was carried down to the 
 day when Thomas Drummond went to Dublin Castle, 
 Ireland had never been for one single hour without a 
 Coercion Act. As I have already pointed out, duxing 
 twenty-three out of thirty-five years which had lapsed the 
 Habeas Corpus had been suspended. In 1835 all those 
 circumstances which are, even to this day, held to justify 
 and indeed necessitate coercion, were in full force in 
 Ii-eland. Pi'ofound discontent and fierce agrarian agitation 
 prevailed. In looking back upon those times it is im- 
 possible not to feel devoutly thankful at the change which 
 has occurred in the social condition of the country since 
 then. "We hear a great deal of outrages and crimes which 
 have marked the progress of the present movement for 
 agrarian reform and many innocent people seem honestly 
 to believe that the Land League actually invented agrarian 
 crime. The truth is, the sum total of all the murders and 
 outrages which have occurred in Ii'eland for the last ten 
 3'ears would scarcely equal the total for one of the years 
 1832, '33, '34, or '35. The figures are appalling. The 
 committals for murder and manslaughter alone were — In 
 1832, 620; in 1833, 687; in 1834, 575; in 1835, 712. 
 When, therefore, Drummond proposed to rule without 
 coercion in the midst of such a state of anarchy and crime, 
 men thought he was mad But astonishment soon sjave 
 
144 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 place to indignation and discontent amongst tlie dominant 
 classes in Ireland, when the representative of English rule 
 not only aljandoned coercion, but plainly intimated that in 
 his opinion landlordism alone was responsible for the 
 horrors of agrarian outrage. 
 
 " All the experience of history showed that disputes as to the tenure 
 of land were at the bottom of almost all the graver forms of outrage 
 which invest the soil and blight the social system of Ireland. 
 Eviction proceedings, so long as the condition of Ireland remained 
 what it had long been, nay more, while human nature was what it 
 was, would beget resistance. The flesh will quiver where the pincers 
 tear." 
 
 Such were the words in which the demands for renewed 
 coercion from the landlords were met by the new Governors 
 of Ireland. Dnimmond well knew and openly said that 
 disturbances would continue so long as the grievances which 
 gives rise to them remained unredressed. Coercion he re- 
 garded not only as a hateful weapon, but as an absolutely 
 injurious expedient. If Parliament legislated justly for 
 Ii^eland, he hoped by its co-operation to put an end to agra- 
 rian outrage. If Parliament refused to do its duty, 3'et he 
 hoped by a just and firm administration of the ordinary law 
 to wean the people from at least the grosser forms of crime. 
 He failed in exterminating agrarian crime, but he succeeded 
 in diminishing it. In 1836 and 1837 there was a general 
 decrease of crime as compared with former j^ears, and at 
 assize after assize the judges congratulated the grand juries 
 upon the improvement which had taken place. So far as the 
 Executive authority was concerned, the Government of Ire- 
 land was succeeding, but without legislative co-operation, in 
 removing the grievances which were the real source of crime; 
 ultimate success was an imposibility. This Drummond Avell 
 knew, but with undaunted courage he stuck to his task, and 
 
Thomas Drummond. 145 
 
 resolutely refused from first to last to have recourse to coer- 
 cion as a means of government. I think it would probably 
 be impossible to find in the history of any country in Europe 
 a more striking and significant contrast than might be drawn 
 between the Government of Thomas Drummond and the 
 Government of Mr, Balfour. In nothing is this contrast 
 more marked than in the manner in which the forces of the 
 Crown were employed to uphold and fenforce the law in 1835 
 and in 1888. 
 
 The principle that the law should be enforced by all the 
 power at the disposal of the Executive is, of course, a sound 
 one ; but the civilised world has of recent years been shocked 
 by the spectacle in Ireland of a Government sending mili- 
 tary and police to uphold, by bayonets and bullets, laws which 
 they themselves have acknowledged to be unjust. 
 
 Mr. Balfour's Government were last year forced to admit 
 that the arrears of old exorbitant rents, rents since reduced 
 by the Land Commission, were excessive and unjust ; and 
 yet wholesale evictions for these same arrears are being car- 
 ried out day after day, and the people are remorselessly 
 driven from their homes by means of the armed forces of 
 the Crown. 
 
 Far different was the action of Thomas Drummond in 
 1835. He did not allow any talk about the unconstitutional 
 character of a " dispensing power " to prevent him from refus- 
 ing to perpetrate injustice in the name of law. When he 
 arrived in Ireland the tithe warwas infull swing. The iniquity 
 of the system which forced the impoverished Catholic peasant 
 to support the clergy of the rich Ascendancy faction had 
 scarcely a xiefender left in Parliament or out of it. The in- 
 justice of tithes had come to be as generally admitted as tlie 
 injustice of arrears of rack rents to-day. Yet tithes remained 
 enforceable by law, as unjust arrears are enforceable to-day. 
 
146 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 For five years prior to Drummond's arrival in Dublin the 
 Papist peasants had been shot down or bayonetted almost 
 month by month by the forces of the Crown for resisting 
 tithes. At a score of places pitched battles had been fought, 
 and much innocent blood had been shed. Drummond once 
 and for all put an end to this. He absolutely refused to 
 allow a single policeman or soldier to help in the collection 
 of tithes. He at once drew down upon his devoted head 
 the wrath of the Ascendancy faction. The old cries about 
 " law and order " and the iniquity of the " dispensing power " 
 were dinned into his ears. He was assailed in the Press and 
 in Parliament. He was denounced as a traitor and a revo- 
 lutionary. He, however, stood firm as a rock. 
 
 " It is my duty," said he, "to maintain law and order, and I sliall do 
 so. It is not my duty to turn the police and military into tithe col- 
 lectors. Collect your unjust tithes as well as you can. I shall take 
 care that the peace shall not be broken. But your tithe bailiffs and 
 your parsons shall have no police or military escort from me." 
 
 By this one bold act he arrested the tithe war. From the 
 day he landed in Ireland until the day he died the police 
 and the people never once came into collision, and not 
 one single tithe bailiff or proctor was injured, though dur- 
 ing the five years previous the lives of such men were not 
 supposed to be worth a single day's purchase. That Parlia- 
 ment tinkered with the tithe question instead of boldly 
 grappling with it was the fault of Drummond. Pending 
 the amendment of the law he preserved the public peace, 
 and by refusing to allow the old unjust law to be enforced 
 by bayonet and bullet he saved the spilling of much inno- 
 cent blood, and the working of much cruel wrong upon the 
 people. From the very commencement the new policy of 
 conciliation was bitterly opposed by what I may call the 
 loyal minority of that day. As usual, the Orangemen of 
 
Thomas Drummond. 147 
 
 Ulster were the loudest in denouncing the authors of a policy 
 of peace and justice, and in proclaiming themselves to be the 
 only loyal men in Ireland. Drummond determined to expose 
 their pretensions and curb their insolence. Their power at 
 this day was most formidable. Mr. M'Lennan says : — 
 
 "In 1835-36 the proportions assumed by Orangeism became excoed- 
 iugly alarming. It numbered no less than 1,500 lodges (with secret 
 oaths and passwords), affiliated with one another under the direction 
 of a Grand Lodge, whose head was the Duke of Cumberland, A Com- 
 mission of Inquiry brought out the fact that there were Orange Lodges 
 even in the army. In 1838 there were 200,000 armed Orangemen in 
 Ireland. They were accustomed to meet in armies of 10,000, 20,000, 
 and even 30,000 at a time." 
 
 How the warlike soul of Mr. Johnston, of Ballykilbeg, 
 must sigh over the departed glories of Orangeism, and how 
 he must curse the memory of Thomas Drummond, the man 
 who, of all others, did most to shatter the power and expose 
 the dishonesty of the Loyal Orange Society. Not only was 
 the Orange Society accxised of being the cause of disorder 
 and turbulence in Ireland, but it transpired that these loud- 
 mouthed loyalists had actually hatched a treasonable plot to 
 alter the succession to the Throne, and consequently imme- 
 diate steps were taken for the suppression of the organisa- 
 tion. Pai'liament presented an address to the King, praying 
 for its dissolution, and the Orange demonstrations continuing 
 to take place — the Society itself was actually dissolved. The 
 spirit in which Drummond acted towards the Orange faction 
 is Avell shown by his correspondence with Colonel Verner, 
 an Orange leader of high position and power. The gallant 
 Colonel, at a public banquet, had given the toast of " Tiie 
 Battle of the Diamond." The event commemorated by tlu.s 
 toast was practically the establishment of the Orange 
 Society in 1795, after a bloody conflict in which the people 
 
148 Historical and Folitical Addresses. 
 
 had been slaughtered by the Ascendancy faction at a village 
 in County Armagh called the Diamond. Drummond at 
 once wrote to Colonel Verner in the following terms : — 
 
 " It appearing in. the Newry Telegraph that at an election dinner 
 given by you, one of the toasts was ' The Battle of the Diamond,' I 
 am desired by His Excellency to desire that you will inform him 
 whether it can be possible that you were a party to the commemoration 
 of a lawless and most disgraceful conflict, in which much of the blood 
 of your fellow subjects was spilt, and the immediate consequence of 
 which was to place that part of the country at the mercy of an 
 ungovernaLIe mob." 
 
 It would be impossible to describe the indignation of the 
 loyal minority at these words. Here was the Orange 
 Society spoken of as an " ungovernable mob," and one of 
 its most glorious victories, as a " lawless and most disgraceful 
 conflict." The two hundred thousand armed loyalists meta- 
 phorically brandished their swords on high and swore to be 
 revenged. But Drummond met them boldly. Colonel 
 Verner stood by his toast, and he Avas forthwith summarily 
 removed from the commission of the peace. A military 
 force of twelve and a half troops of cavalry and thirty-four 
 companies of infantry was dispatched to the North, and 
 then the fire-eating loyal minority were soon cowed, and the 
 power of the Orangeism completely broken. While Drum- 
 mond was thus coping with Orangeism in the North, he was 
 at the same moment in bitter conflict with the landlords of 
 the South. Agrarian outrages were occurring, and each one 
 of them was made a pretext for louder and louder demands 
 from the landlord faction for renewed coercion. At last, 
 Drummond determined to speak out, and he plainly intimated 
 upoii whose shoulders in his opinion rested the primary 
 responsibility for Irish agrarian crimes. The famous letter 
 wliiuli lie addressed to the magistrates of Tipperary left no 
 
Thomas Drummond. 149 
 
 one in any doubt as to his views upon the subject. He 
 wrote as follows : — 
 
 " The Government has been at all times ready to afford the utmof-t 
 aid in its power to suppress disturbance and crimes, and its efforts 
 have been successful so far as regards open violations of tue law, but 
 there are certain classes of crime originating in other causes which 
 are much more difficult of repression, and it becomes of importance to 
 consider the causes which have led to a state of society so much to be 
 deplored. "When the character of the great majority of serious out- 
 rages occurring in many parts of Ireland is considered, it is impossible 
 to doubt that the causes from which they mainly spring are connected 
 with the tenure and occupation of land. Property has its duties as 
 tvell as its rights. To the neglect of those duties is msiinly to he 
 ascribed that diseased state of society in which such crimes take their 
 rise, and it is not in the enactment or enforcement of statues of extra- 
 ordinary severity, but in the better and more faithful discliarge of 
 those duties and the more enlightened and humane exercise of those 
 rights, that a permanent remedy for such disorders is to be sought." 
 
 This letter produced nothing short of a panic amongst 
 tiie landlord faction ; and it speaks volumes for what Irish 
 landlordism had been in Ireland that the mere enunciation 
 of the plain doctrine that property had its duties as well as 
 its rights should have been regarded as most dangerous and 
 revolutionary. About the same time Drummond spoke out 
 with similar directness as to the manner in which justice 
 was administered by the local magistrates, whose one object 
 upon the Bench seemed to be to ride roughshod over the 
 people. Here are his words -.^ 
 
 " Grossly have the magistrates abused their powers ; but their 
 wings are clipped, and I hope and believe that there is some chance 
 of justice being better administered soon, and ultimately being well 
 administered. The confidence of the people is now withheld from 
 the local courts, and no wonder." , 
 
 To restore the confidence of the people in the administra- 
 tion of justice, Drummond laboured long and courageously. 
 
150 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 He firmly discountenanced the use of informers by the 
 Government, and under his directions the practice of order- 
 ing all Catholic jurors to " stand by " Avhen called to serve 
 upon juries, which is in full force to-day, half a century 
 later, under an Iinsh Catholic Attorney-General, was for the 
 time being abandoned. And yet, in spite of all this, 
 Drummond failed in his efforts to rule Ireland. He came 
 to this country full of hope and confidence. He coimted 
 upon the good faith of English statesmen, the co-operation 
 of the English Parliament, and the sympathy of the English 
 people. He soon discovered that English statesmanship 
 regarded Ireland simply as a battle-ground for party politics, 
 that the English Parliament was bigoted, ignorant, and 
 incompetent, and that the masses of the English people were 
 hopelessly apathetic. He struggled on bravely to the end, 
 hoping against hope, until in 1840 death cut short his work. 
 For the last twelve months the ultimate and complete failure 
 of his efforts to base the Union tipon justice and liberty 
 had come to be recognised even by himself. He was fain 
 to acknowledge that the Ascendancy faction was too strong 
 for him. Day by day their hostility increased in bitterness. 
 A hundred intrigues were set on foot against him. AU the 
 latent anti-Irish prejudices of the English people were 
 aroused ; all the anti-Catholic bigotry of Great Britain was 
 evoked. 
 
 The Melbourne Administration was hourly becoming 
 more and more distrusted and unpopular in England because 
 of its Irish policy. Its leaders had ceased even to think of 
 fulfilling their promises to Ireland, and thought only of 
 how they could serve their own positions as statesmen of the 
 Empire. Drummond alone stood firm by his promises and 
 liis principles — as constant and faithful in the face of failure 
 as he had been when his hopes of success were high. But 
 
Thomas Drummond. 151 
 
 he was a man of sensitive mind and delicate physique. His 
 incessant labours and his evei' present sense of failure were 
 beginning to teU upon him. His health was rapidly break- 
 ing down. In vain his friends urged upon him to abandon 
 his post. He resolutely refused. At last, in April, 1840, 
 he broke down. Up to the day in which he took to his 
 bed he had been actively engaged upon his duties, and he 
 may be truly said to have died with his harness on him. 
 His last illness lasted but three days. Death then stilled 
 his brave heart for ever. His last request was that he 
 might be biiried in Ireland, " I have loved her well," said 
 he, with his dying breath, "I have served her faithfully, 
 and lost my life in her service," His last wish was carried 
 out, and all that is mortal of Thomas Drummond lies at rest 
 in our midst in this city, in a quiet corner of Harold's Cross 
 Cemetery, With his death the only vital force in the 
 Melbourne Administration was extinguished. Shortly after- 
 wards the Ministry went to pieces. 
 
 In 1841 Sir Robert Peel succeeded to office. The old 
 policy of coercion and prosciiption was then revived. The 
 Repeal agitation sprang into life again. Then followed 
 State prosecutions, national turmoil, famine, crime, and 
 finally insurrection. The Union had received its chance, 
 it had had its fair trial, it had been weighed in the balance 
 and found wanting, and from that day forward there was 
 no possible alternative between the restoration of Ireland's 
 legislative independence and national heartburning, dis- 
 content, and agitation. To-day, with the prospect of near 
 success for our cause, with the friendship and sympathy of 
 so many millions of Englishmen, and with the advocacy of 
 the greatest Englishman of the century upon our side, it is 
 an easy and a pleasant task to pay to the memory of Thomas 
 Dnimmond the tribute of our respect and gratitude. His 
 
152 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 name is written in letters of gold upon the sad and blood- 
 stained page of Irish history. 
 
 A grateful Irish people, even in the midst of national 
 suffering and despair, a generation ago gave to a statue of 
 Drummond an honoured place in the City Hall of DubHn, 
 where it stands to-day side by side with the figures of 
 Lucas, Grattan and O'ConneU ; and we to-day honour his 
 memory as that of an honest and brave man who loved our 
 country and sought to do her justice, and whose efforts, 
 ending as they did in failure, have incontestably established 
 the fact that the Legislative Union, based as it was upon 
 fraud and carried by force and corruption, can never be an 
 instrument of good government in Ireland, even when 
 administered by just, capable, and sympathetic hands. 
 
WEXFORD IN '98. 
 
 LECTtJRE DELIVERED IN THE ROTUNDA, DUBLIN, 
 
 22nd NOVEMBER, 1897. 
 
 PIERCE MAHONT, ESQ., IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 VII. 
 
 The subject which I have chosen for my lecture this even- 
 ing is that chapter of Irish history which tells of the rising 
 in Wexford County in the year 1798, I have chosen this 
 subject for many i-easons. First of all, it is one which can 
 scarcely fail to prove interesting alike to the student of 
 history, who sees in the memorable events of that epoch, re- 
 vealed iu a fierce light, the faults and the virtues of a people ; 
 to the politician, to whom those events should serve as a 
 reminder that theories of Government are valueless which 
 are not based on the will of the people, and upon some con- 
 sideration for hmnan nature and human passion ; and, 
 above all, to the man of Irish birth or descent, who, what- 
 ever may be his political predilections to-day, and whatever 
 may be his creed, cannot review, without emotion and pride, 
 the chivalrous devotion with which his forefathers. Catholic 
 and Protestant alike, laid down their lives for the liberties 
 of Ireland. For myself, I may be pardoned for saying, 
 that this subject is one which, from my very earliest youth, 
 has exercised a powerful fascination upon my mind. This 
 is but natural. I had been reared and nurtured in the 
 midst of the hills and valleys that witnessed the struggles of 
 
154 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 '98 ; I had been taught to regard every scene as a noonu- 
 meut of the heroism of our forefathers, and to remember 
 that well-nigh every sod beneath my feet marked a hero's 
 sepulchre. My boyish ears had listened to tales of '98 from 
 the lips of old men who had themselves witnessed the 
 struggles, and I scarcely know a family amongst the 
 peasantry of my native county who cannot tell of a father 
 or grandfather or some near relative who died fighting at 
 Wexford, at Oulart, or Ross. Every scene most familiar to 
 my early j'outh was associated with some tale of heroism or 
 suffei-ing, and one of my proudest recollections has ever 
 been, as it is to-day, that in that dark hour of trial there 
 were not wanting men of my race and name who attested 
 by their lives to their devotion to Ireland. 
 
 There is, probably, no chapter of Irish history less generally 
 understood than that which deals with the rising in Wexford. 
 The entire character of the rising is misunderstood. Out- 
 side Ireland the popular theory is that it was a popish 
 rebellion, marked by deeds of cruelty on the part of the 
 people : an unprovoked outburst of bigotry and malignity. 
 The very reverse is the truth. Of the 162 leaders whose 
 names have been transmitted to us 106 were Protestants 
 and only 56 Catholics; and Dr. Madden assures us in 
 his interesting work that, alike in origin and organisation, 
 the so-called conspiracy was essentially a Protestant one. 
 That the people were deliberately driven into resistance by 
 unheard-of cruelties, as part and parcel of a set plan to 
 render possible the Act of Union; that the rising was 
 marked by deeds of heroism by the people, worthy of an 
 imperishable place on the page of history ; in a word, that 
 Irishmen have reason to be proud of the memories of '98 ; 
 these are some of the things which I hope to prove to you 
 to-niffht. 
 
Wea;ford in '98. 155 
 
 I propose confining my remarks to what occurred in the 
 county of Wexford. To deal with the rising in Ireland 
 generally, and the proud though sad history of the lives and 
 deaths of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, the Sheares, Wolfe 
 Tone, and other leaders, would be too extensive a subject 
 for my purpose; but, in order that what occurred in 
 Wexford may be properly understood, it will be necessary 
 for me briefly to refer to the origin and progress of the 
 conspiracy of the United Irishmen. When in 1782 
 Grattan established the independence of the Irish Parliament 
 he laid the foundations of a free and prosperous nation, but 
 that was only the beginning. The Parliament itself whose 
 independence had been secured was corrupt and venal ; it 
 in no sense represented the people, four-fifths of whom were 
 in the position of slaves. Ireland, it is quite true, prospered 
 as never before or since, but Parliamentary purification and 
 the emancipation of Catholics were necessary to permanent 
 prosperity and independence. To secure, this Grattan and 
 a minority in the House gave their best energies, but they 
 had opposed to them the weight of English influence and 
 gold, and, as e9"ort after efi'ort of the champion failed, a 
 deep despair settled on the hearts of the people. Grattan, 
 himself, almost abandoned the struggle, and the design of a 
 Pai'liamentary union was already whispered about in 
 Ministerial circles. It was then that the United Irishmen 
 sprang into existence, with the object of perpetuating for 
 Ireland national self-government by Parliamentary reform 
 and the emancipation of Catholics. This society was started 
 in 1791 at Belfast. The first leaders were Theobold 
 Wolfe Tone and Dr. Neilson, two Protestant gentlemen 
 of consideration, and I find in its articles of association 
 that its objects are very clearly set out. They are as 
 follow : — 
 
156 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 "First. — Resolved that the weight of English influence in the 
 government of this country is so great as to require a cordial union 
 among all the people of Ireland, to maintain that balance vi'hich is 
 essential to the preservation of our liberties and the extension of our 
 commerce." 
 
 "Second. — That the sole constitutional mode by which this in- 
 fluence can be opposed is by a complete and radical reform of the 
 representation of the people in Parliament." 
 
 " Third. — That no reform is practicable, efl&cacious, or just which 
 shall not include Irishmen of every religious persuasion." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that this society was at first an open, 
 legal, and constitutional one. Its power in Ireland rapidly 
 spread, and men of the highest rank and position joined it. 
 Its inflitence was powerful within and without the walls of 
 Parliament. It was leading the Irish people along the only 
 sure road to permanent independence by the union of 
 creeds for a common country. Very soon a remarkable 
 triumph was achieved, for, in 1793, through its influence, 
 was carried through the Irish Parliament a Catholic Relief 
 Bill — that is the Irish Protestant Parliament in '93 com- 
 menced the emancipation which the Imperial Par-liament 
 had not the courage to adopt till after 1828. This Catholic 
 Relief Bill seemed to everybody the prelude to a complete 
 act of Catholic emancipation, but English Ministers, whose 
 minds were bent and hearts set upon a legislative union, 
 determined to destroy the society, and fan into life the 
 smouldering embers of sectarian hate, which, by dividing 
 the people, destroyed their power. 
 
 On the 4th May, 1794, the agents of the Government 
 burst into a meeting of the United Irishmen's Society in 
 Dublin, seized the documents, arrested the officers, and 
 declared the society illegal. From that moment the 
 character of the society changed. From an open society it 
 became a secret one, and from a peaceful combination it 
 
Wej;fard in 'OS. 157 
 
 became a revolutionary organisation ; despairing of obtain- 
 ing the liberties of their country by peaceful means, the 
 leaders had recourse to the desperate expedient of revolution. 
 From the very moment of the new departure, Government 
 spies and informers were put to work, and hour by hour tlie 
 Government were informed of every plan agreed upon, and 
 every step taken ; and then the diabolical scheme was formed 
 of forcing the people into insurrection as a means to enable 
 British Ministers to carry the Union. In 1795 Lord 
 Fitzwilliam, a liberal and popular nobleman, who occupied 
 the position of viceroy, was recalled, and Lord Camden, 
 the personification of oppression and injustice, given his 
 place. In the same year the Orange Society was established 
 in Ireland, the members of which were obliged to swear — 
 these are the exact words of the test oath — " To use their 
 utmost exertions to annihilate the Catholics of the kingdom 
 of Ireland," who formed four-fifths of the population. At 
 once the fires of bigotry and sectarian animosity were 
 enkindled all over Ireland. Plowden says that in one year, 
 in one county — the County of Armagh — 7,000 Catholics 
 were driven from their homes and put to the sword. In 
 1796, the following year, two Acts of Parliament were 
 carried — one an Indemnity Act, which had the effect of 
 assuring magistrates against being called to account for any 
 illegal act ; and the second an Insurrection Act for the 
 arrest, imprisonment, and torture of persons suspected of 
 disloyalty. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, troops 
 were drafted into Ireland to such an extent that, before the 
 end of the year, the Government had at its disposal a 
 fighting force of regulars and yeomanry of 160,000 men, 
 and everywhere the instructions were to goad the people 
 into insurrection by cruelties of every kind. Then blazed 
 forth the insurrection of '98, and English Ministers, who 
 
158 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 had themselves planned it as a diabolical means to an 
 unholy end, looked on with grim callousness at the working 
 out of their scheme. 
 
 I have said that I did not intend to deal with the risinsr 
 in Ireland generally; but I may say that, owing to the 
 want of proper munitions of war, military training, and 
 capable leaders, and to treachery more strong than foeman's 
 arms, the rising throughout Ireland failed, and noble hearts 
 were sacrificed to its failure. There was, however, one spot 
 in Ireland, neglected by the leaders of the movement as 
 apathetic, but which soon engaged and proved more than a 
 match for the armies and eenerals of England. There, in 
 the little County of Wexford, the most stirring scenes of 
 '98 were enacted; and there, where the pi'eparation was 
 least, the struggle was most severe. In point of fact, the 
 conspiracy had taken no root in Wexford at all. In the list 
 of places to be relied vipon, prepared by Lord Edward 
 Fitzgerald in '98, the name of Wexford does not 
 appear. 
 
 Its people were renowned for their peaceful and indus- 
 trious habits. English writers had been wont, by way 
 of paying it the highest compliment in their power, to 
 compare it to parts of England. One thing is certain, 
 the people of Wexford have little or no claim to Keltic 
 origin. The Keltic O and Mac are seldom to be found 
 in that county, while the names most familiar are, for 
 instance, those of Whitty, Lambert, Devereaux, Synnot, 
 Lacy, Petit, Rocheford, and Redmond — pointing to their 
 Norman or Flemish origin. Sober, industrious, and frugal, 
 the people of this county had made their land prosperous 
 when the rest of Ireland was literally steeped in poverty. 
 Mr. Hay, in his work upon this subject, speaks thus of the 
 people of Wexford : — 
 
Wexfo'nl in '9S. 159 
 
 " The county of Wexford had long been remarkable for the peace- 
 ful demeanour of its inhabitants, and their good behaviour au d industry 
 have been held out as an exemplar for other parts of Ireland. So littl 3 
 and so seldom infested with disturbance or riots of any kind that an 
 execution for a capital crime rarely took place there ; and, in tha 
 calendar of its criminals, it has as few on record as any part either of 
 Great Britain or Ireland. This county bore such reputation that 
 landed property was considered of higher value in it than in many 
 other parts of the country, pui-chasers not hesitating to advance some 
 years' rental more for lands in the county of "Wexford than for the 
 like in most other parts of Ireland." 
 
 And Thomas Campbell Foster, an English barrister, 
 says : — 
 
 " In the baronies of Forth and Bargy, at this day, it is difficult to 
 see any marked difference between the appearance of the country or 
 the people and England or its population. There are the same clean- 
 liness, order, and neatness. Great industry prevails amongst a peace- 
 able and well-disposed people .... comfort and contentment, 
 the rewards of industry, are everywhere seen." 
 
 So much for the peasantry. Now, amongst the gentry of 
 Wexford the landlords, for the most part, were liberal, 
 kindly disposed men, whose difference in creed did not pre- 
 vent their sympathising with the people. There, then, would 
 seem to have been all the elements likely to prevent the 
 possibilities of a rising. How was it then that peaceful, in- 
 dustrious, and contented Wexford blazed suddenly forth into 
 a war which startled the world 1 The only possible explana- 
 tion is the true one, that the people were deliberately driven 
 into insurrection by the action of the authorities. I do 
 not make that statement rashly. Let me see what are my 
 authorities. Lord Castlereagh himself — has left upon record 
 those memorable, those infamous words,which are enough to 
 condemn him to everlasting infamy : — 
 
 " Measures were taken by the Government to secure the outburst 
 of the rebellion." 
 
160 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 What were these measures 1 In April, '98, notwithstand- 
 ing the risings throughout Ireland elsewhere, Wexford was 
 in a state of almost profound peace. 
 
 There were some 500 soldiers only in the county. Sud- 
 denly, Lord Kingsborough, at the head of the infamous 
 North Cork Militia, arrived in the county ; at once that 
 county was proclaimed under martial law, the yeomanry 
 were billeted upon the people, and then commenced the 
 reign of terror — a series of outrages upon the peaceable and 
 defenceless people of so horrible a character that I dare not 
 trust to my own words to describe them. Let me rather 
 describe them in the words of Englishmen. Lord Holland, 
 in his memoirs of the Whig party, says : — 
 
 "It is a fact incontrovertible that the people were driven to resist- 
 ance by free quarters and the excesses of the soldiery, which were 
 such as are not permitted in civilised warfare even in an enemy's 
 country. Trials, if they may be so called, were frequent under court- 
 martial, such court-martial being comprised of three officers, two 
 being generally under twenty-one years old, and the third an Orange- 
 man who had sworn to exterminate the people over whom he was 
 placed as judge. Floggings, picketings, death, and pitch -cap were 
 the usual sentences. Property was everywhere seized, women violated, 
 and houses burned." 
 
 And Lord Cornwallis, who came to Ireland as Viceroy 
 shortly after the suppression of the insurrection, wrote as 
 follows to the Duke of Portland : — 
 
 " The militia and yeomanry are whoUy without discipline ; they are 
 contemptible in the face of the enemy, but ferocious and cruel in the 
 extreme when any poor wretches without arms come within their 
 power. Murder is their favourite pastime. The Government have 
 pursued in Ireland measures which could only end in exterminating 
 the gn^ater part of the community and the destruction of the country. 
 By their policy they seem to have desired to drive four-fifths of the 
 population into irreconcilable rtbeUion. Their minCs were satisfied 
 
We:vfo'rd in '9S. 161 
 
 with nothing but blooi ; nuraberlGss murders were hourly committed 
 by our people ; in short, we have been engaged in a war of plunder 
 and maissacre." 
 
 Lord Moira, in the Irish House of Lords, said : — 
 
 " It was the usual practice, when a man was taken up on suspicion, 
 to put him to the torture. Picketing was a favourite practice — that 
 is, to put the man standing on one foot on a pointed stake ; and as 
 many as thirty houses have been bxu'ned in one night in one locality 
 
 by the yeomanry." 
 
 This conduct had been censured by Sir Ralph Aber- 
 crombie, tlie Commander-in-Chief, but before the outbreak 
 in Wexfoi'd he was recalled, and replaced by General Lake, 
 who not only tolerated but openly approved of these bar- 
 barities. 
 
 In the English House of Commons that champion of 
 h\iman liberty, Charles James Fox, moved a motion express- 
 ing his abhorrence of the action of the Government in 
 Wexford and other parts of Ireland ; and I find that Lord 
 Bedford, in the English House of Lords, described what had 
 been done in Ireland as " shocking to humanity and dis- 
 graceful to the British name," and he adduced documentary 
 evidence to prove that : — 
 
 ' ■' These cruelties had not been resorted to on the spur of the moment, 
 but had been deliberately resolved upon long before for a certain 
 political purpose, and could not be justified." 
 
 I have superabundant evidence from the writings of 
 English historians that almost every conceivable kind of 
 torture was invented. Lord Kingsborough has the infa- 
 mous notoriety of having been the designer of the pitch 
 cap ; a cap wliich was lined with melted pitch, and placed 
 on the victim's head, from which it was torn as sood 
 as the pitch had grown cold. 
 
 M 
 
162 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 The people everywhere were driven from their houses, 
 a,nd, wandering about hopeless and homeless through their 
 fair and fertile county, they saw within the space of a few 
 days no less than thirty -five Catholic chapels burned to the 
 ground. 
 
 Patiently, aU too patiently, the people submitted until 
 submission became no longer possible, and then, when for- 
 bearance appeared in the light of a crime, they rose, and 
 unarmed and undisciplined, though they were, they turned 
 i\pon their aggressors, and, with the fierce courage born of 
 despair, they routed them from town, and hamlet, and hill- 
 side, until England herself stood aghast at the fire she had 
 kindled, but which she was no longer able to control. 
 
 So was provoked — so was begun — the war in Wexford 
 county. 
 
 Let me, as briefly as I can, sketch some of its princip^ 
 incidents. The first man to raise the standard of the 
 people was Father John Murphy, of Boolavogue. Up to 
 this time he had been known solely for the zeal and piety 
 with which he had discharged the dvxties of liis sacred office, 
 -and for his high literary attainments. He was essentially a 
 man of peace, and he had, from the commencement, been 
 iimongst those who had most strenuously worked to restrain 
 the people. At last, however, seeing his people driven from 
 their homes, which were given over to the flames by the 
 yeomanry, he placed himself at their head, and, calling upon 
 them, as they had followed him in peace to follow him in 
 war, he told them to defend with their lives their liberties 
 and their homes. This appeal was answered by the acclama- 
 tions of the people, and soon he found himself at the head 
 of a body of men entirely undisciplined, almost entirely 
 tinarmed, but fiUed with a fierce courage and enthusiasm. 
 He determined without one moment's delay, to give battle to 
 
Wexford in '98. 163 
 
 the enemies of his country, and marching forth with his 
 somewhat motly array, badly clothed and worse armed, a 
 peasantry whose most effective weapon was a pitchfork or a 
 sj-the, he soon met a body of yeomanry cavalry riding in 
 pomp and pride back from their daily work of devastation. 
 
 Such was the onslaught of these unarmed peasants, 
 the fight lasted bvit a very few moments, and the victory 
 of the people was complete. They speedily possessed them. 
 selves of the arms and accoutrements of their vanquished 
 foes, and so rapidly did the news of their victory spread 
 through the county, that the next morning Father Murphy 
 found recruits coming to him from all quarters, until at last 
 he found himself in a sufficiently strong position to give 
 battle to th^ best troops of the enemy. 
 
 At this time the infamous North Cork Militia — may I 
 digress for a moment to explain what I hope nearly every 
 one in this room knows, that this regiment was Irish only 
 in name ; it was a body of yeomanry composed of English- 
 men, or of the Ascendancy class of Ireland. This infamous 
 regiment, whose name had become a terror throughout the 
 whole of Ireland were stationed in Wexford town, and they 
 received instructions to annihilate the rash and rebellious 
 peasants who had dared to oppose them. They marched 
 forth to meet Father Murphy's army, and they met at 
 historic Oulart Hill. Here the first decisive battle of the 
 campaign was fought. Here the people found themselves, 
 for the firet time, face to face with the men who had 
 devastated their country and murdered their kith and kin. 
 The result startled England to her very centre, and gave 
 heart and hope to every Irishman at home. So desperate 
 was the onset of the Irish pikemen that they literally 
 scattered as chaff before the winds the serried ranks of their 
 enemies. The yeomanry with their usual cowardice in the face 
 
1G4 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 of valour very soon turned and fled andthe regular troo})s who 
 were with them, and who stood their ground, were utterly 
 annihilated ; and it is left on record that only four soldiers 
 and one oftlcer escaped alive from the battlefield to bring 
 back to Wexford town the tidings of the victory. 
 
 At once, as if by magic, the whole county of Wexford 
 sprang to arms, and their indomitable leader, John 
 Murphy, flushed with victorjr, determined to push on to 
 Enniscorthy. At this time Enniscorthy was held by a 
 large garrison of some thousands of well-equipped, well- 
 trained English troops. The plan of attack which Father 
 Murphy adopted evinced considerable military skill and 
 fi-enius. He ordered a large herd of wild cattle to be driven 
 in advance of his front lines, and behind these ^the rest of 
 his army safely advanced to the town. Father Kavanagh, 
 in his valuable work, to which I am largely indebted for 
 many details, gives the following account of th.e scene to 
 which I refer. Father Kavanagh says : — 
 
 " This .stratagem was tried and proved completely successful. The 
 cattle used for this purpose — the youngest and wildest of the heixl — ' 
 were driven quickly to the front, and thence onwards towards the 
 gate. They no sooner heard the wild shouts of those who drove 
 them than they set forward at a rapid pace in the renuirec! direction, 
 the agile pikemen following closely upon their heels, and thus 
 approaching unharmed the line of their armed foes. The latter, 
 perceiving the wild herd advancing furiously upon them, and heraing 
 from the rear, above the bellowing of the maddened beasts, the 
 louder and fiercer shouts of their dreaded foes, endenvoured with 
 all their might to check the cattle in their furious advance. To 
 effect this some of the soldiery rushed forward to drive them back 
 with the bayonet, while others fired their muskets into the midst of 
 the herd. But all their efforts were unavailing to arrest that 
 furious onset, for the cattle, goaded to madness by the yells of the 
 men in the rear, and, when they attempted to turn back or slacken 
 their pace, feeliiig tlie sharp points of the pikes, charged furiously 
 forward into the ranks of the dismayed soldiery and opened the Avay 
 for a more dreaded foe— for, with a wild cheer of revenge and hatred. 
 
Wc.vfo\nl in '08. IQ,} 
 
 the pikemen were amongst them. Not a moment's stand did they 
 make against the peasants whose destruction they had but lafely 
 sworn to accomplish. The remembrance of the fearful wrongs tliey 
 had endui-ed — their burned homesteads— their tortured or murdered 
 friends — nerved the peasant's arm, and heightened the courage of his 
 brave heai't. Success, too, had given him confidence in himself, and 
 days of hard fighting, had given him something of the soldier's heed- 
 lessness of life. The King's troops completely routed, fled with the 
 utmost precipitation into the town, and the day was won." 
 
 Once in possession of the town the Irish army used, their 
 position with admirable self-restraint and humanity. Not 
 one single outrage upon person or property was committed ; 
 no single man amongst their foes was put to the sword ; 
 and it must ever remain to the lasting honour of these 
 " savages," as the English historians call them, that in their 
 hour of triumph they did not imitate the example which 
 had been set them by the " civilised" troopers of England. 
 
 The day after the storming of the town, Father Murphv 
 v\'ithdrew his troops, and stationed them on historic Vinegar 
 Hill. Vinegar Hill is a rather abrupt hill hanging over 
 the town of Enniscorthy, and there is, perhaps, no spot in 
 Wexford county around which hang to-day more touching 
 memories, more pathetic stories. Here, for the remainder 
 of the campaign, v.ere the head quarters of the Irisli army, 
 and hither reci-uits day by day flocked to the standard of 
 the people. 
 
 In Wexford town itself at this time the Eno-lish besan to 
 get seriously alarmed, and they determined to make an eftbrt 
 to come to terms with the Irish army. Consequently they re- 
 leased two popular Protestant gentlemen of large estates in 
 Wexford county who had shortly before been imprisoned 
 because they were suspected of favouring the popular cause. 
 Mr. Colclough and Mr. Fitzgerald, and asked them to go 
 to Vinegar Hill and see if they could make terms with the 
 
166 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 insurgents. I need scarcely say that their mission was 
 unsuccessful. Rightly regarding such a deputation at all 
 as a sign of weakness, the Irish leaders determined to push 
 on to Wexford town. They started at once, and that 
 night they encamped on the Three Rock Mountains, just 
 ovex'hanginQf Wexford. 
 
 Now, let me say at this time Wexford was a walled and 
 fortified town, and was held by a garrison of well-trained, 
 and well-armed English troops. There were ample pro- 
 visions in the town, and with ordinary courage and deter- 
 mination the English ought to have been able to hold out 
 against any attempt on the part of the Irish ; but the terror 
 inspired by the previous victories of the popular army was 
 such that the English generals made up their minds to sur- 
 render. And they did so in a thoroughly characteristic and 
 dishonourable fashion. They sent a flag of truce by a 
 messenger to the Irish camp, and while a parley was taking 
 place, and hostilities were suspended, they secretly withdrew 
 their troops, setting fire to the town as they went. Filled 
 with indignation at this dishonourable stratagem, the Irish 
 troops defiled down the hill and took possession of the 
 town. 
 
 And here again the marvellous self-restraint and humanity 
 of an undisciplined army excites wonder and admiration. 
 Not one of the English partisans remaining in the town was 
 put to the sword. 
 
 The town rapidly resumed all the appearances of rejoicing, 
 and the victorious Irish army marched, with colours flying, 
 through the streets, the quaint old houses were decked with 
 green, and fair faces at every window waving welcome to 
 the soldier peasants. The State prisoners were released 
 from gaol; Bagnall Harvey, a Protestant gentleman of 
 large estates, was appointed commander-in-chief, and then, 
 
Wexford in '9S. 167 
 
 amid universal congratulations, the people and their leaders 
 set about the task of establishing a civil government, 
 and completely restoring social order. 
 
 Wexford town had witnessed many an historic scene. It 
 was here that, gathered round the old Keltic cross, SOQ 
 helpless women and innocent children were butchered by 
 Cromwell and his soldiers. Many a sad scene was enacted 
 in that town; but the scene of triumph I have described 
 compensated for all. 
 
 The Irish army was now divided into two battalions. 
 One under the command of Father John Murphy and 
 Father Philip Roche proceeded back to Enniscorthy, Noav- 
 townbarry, and Gorey, until the whole north of the county 
 was under their control. The second battalion was under 
 General Harvey, who proceeded to the attack of New Ross, 
 the only remaining town of importance remaining in the 
 hands of the English. Upon the efforts of this second bat- 
 talion the result of the final struggle depended, and the 
 battle of New Ross was the turning point. The town was 
 the most important military position of the whole county, 
 affording communication, as it did, with Waterford and the 
 rest of Munster; and the English, recognizing the im- 
 portance of the place, garrisoned it with some thousands of 
 disciplined troops rmder General Johnson. Harvey occupied 
 a position three-quarters of a mile outside the town, on 
 Corbett Hill ; and he sent a flag of truce to the English 
 army, calling for the surrender of the town, to save life and 
 property, but the bearer, Mr. Furlong, was shot down as he 
 approached the ranks of the enemy. 
 
 Harvey had laid elaborate plans of attack, but his troops^ 
 when they saw this dastardly outrage, thirsting for revenge 
 burst headlong to the fray. New Ross was a fortified town, 
 and the black buttresses of the Three Bullet Gate tell to 
 
168 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 this day of the conflict which the spot witnessed, and there 
 stands a Keltic cross to the memory of the men who fell 
 upon the spot, erected by their sons. At this gate the 
 struggle was fearful. The Irish were mowed down by the 
 English artillery, but fresh lines took their places ; after 
 hours of struggle and fearful losses the Irish forced the 
 gates, driving the English troops down the precipitous 
 streets, and never stopping till they had driven them into 
 or across the River Barrow, which skirts the tov/ji. 
 
 To the courage of the Irish in this encounter, an English- 
 man, Sir Richard Musgrave, a bitter enemy of Ireland, has 
 borne testimony. He says : — 
 
 " Such was the enthusiasm, that though whole ranks of them were 
 seen to fall, they were succeeded by others who seemed to court the 
 fate of their companions by rushing on our troops with renewed 
 ardour." 
 
 Alas, that such intrepidity should have had such a sequel I 
 For the first time in the campaign, the Irish troops, in the 
 moment of victory, gave way to excesses, Harvey, who 
 showed but little courage or wisdom, lost all control over 
 the troops, who gave themselves up to intemperance. The 
 English troops, on the other side of the river, seeing this, 
 re-formed their ranks, and as night approached made an 
 attack upon the town, met with but the feeble resistance 
 of intoxicated men, and the town, which a few hours before 
 was won with such desperate valour, was now lost to Ireland 
 through intemperance. What man can say how many 
 losses Ireland has sustained from that day to this from the 
 same cause 1 
 
 All that was left of the Irish troops, broken and dis- 
 heartened, now withdrew along the road towards Wexford, 
 and encamped within a few miles of that town ; and the now 
 victorious and sober En2;lish. more inhuman than the Irish 
 
We:vford in '98. 169 
 
 when intoxicated, butchered their prisoners in cold blood, and 
 perpetrated severities and cruelties of every kind upon the 
 unfortunate inhabitants of New Ross, They pillaged and 
 burnt the town, and no life was spared except those of men 
 who wore the British uniform. 
 
 The battle of New Ross has afforded a theme for many a 
 historic anecdote. In the pages of its history we read many 
 a touching, pathetic, and romantic incident; but most of 
 the stories of New Ross live in the minds and hearts of the 
 descendants of the men who fell. Two or three occur to 
 my mind. It is told of a youthful leader of the Irish army, 
 who bore the name that I bear, that seeing the troops 
 disheartened at the arrival of some English artillery, and 
 fearing that unless a noble example of courage were given 
 them they wovdd break and. flee, rushed up to the movith of 
 a cannon, and placing his hand on it exclaimed, " Come on, 
 boys, they are harmless." They came ; and just as they 
 were charging towards the gun on which his hand rested, 
 it exploded, and he was blown to pieces. It is said that 
 when the news was brought to the old fathei- of the son's 
 death, he said : — 
 
 " Well, I can spare the life of one son, because I have four more 
 fighting in the ranks of the Irish army. " 
 
 I read a touching incident the other day, and I will read 
 it for you now. It says : — 
 
 "In this division were two young men remarkable for their early 
 attachment and continued friendship. Tliey were amongst the first 
 to take up arms, and from that moment had never heea. separaied. 
 They fought side by side, cheering, defending, and encouraging each 
 other, as if the success of the field solely depended on their exertions. 
 One had an only sister ; she was the pride of a widowed mother, the 
 loved and admired of their village, where to this hour the perfection 
 of her beauty is described. She had seen her brother and his friend 
 march to the field : she had bidden the one adieu with the fond 
 
170 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 affection of a sister, but a feeling more tender watched for the safety 
 of the other. Every hour's absence rendered separation more painful ; 
 every moment created additional suspense. She resolved to follow 
 her brother — her lover — to the field. The fatal morn when she 
 reached the camp the troops of the Union were in motion. She 
 joined the embattled ranks. The enthusiasm of love supported her 
 through the perils of the fight, but borne down in the retreat, she fell 
 in the indiscriminate slaughter, while her brother and her lover 
 perished by her side." 
 
 And there is, perhaps, a more pathetic story than any of 
 them, which I recently came across, but which I have never 
 seen in any history of the rebelHon in Wexford, or any 
 account of these events. I myself know the spot well. It 
 is a place called Killane. There is there a ruined house, 
 clothed with a mantle of green ivy, and round it hangs 
 the story that I will teU yovi. 
 
 At the commencement of the struggle there lived there an 
 old farmer, his son, and his daughter. They had been a 
 thrifty, industrious family, and had succeeded in laying up a 
 little store of money, so that the children, when the old 
 man died, if they chose, would have been practically inde- 
 pendent of agricultural pursuits. At the commencement of 
 the struggle the old man died, and shortly afterwards a body 
 of yeomaiary surrounded the house and dragged away the 
 son. He was followed by his sister, a girl whose beauty 
 was the theme of every tongue, and braving the dangers 
 "ij^hich beauty was sure to meet with in the ranks of the 
 dissolute soldiery of England, she followed him from place 
 to place, until he wa,s brought at last to a drum head court- 
 martial, for the sole offence of being svispected of sympa- 
 thising with the cause of his country. He was condemned 
 to instant death, and the nearest tree was to become his 
 gibbet. In an agony of despair, the young girl flung herself 
 at the feet of the commanding officer, and begged him ta 
 
Wexford in '08. 171 
 
 spare her brother's life. But he was inexorable, although 
 somewhat touched by her beauty and her grief, and by way 
 of concession he said : — • 
 
 "I cannot spare his life, but I will not allow his body to be 
 mutilated." 
 
 It was the custom then when a body was hano^ed to 
 disembowel and disfigure it. He promised that this would 
 not be done in the case of this young man, and said also 
 that he would give the body to her so that it might be 
 decently interred. 
 
 And, with a fortitude which touched even the hard 
 hearts of those who surrounded her, this girl stood tearless 
 by the tree on which her brother v/as hanged before her 
 eyes. The body was given to her, and the next day was 
 buried in the neighbouring churchyard, and the girl returned 
 to her home. From that day a change came over her life, 
 and mind, and character. She banished everyone and gave 
 up the farm, retaining only the house. She discharged the 
 servants, and retained only an old woman who had nursed 
 her, and had known her father and grandfather, and, what 
 astonished everybody, the young man to whom she had 
 been about to give her hand, with her heart in it, was 
 repulsed from that day. She turned cold looks upon him, 
 and he wondered long what change had come over the 
 beautiful Kathleen. She lived the life of a hermit, and 
 never spoke to a soul except the old retainer. Years passed 
 over, the rebellion was suppressed, and one day the mystery 
 was solved. The priest and the doctor were sent for to the 
 cabin, and instead of finding that they were called in to 
 give their ministrations to the girl or her old retainer, they 
 found that they were called to the death-bed of the brother 
 who as everybody supposed had been hanged and buried. 
 
172 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 The truth was tlie body the gh'l had brouglit home she 
 <;ould not believe was a corpse, and she chafed the cakl 
 hands and kissed the inanimate lips, and with a wild cry 
 slie awoke to the consciousness that her brother lived, but 
 with that consciousness came another of a horrible chai-acter 
 — the consciousness that, if it were known he was alive, he 
 would be torn from her again and executed; and still 
 another consciousness, more horrible still, that the brother 
 who had come back to life was a brother whose mind was 
 gone. From that day she sacrificed her young life to her 
 demented and deformed brother. For his sake she repulsed 
 the man who had won her heart; for his sake she shut 
 herself out from the world and sacrificed her young life to 
 attend by his bedside, until the Lord, in His mercy, called 
 him away ; and she did not tarr}' long after him, for tlie 
 neighbours next heard that poor Kathleen was about to be 
 brought out to lie with her forefathers in the country church- 
 yard. 
 
 These are the kind of memories that live in my native 
 county. These are the memories that make the men of 
 AVexford the most determined to stand by the cause for 
 Avhich their fathers suffered and died. 
 
 I am afraid I have di^;gressed somewhat. I will now 
 take up my narrative iigain. 
 
 From the day of the battle of New Ross the fortunes of 
 the Irish party seemed to change — siiccess deserted them. 
 It would be wearisome for me to sketch all the details of 
 the remainder of the struggle, The last important eng;ige- 
 anent was the attack of the British troops upon historic 
 Vinegar Hill. For many weeks before the Government 
 had been drafting recruits from every side into Wexford, 
 \u\ti\ at last the English commander hatl at his disposal an 
 army of over 20,000 men to make the attack. The Irish 
 
Wexford in '98. 173 
 
 on Vinegar Hill were suiTOunded with artillery. Of the 
 marvellous and dogged courage which they then displayed 
 it is unnecessary for me to speak. For hours they liter- 
 ally fought more like demons than men, and all historians 
 agree in saving that the carnage was frightful. At last, to 
 superior numbers, and arms, and generals, the Irish suc- 
 cumbed, and aU that was left of the Irish army of Vinegar 
 Hill retreated, shattered and broken, back to Wexford, 
 where they joined the remnant of the New Ross battalion, 
 and encamped upon the Three Rock Mountain. 
 
 Before I leave this Vinegar Hill, I may be allowed to say 
 that there are more memories surrounding it than any othei- 
 spot, perhaps, in Ireland. There is no Wexford man all 
 over the woi'ld whose heart will not beat quicker at the 
 sound of its name. 
 
 There is on the top of this hill a rock through which 
 there runs a red vein which many believe to be the mark of 
 blood of our forefathers shed in '98. 
 
 Vinegar Hill is a place of pilgrimage, and no Wexford 
 man passes it without raising his hat. 
 
 I have seen the venerable patriot, John Martin, bare his 
 aged head and bow his knee on the top of Vinegar Hill, 
 and kiss the sod sanctified by the blood of so many Irish- 
 man; and it is a little incident showing how the memory of 
 Vinegar Hill is cherished by Wexford men that in Sydney 
 in 1883 I was presented by some Wexford men with a ring 
 in which was set a piece of stone from the top of Vinegar 
 Hill, brought to Australia as their most precious relic from 
 the old land. 
 
 From the defeat of Vinegar Hill the struggle may be said 
 to have been over, Enniscorthy and Wexford soon fell 
 into the hands of the English, and the Irish army, shattered 
 and disheartened, retreated, fighting its way as best it- 
 
174 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 could, its ranks growing thinner and thinner, through 
 Wicklow, Carlow, and Kildare, till at last the survivors died 
 fighting with something of their old courage on the banks 
 of the Boyne. 
 
 Then executions and tortures recommenced in Wexford. 
 Fitzgerald, Colclough, and Harvey, Father Roche, Father 
 Murphy, and all the leaders of the movement were hanged, 
 and quiet — the quiet of death — being restored, Lord Castle- 
 reagh, who, on liis own confession, had deliberately planned 
 the entire tragedy, now saw the passage clear for the legis 
 lative union. 
 
 Of the heroism of the men of Wexford during this struggle 
 no man who has read the records can have any doubt. 
 There is, however, a charge of cruelty and outrage made by 
 nearly every English historian against the people. This 
 rests solely on two events; the massacre at Scullabogue 
 barn, where forty or fifty English prisoners were put to 
 death ; and the Wexford bridge massacre — but these 
 atrocities were committed by camp follows of the Irish army. 
 We have it on the authority of English historians that, 
 provoked and suffering as they were, the Irish committed no 
 outrages but these two. 
 
 The massacre at Scullabogue was the deed of a number of 
 run-aways from the battle of Ross, who brought tidings — 
 which were perfectly true, that the victorious English troops 
 were putting all the rebel prisoners to the sword ; and in a 
 spirit of savage retaliation the English prisoners at Sculla- 
 bogue were similarly treated. The Irish leaders were in no 
 sense responsible, and General Harvey immediately resigned 
 his command in a great degree in consequence of this deed. 
 
 No one desires to palliate acts of cruelty, but in common 
 justice to the Irish it should be remembered that for these 
 isolated cases I have mentioned, there were scores of far 
 
Wexford in '98. 175 
 
 greater atrocity perpetrated by the English troops with the 
 full consent of their commanders. The massacre on the Gibbet 
 Rath in Kildare, where three hundred and fifty rebels 
 having surrendered their arms on promise of quarter, were 
 slaughtered by the troops, and the burning of the hospital 
 at Enniscorthy, where one hundred wounded rebels were 
 burned to death, far exceed in atrocity the massacre at 
 Scullabogue. 
 
 This proclamation, issued from headquarters, by General 
 Harvey, shows that the Irish army was not responsible : — 
 
 "Any person or persons who shall take upon them to kill or murder 
 any person or prisoner, burn any house, or commit any plunder, with- 
 out special written orders from the Commander-in-Chief, shall suffer 
 death. — By order of 
 
 " B. B. Haevet, Commander-in-Chief, 
 " F. Beeen, Adjutant-General. 
 "Head-quarters, Carrick-Byrne Camp, 6th June, 1798." 
 
 Here is another : — 
 
 "At this eventful period all Europe must admire, and posterity 
 will read with astonishment the heroic acts achieved by a people 
 strangers to military tactics, and having few professional commanders. 
 But what power can resist men fighting for liberty ! 
 
 " In the moment of triumph, my countrymen, let not your victories 
 be tarnished with any wanton act of cruelty. Many of those unfor- 
 tunate men now in prison were not our enemies from principle ; most 
 of them compelled by necessity, were obliged to oppose you. . . . 
 
 " To promote union of brotherhood and affection among our 
 countrymen of all religious persuasions has been our principle object. 
 We have sworn in the most solemn manner — we have associated for 
 this laudable pui-pose, and no power on earth shall shake oitr resolu- 
 tion. 
 
 "Edwaed Eoche. 
 " Wexford, 7th June, 1798." 
 
 These are the general orders of the Generals of the Irish 
 army. In all the pages of histories on this subject there is 
 not one single general order from the British commander to 
 
176 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 his troops to treat the Irish with humanity. Outrages, no 
 doubt, occurred on the popular side ; but we have complete 
 proof that they were not committed with the sanction or 
 connivance of the leaders of the army — but, as I said, by the 
 camp-followers. 
 
 Thus ended the war in Wexford county. It is estimated 
 that twenty thousand of the people of "Wexford perished in 
 the encounter, and that ten thousand of the English troops 
 perished also. It took as many men to vanquish the brave 
 but undisciplined men who formed the Irish ai'my, as 
 Wellington had at his disposal at Waterloo. 
 
 I have now finished. I feel sure I have dealt with the 
 subject in an inadequate fashion. Yet I Iiope what I have 
 said will do something to vindicate the memory of the men 
 of '98 from the calumnies it is but too fashionable to heap 
 upon them even to-day. Almost one hundred years have 
 passed since those men lived, and suffered, and died. The 
 last survivor of the rising has been gathered to his fathers. 
 
 " Tlieir bones are dust, 
 Their good swords ru«t, 
 Their soiils are with the saints, we trust.'* 
 
 Looking back after the lapse of years on their struggles 
 and death, what lesson does their history teach to their descen- 
 dants 1 I may be told it is a history of failure. It is true 
 that in the vulgar acceptation of the word they failed. They 
 I'ose to shake off an intolerable and inhuman oppression, and, 
 failing, they paid the penalty of their lives ; but it has been 
 well sung — 
 
 " They never fail who die in a great cause." 
 
 And the defeated rebels of '98 have bequeathed to their 
 
Wexford in '98. 177 
 
 descendants, in lessons of unanimity, patriotism, and self- 
 sacrifice, a priceless heritage. 
 
 Next year the Irish race will celebrate the Centenary of 
 the so-called failure of '98. In the United States of America 
 there stand to-day two monuments erected to failures which 
 no man can gaze upon without emotion. One is the 
 monument on Bunker's Hill, erected to commemorate the 
 first battle of the Revolution, though that battle ended in 
 failure and defeat of the American troops. The other is a 
 monument in the far south— a noble shaft erected by the 
 women of the Southern States, and bearing the inscription : 
 " To the lost cavise." 
 
 The spirit which inspired these monuments — honour for 
 heroism, and gratitvxde for self-sacrifice — will inspire the 
 Irish people when next year they celebrate the Centenary of 
 '98 ; but our memorial will be erected not to " The lost 
 cause," but to " The cause that can never die." 
 
 Some of the rights which our forefathers struggled to 
 obtain have since their day been achieved. Let us never 
 forget others remain to be won. Ireland's right to nation- 
 hood, her right to separate and distinct national existence 
 and to national liberty has yet to be won. 
 
 Those in whose veins flows the blood of the men of '98 
 can never abandon the cause for which they died. The 
 triumph of that cause may not come in our day — but we 
 believe that triumph to be inevitable as firmly as we believe 
 in the existence of God. It is surely safe to prophecy that 
 when through the clouds and darkness of the longr and 
 weary night the dawn of liberty at last bursts on this land 
 the Irish people in the midst of their triumph and jubilation 
 will " absent them from felicity awhile," and kneeling at the 
 nameless graves of their martyrs — graves that mark every 
 foot of the road to freedom — will acknowledsfe with tears 
 
178 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 of gratitude and of pride that from their sufferings and 
 their heroism was drawn the inspiration which rendered 
 immortal and invincible the cause of Ireland's nationality. 
 
 " Then here's their memory may it be 
 
 To us a guiding light, 
 To cheer ciu* strife for liberty, 
 
 And teach us to unite. 
 Tlirough good and ill be Ireland's still, 
 
 Tho' sad as their's your fate, 
 And true men, be you men, 
 
 Like those of '98 ! " 
 
HOME RULE— ITS REAL MEANING. 
 
 LECTUEE DELIVERED IN' MELBOmXE, jrLT, 1883. 
 HOX. TBAXCIS LOI^GIIORE IN THE CHAIE. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 I FEEL that I vfoukl be wanting in gratitude if I did not 
 commence my remarks by telling you how much I have 
 been touched by the spontaneous enthusiasm with which 
 you have received me here to-night. For that I thank you, 
 and if, to-night, in handling my subject it becomes neces- 
 sary for me to deal with details which may seem tiresome 
 to very many of you, I have to ask your patience, because 
 it is of the utmost importance that the case of Ireland for 
 Home Rule should be stated calmly, dispassionately, and 
 logically. 
 
 You are probably aware that I purpose delivering three 
 addresses in this hall^ the first two dealing with an explan- 
 ation of the aims and objects of the Irish National League, 
 and the third devoted to a refutation of the accusations 
 made against the late Land League and the present leaders 
 of the Irish people. 
 
 There are some of my friends who think that it would be 
 well if I had opened my work in Victoria by taking the 
 last subject first ; but having thought the matter over, I 
 determined that I wou.ld refuse to allow myself to be driven 
 to enter upon a defence the moment I first spoke in 
 this Colony. 
 
180 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 My primary object in coming here has been to explain 
 the aims and objects of the organisation by which the Irish 
 people are working to-day ; having fulfilled that duty I am 
 ready, as I think I am able, to meet every accusation 
 against the late Land League, the present League, or the 
 integrity of the leaders of the people. 
 
 I have two things to ask. 
 
 First I ask the public to deal with those matters, which 
 are distinct matters, upon their merits ; to judge of Home 
 Rule upon its merits ; to deal with the Land Question 
 uj,on its merits, and then to consider the responsibility or 
 otherwise of the late Leagiie for the outrages, also upon its 
 merits, but not before they have heard the defence of the 
 one man who professes to speak as the direct mouthpiece of 
 that organisation. 
 
 Secondh", I have to ask the Press to I'eport every word I 
 say, or not to report me at all. 
 
 Manj- accusations have been made against us, but I shall 
 now only allude to one, and that is of a personal character. 
 It seems that some enterprising gentlemen in this colony 
 have discovered that I have modified my tone. Now I cart 
 quite understand that accusation. I can quite understand 
 that men who find it necessary to modify their tone seize 
 the excuse that I have modified mine. I challenge any 
 man to quote from any speech made by me in Australia, 
 or in the House of Commons, or on the hill-side in Ireland, 
 and to show where and when and how I have modified 
 either my demands or my tone. I have been moderate ; 
 but I have been moderate because I am a moderate man, 
 holding moderate principles, and the representative in this 
 land of a body of politicians who are moderate politicians. 
 
 The subject I have chosen for consideration to-night is 
 one which ought to prove of general interest. It has its 
 
Home Rule — Its Real Cleaning. 181 
 
 attractions, not only for those who, like myself, hope to see 
 Ireland transformed into a self-governed nation, but also 
 for those who, without sympathising Avith what they under- 
 stand by Home Rule, are anxious that the present con- 
 dition of poverty and discontent may be changed, and are 
 willing to consider, in the calm light of history and philo- 
 sophy, any scheme for that end which may be proposed 
 b}' responsible politicians. The question of Irish self- 
 government is the one, above all others, which offers most 
 temptations to an Irish speaker to rely upon appeals to the 
 passion and imagination of an Irish audience. This even- 
 ing, however, I promise to make no such appeals. I will 
 ^endeavour to speak dispassionately and impartially, to look 
 upon this question from every point of view, and, weighing 
 the arguments for and against the scheme, to see whether, 
 after all, our demand has not a solid foundation in theoretic 
 reasonableness, in practical advantage, as well as in justice. 
 Without fiirther preface, let me get into my subject. 
 
 What do I mean by Home Rule 1 I mean by Home 
 Rule the restoration to Ireland of representative govern- 
 ment, and I define representative government to mean 
 government in accordance with the constitutionally ex- 
 pressed will of a majoi-ity of the people, and carried out by 
 a ministery constitutionally responsible to those whom they 
 govern. In other Avords, I mean that the internal affairs of 
 Ireland shall be regulated by an Irish Parliament — that all 
 Imperial affairs, and all that relates to the Colonies, foreign 
 States, and common interests of the Empire, shall continue 
 to be regulated by the Imperial Parliament as at present 
 constituted. The idea at the bottom of this proposal is the 
 desirabilitj- of finding some middle coui-se between separa- 
 tion on the one hand, and OA^er-centralisation of government 
 on the other. Those Avho propose this scheme consider that 
 
182 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 it is undesirable that two countries so closely connected 
 geographically and socially, and having so many commercial 
 and international ties, should be wholly separated, or that 
 any dismemberment of the Empire, which Ireland has had 
 her share in building up, should take place. But they are 
 just as strongly of opinion that it is equally undesirable 
 that one country should control the domestic affairs of 
 another whose wants and aspirations it confessedly does not 
 understand, whose various needs it admittedly has not time 
 to attend to, and whose national life such a system of 
 government tends to destroy. They propose a middle course. 
 They say to England : — 
 
 " Retain every guarantee for the unity and strength of 
 the Empire, but give up a task which you have proved your- 
 self incompetent to fulfil satisfactorily. Subdivide the 
 labours of an over-burdened Parliament, and relegate to 
 Irishmen the management of purely Irish affairs, which they 
 alone can thoroughly understand. Let us join for every 
 Imperial purpose, and defend the Empire, which is the 
 heritage of both of us, but let each give up, once and for all, 
 the attempt to rule the] domestic affairs of each other. Let 
 us have national freedom and Imperial unity and strength." 
 
 This is the meaning of the present demand of the Irish 
 people for Home Rule. Bvit you may say: — 
 
 " This is but a very cursory definition of a general prin- 
 ciple ; what of details ? " 
 
 Well, as soon as the principle is conceded, the details for 
 carrying that principle into effect may, I think, safely be 
 left to the collective wisdom of Englishmen, Irishmen, and 
 Scotchmen in the Imperial Parliament. It is irregular 
 and confusing to discuss details until we have decided upon 
 principles. But it is perhaps not unreasonable to ask foi 
 some suggestions. Mr, Isaac Butt, who was its first pro- 
 
Home Rule— Its Real Meaning. 183 
 
 jx)ser, has left upon record a sketch of its details. These, 
 of course, are only put forward as the individual suggestions 
 of that gentleman, and not as essential portions of the pro- 
 posal. Mr. Butt saj'S : — 
 
 "As to the Crown, it is not proposed to affect its prerog'atives at all- 
 The only change would be that, in exclusively Irish matters, it woiild 
 be guided by the advice of an Irish Parliament and an Irish Ministrj^ 
 In all other affairs it would continue, as at present, to be guided by 
 the advice of the Imperial Legislature, As to the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment, it would continue to have precisely the same supreme powers 
 that it now possesses over all Imperial affairs— just as completely as 
 if no Irish Parliament existed. Its jurisdiction would include every 
 international transaction, all relations with foreign States, all ques- 
 tions of peace and war, the government of the Colonies, the army, navy, 
 and all that relates to the defence and stability of the Empire ; con- 
 trol of the Imperial Customs and general trade regulations ; control 
 of expenditure and supplies for all Imperial purposes ; power to levy 
 general taxation for siich purposes ; charge of the public debt and the 
 Imperial Civil List ; and sovereign power within the limits of its attri- 
 butions over individual citizens of both countries. But it should be 
 settled beforehand in what proportion Ireland should contribute ta 
 such expenditure — with what share of the public debt she is fairly 
 chargeable ; what part of the Imperial Civil List she should pay ; and 
 taxation should be adjusted, not only as to amount, but as to mode, in 
 such a manner that its burden would be equitably distributed through- 
 out every part of the United Kingdom. Of course Ireland would 
 continue to be represented in the Imperial Parliament on Imperial 
 questions, but on these only. For all Imperial purposes the two 
 countries Vv'ould continue to be a ' United Kingdom,' and to constitute 
 in the face of other nations one Imperial State. As to the Irish Par- 
 liament, it would have supreme control over the internal affairs of 
 Ireland, jiist as if no Imperial Parliament existed. Its jurisdiction, 
 would include every exclusively Irish interest : education, agriculture, 
 commerce, manufactures, public works, courts of justice, magistracy,, 
 public railways, post-ofSce, corporations, grand juries, and every other 
 detail of Irish business and Irish National life. ... It would be 
 composed of the Sovereign, Lords and Commons of Ireland. The 
 sovereignty of both kingdoms would continue and would be declared to 
 be indissolubly united. ... In respect of aU exclusively Irish in- 
 terests the Irish Parliament, so constituted, would rank, act and rale 
 as the Parliament of an independent nation." 
 
184 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 But lest some people might say that I am quoting Mr. 
 Butt and not the present leaders of the movement for Home 
 Rule, who are supposed in this country to be more advanced 
 than Mr. Butt was, I will read a conversation which took 
 place at an interview between a Parisian journalist and Mr. 
 Parnell : — 
 
 " M. Cornely— So far we have dismis-sed the disease. What about 
 the remedy ? 
 
 ' ' Mr. Parnell — There is but one — Home Rule autonomy. We wish 
 to enjoy the rights belonging to us as other subjects of the United 
 Kingdom. We are tired of the position of pariah. In my soul and 
 conscience I believe we shall win, and within a reasonable time. 
 
 " M. Comely — I wish you may. But what do you want exactly ? 
 
 "Mr. Parnell— A Parliament of our own — a Government of our 
 own, with a natural result — liberty. You will better understand me 
 when I say that we should bo assimilated to a state of things that 
 exists in Canada or the Isle of Man. 
 
 " M, Comely — And what control would the English have ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell — We would not cease to be subjects of the United 
 Kingdom. The Queen would be our Queen, She would be the link 
 that would attach Ireland to Great Britain. We would consent even 
 to be governed by a Viceroy, provided there were no excex^tiocal laws, 
 and that the Vice.oy had no more rights, no arbitrary powers over us, 
 than Queen Victoria has over her English or Scotch subjects. Politi- 
 cal peace will never he oi/tained until the day lohen tee are treated 
 as a nation, or at least as a free colony, and when tee shall have an Irish 
 Parliament. The day luhen Ireland shall become like Canada or the Isle 
 of 31 an, as I have told you, the day 'when the Viceroy, if Viceroy there 
 shall he, shall have over Ireland no more rights than the Queen, of whom 
 he is delegate, has over England.'" 
 
 Now that is what the Irish people mean by Home Rule, 
 both in principle and detail. The first thing I have a right 
 to claim is that this proposal is not either vague or unintei- 
 ligigible. It is clear, precise, and abundant in detail. 
 Secondly, I have a right to say it is not a proposal for sepa- 
 ration. One of its essential conditions is the preservation of 
 the unity of the Empire. The scheme is totally inconsistent 
 
Home Rule — Its Ileal Meaning. 185 
 
 ■with separation. A federal union and separation are en- 
 tirely distinct things, and if I am to argue this matter 
 reasonably, my opponents must recognise and acknowledge 
 the distinction. Thirdly, I have a right to say that it is not 
 communistic or revolutionary. It aims simply at a preven- 
 tion of over-centralisation, and it violates not one principle 
 of the Constitution, I will now proceed to consider whether 
 I am entitled to say that our proposal is a reasonable one 
 theoretically. 
 
 Let us see, first, whether it is a proposal judged by the 
 test of common sense which would seem a reasonable one to 
 suggest as a remedy for the present deplorable condition of 
 things in Ireland. Let us see, then, whether it bears the 
 recommendation of political philosophy ; and, lastly, whether 
 it has the sanction of successful working in other nations at 
 other periods in the world's history, and in the British Em- 
 pii'e itself. What are the facts as presented by the political 
 situation of to-day ? Here we have two countries closely 
 connected geographically and socially, but distinct in historic 
 tradition, in religion, in national instinct and national 
 natures. Speaking the one language, belonging to the one 
 Empire, composed to some extent of an admixture of the 
 same races, yet presenting to the world national chai^acteris- 
 tics as essentially distinct as any two nations in the universe. 
 Historically, Ireland is the elder. She can boast of having 
 been a civilised and famous nation when England was a 
 barbarous province of tlie Roman Empire. But long ages 
 since Enland reversed the balance. She has been rich, 
 prosperous and free, while Ireland was poor, miserable, and 
 subject. For seven centuries England has more or less suc- 
 cessfully asserted her sway, but Ireland, 'mid unparalleled 
 suffering, has struggled, age after age, for the preservation 
 of her nationality and her freedom. For over 600 years 
 
186 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Ireland had her own Parliament upon Irish soil, subject, it 
 is true, more or less at different times to England, but still 
 all this time a distinct legislature. 
 
 In 1782 Henry Grattan, backed by the Irish Volunteers, 
 declared that no power on earth had the right to legislate 
 for the Irish people save the Sovereign, Lords, and Commons 
 of Ireland, and he enunciated the memorable doctrine 
 
 " Tiiey knew their duty to their sovereign, and they were loyal ; 
 they knew their duty to themselves, and were determined to he 
 free." 
 
 In that happy moment England yielded, and for the short 
 span of eighteen glorious years Ii'eland, under an absolutely 
 free and independent Parliament, prospered and advanced 
 with enormous strides in power and in prosperity. But, 
 history tells us how a conspiracy was entered into to rob 
 Ii'eland of her rights. The means whereby the Union was 
 carried have received the scathing denvinciations of all his- 
 torians of all nationalities and all shades of religious opinion 
 and political thought, A great Irishman, one of the pre- 
 sent leaders of the National movement, has said that what 
 is morally wrong can never be politically right, and the 
 scheme of Pitt and Castlereagh, carried as it was by bribery 
 and corruption, by violence and murder, stands to-day upon 
 the page of history as the hughest political crime and blun- 
 der of the century. Erom that moment down to the present 
 day Ireland has been ruled by Englishmen and Scotchmen, 
 and it requires no words of mine to prove the utter failure 
 of the system — a system w^hich in eighty-three years has 
 necessitated the enactment of no less than fifty-two Coercion 
 Acts — a system which in eighty -three years has been marked 
 by half-a-dozen famines, by four unsuccessful rebellions, 
 and which necessitates to-day a standing army in Ireland 
 
Home Rule— Its Real Meaning. 187 
 
 absolutely larger than England had in the Crimea when she 
 was fighting Russia. 
 
 One of the acutest political thinkers of the day, Mr. Lecky, 
 has said that : — 
 
 " Pitt's ficlieme centralised but did not unite, or rather united the 
 the legislatures, but divided the nations." 
 
 True, Ireland sends a certain number of Members to the 
 House of Commons, but they are invariably defeated on 
 purely Irish matters by Englishmen and Scotchmen, and in 
 every detail of her political life Ireland is ruled by English- 
 men and Scotchmen. At first she was ruled brutally, but 
 I am one of those who are not only willing but proud and 
 glad to be able to admit that there is in England a number, 
 and a rapidly increasing number, of Englishmen who are 
 "willing to do justice to Ireland. But they neither have 
 time to attend to her wants nor knowledge to understand 
 them. 
 
 The Imperial Parliament at the present moment is over- 
 burdened with work of every description. Day by day the 
 pressure is becoming more extreme, and all thoughtful men 
 now say that reform is absolvitely necessary. The effect of 
 all this upon Ireland has been most disastrous. She has 
 been depopulated and pauperised ; her industries have per- 
 ished ; her men of wealth and genius have left her shores. 
 Her people, deprived of all sense of responsibility, have too 
 often been left a prey to men of desperate designs. All, all 
 seems gone, save one thing, that has lived through it all, and 
 that is Ireland's undying faith in the ultimate triumph of 
 her nationality. 
 
 This is the state of things ! These are the facts of the poli- 
 tical situation which, for every body 's sake, we ask Englishmen 
 honestly to face to-day. Surely common sense would re- 
 
188 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 ■commend as a remedy the very scheme which we propose. 
 Surely common sense wovdd say : — 
 
 " Lighten the work of the already over-burdened Parlia- 
 ment — relieve it of a task which it has proved itself in- 
 competent to fulfil — relegate to Irishmen the management of 
 Irish affairs, which they alone can thoroughly understand." 
 
 Common sense, I know, counts for a great deal in 
 this world, but standing alone, it is very often dis- 
 regarded. 
 
 I now ask, is our proposal reasonable, judged by the test 
 of political philosophy 1 It is not necessary for me to tell you 
 that the federal system which we propose is not a new- 
 fangled plan, invented for the occasion, but one that has 
 existed from the very earliest times. At all times in the 
 world's history there have been found nations so closely 
 connected by circumstances of position or mutual interests 
 at to make it desirable that they should be united in one 
 common state, 3^et so distinct in national characteristics as 
 to make it not only undesirable but impossible to weld 
 them into one homogeneous nation. To suit this state of 
 things the federal system was invented. Let the distin- 
 guished historian, Mr. Freeman, explain to what set of 
 circumstances it applies, and remember he speaks now 
 without any reference so Ireland. That gentleman, in his 
 History of Federalism, says : — 
 
 " The federal system requires a sufficient degree of community in 
 origin, or feeling, or interest, to allow the members to work togethet 
 up to a certain point. It requires that there should not be that 
 perfect degree of community, or rather identity, which allows tha 
 members to be fused together for all purposes. When there is no 
 community at all federalism is inappropriate— the cities or states had 
 better remain wholly independent. VVhen community rises into 
 identity federalism is equally inappropriate — the cities or states had 
 better both sink into the counties of a kingdom. But in the inter- 
 
Home Rule — lis Real Meaning. 180 
 
 mediate &et of circumstances . . . federalism is the true solvent. 
 It gives as much uuioa as the members need, and not more tlian they 
 need."' 
 
 Now, I contend that the intermediate state of things 
 there desciubed exactly portrays the present relations 
 betv/een England and Ireland, and I consequently contend 
 that I am justified in saying that my proposition is not 
 only reasonable when judged by the test of common sense, 
 but that it is also reasonable when judged by the test of 
 political philosophy. 
 
 Now let us see whether it has the sanction of successful 
 working in other nations, and at other periods of the 
 world's history. In tnith, the very sviperabundance of 
 evidence in favour of the federal system constitutes my 
 chief difficulty in dealing with this part of the subject. If 
 I dealt with it fully I would be obliged to relate some of 
 the most glorious chapters in the world's history. All time 
 permits me to do is to give two or thi-ee instances from the 
 past and present history of the world. 
 
 In ancient times the most I'emarkable instance of the 
 success of the system was the Achaican League. In the 
 heyday of Grecian power every city was a state and every 
 state was independent. But with the fall of Athens came 
 the necessity for combination to resist the encroachments 
 of Macedonia. Each of these states retained home rule 
 and supreme control over their own affairs, but they united 
 for the common purpose of defence, and history tells us 
 that the federalism then adopted ari-ested Hellenic de- 
 cadence for centuries. 
 
 The most remarkable instance in mediaeval times is fur- 
 nished by the history of the United Provinces of the 
 Netherlands. Here again was an instance of a number of 
 communities so bound together by mutu.al interests as to 
 
190 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 make it essential that they should be united in a common 
 state, yet so distinct in their traditions and characteristics 
 as to make it impossible for them to be welded into one 
 nation. They united, but each province retained supi'eme 
 control of its own affairs. They united in one state, with 
 one sovereign and one aimy, and histoiy tells us that the 
 federalism they then adopted enabled them to hold their 
 country against Spain when Spain was mistress of the 
 woiid. 
 
 Switzerland presents an instance of federalism com- 
 menced long ages ago and lasting down to the px'esent day. 
 Their position made it necessary for the cantons of Switzer- 
 land to be united ; but their diversity of customs and 
 religion, not half so marked as those between England and 
 Ireland, made it impossible that they should be welded into 
 one nation. Each of the cantons to-day possesses Home 
 Rule, while the general government watches over the 
 prosper'ity and honour of every one of them. 
 
 Of course the most remarkable instance of modern times 
 is supplied by the history of the great republic of America. 
 It is not my duty now to enter into an explanation or 
 defence of the Constitution of America. I may be told that 
 that Constitution has its defects. I have never read of any 
 political constitution that v/as perfect, but it is a remarkable 
 thing that the so-called defects in the American Constitution 
 all seem to flow from divergencies from the pure principle 
 of federalism ; and, at any rate, the fact remains that in 
 the very short space of a century these federated States 
 have built up a great and free nation. Every State has 
 its own Parliament, has supreme control over its own 
 aflairs, while Congress, representing all the States, guards 
 the national honour and national prosperity. Monsieur 
 De Tocqueville says : — 
 
Home Rule — Its Real Meaning. 191 
 
 " Every American citizen defends the union, because in defending 
 the Union he knows he is defending the increased prosperity and 
 freedom of his own State." 
 
 In 1814 Norway and Sweden adopted the federal 
 system, and later still, and within the recollection of even 
 the youngest of us here, Austria conceded to the State of 
 Hungary, after a long, bitter and useless struggle, the very 
 same privileges which Ireland now demands from England. 
 But, after all, those examples which come home to our 
 hearts and minds more forcibly than any are those supplied 
 by the British Empire to-day. Here, in each one of these 
 Australian colonies, you possess and you jealously guard 
 the principles of Home Rule. I have asked repeatedly since 
 I came to this country, and I now ask again, for some 
 intelligent reasons why Australians should refuse to concede 
 to Ireland that which they themselves acknowledge is the 
 source and the cause of their own prosperity and their own 
 loyalty. What England granted to Australia she granted 
 to Canada. I hold in my iiand a list of places to which 
 England has already conceded the right of self-government 
 which Ireland now demands. The lists includes twenty-five 
 different dependencies which are now in possession of Home 
 Rule. 
 
 The Bahamas are eighteen small islands containing a 
 population of less than 40,000 persons, and of these about 
 an eight are white. Home Rule exists there. The domestic 
 legislature is elected by the people. 
 
 Barbadoes is an island containing a population of 
 171,889. It has Home Rtde, its assembl}', elected annually, 
 administers its domestic affairs. 
 
 The Bermudas, 12, 000 inhabitants. They enjoy Home 
 Rule. 
 
 The Cape of Good Hope, with a population one-fifth that 
 
192 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 of Ireland, and only oue-f oui'th European, was granted Home 
 Rule thirty years ago. Natal, an integral part of the Cape 
 settlement was dissatisfied with Cape control, and was 
 allowed autonomy in 1856. 
 
 Sierre Leone contained ten years ago one hundred white 
 men and thirty white women, but it enjoys Home Rule. 
 
 British Guiana enjoyed Home Rule for nearly a century. 
 
 Honduras has Home Rule. 
 
 Dominica has Home Rule. 
 
 St. Vincent is a beautiful oval Island, eleven miles wide 
 and eighteen long. It has Home Rule. 
 
 Tobago, in 1834, emancipatad its slaves, paying their 
 masters compensation, and blossoms under Home Rule. 
 
 Australia was granted legislative independence. Australia 
 West is under Home Rule. 
 
 New South Wales has its own domestic government. 
 
 New Zealand has boasted Home Rule for more than forty 
 years. 
 
 Queensland is governed also by its own legislature. 
 
 Tasmania is governed by a legislature elected by the people. 
 
 Victoria also, 
 
 Alderney, eight miles in circumferences is unquestionably 
 possessed of Home Rule. 
 
 Guernsey makes its own laws, imposes its own taxes. 
 
 The tiny Isle of Man, seventy-five miles in circumference, 
 enjoys Home Rule in the fullest and most effective form. 
 
 The Dominion of Canada is technically included in 
 colonial dependencies of Great Britain, and is comparatively 
 the most sti'iking illustration of the fact of Home Rule 
 antagonising the law of disintegration in great empires. 
 
 I may be told that in not one of these cases are the 
 circumstances precisely the same as in the case of Ireland. 
 I don't suppose that any two cases in history are precisely 
 
Home Rule — Its Real Meaning. 193 
 
 the same in all their features, but I think there is sufficient 
 similarity in the cases I have quoted to warrant my asser 
 tion that my proposition is not only reasonable theoretically 
 judged by the test of common sense and of political philo 
 sophy, but also because it has the sanction of successful 
 working in other nations, at other times, and in the British 
 Empire itself. 
 
 Now having, I think, established my proposition that 
 Home Rule is reasonable theoretically, I will proceed to 
 consider whether it is a proposition that is likely to 
 prove advantageous in practice. 
 
 My jfirst proof of this is supplied by the instances I have 
 already quoted of its successfvil working in other nations, 
 at other times, and in the British Empire to-day. It is for 
 my opponents to prove, if they can, that what has created 
 prosperity and strengthened loyalty in Australia would 
 have a different effect in Ireland. As it is with an 
 individual, so it is with a nation. No one can transact its 
 business as well as itself. Unless a man or a community 
 be mad they must understand their own business better than 
 anyone else. Deprive a man of the right of governing his own 
 affairs himself and what happens 1 If he submits you turn 
 him into a slave. You kill in him all genius, all talent, all 
 enterprise, all energy, all interest in life. Treat a nation in 
 the same way, and with no sense of responsibility left to 
 them you may make the people reckless. You ruin self- 
 reliance, you kill energy, and enterprise, and industry. No 
 nation so treated has ever prospered ; yet this is the posi- 
 tion in which they insist upon keeping Ireland to-day. They 
 can't say it is because we are unfitted for self-government, 
 for their own historians say in every page they have ever 
 written on the subject that in the eighteen years of Irish 
 rule Ireland advanced in prosperity, the arts of peace, and 
 
194 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 good government, and presented to the gaze of the world 
 and the admiration of posterity a galaxy of gi-eat men 
 whose names will live as long as the English tongue. And 
 from that day to this Irishmen have been going throvigh the 
 world providing the best governors and ablest statesmen to 
 the colonies of England. 
 
 There are two things that are absolutely essential to the 
 Buccessful fulfilment of its duty by Parliament. The first is 
 time to transact its business, and the second is knowledge to 
 understand it. Now, if there is one thing vipon which all 
 men at home are agreed it is this, that the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment has not at its disposal one-half the time necessary to 
 transact all the important business it is supposed to do. 
 Leaving aside all matters of foreign and colonial moment, 
 there are at this time suflS.cient Irish questions waiting for 
 settlement to occupy the undivided attention of the Imperial 
 Parliament for several years. The same remark applies to 
 Enorlish and Scotch afi'airs. Matters of the most vital con- 
 sequence to England and Scotland had to be shelved last 
 session, and now this session, Mr. Gladstone has announced, 
 it to be a purely English one, which means that Irish 
 grievances, which he has acknowledged are crying for 
 redress, must again be neglected. The question of the day 
 par excellence is how to lighten the labom' of the Imperial 
 Parliament, and Mr. Gladstone has admitted that this can 
 only be done by decentralisation, or, as we call it, Home 
 Rule. But, deficient as the Imperial Parliament is in the 
 time at its disposal, it is equally deficient in that intimate 
 knowledge which is necessary for successful Irish legislation. 
 It is a matter about which there can be no cavil that the 
 ordinary English and Scotch member knows little or nothing 
 about Ireland. He has never been there. He has never 
 studied any of our great social or political problems, and is 
 
 I 
 
Home Rule — Its Real Meaning. 195 
 
 not bound to the country by any ties, either of birth, 
 parentage, property, or affection. Under these circum- 
 stances, is it to be wondered if blundei^s of the most serious 
 and sometimes most ludicrous character creep into the 
 legislation of the House of Commons ? The Viceroy is an 
 Englishman, the Chief Secretary is a Scotchman, and the 
 Under Secretary is an Englishman, and through all the 
 Executive every ofl&cer is either a Scotchman or an English- 
 man. No doubt many of them are men of capacity, but 
 they are devoid of that intimate knowledge which can only 
 be attained by living amongst the people and knowing 
 them, and which is absolutely essential to the successful 
 government of the country. 
 
 It is a very significant thing that in every constitutionally 
 governed country in the world there is one essential con- 
 dition which must be fulfilled before any man can become a 
 Minister of the Crown, and that is that he shall represent 
 the will of the majority of the people and have their con- 
 fidence. In Ireland there is also an essential condition thtit 
 must be fulfilled before any man can hold office under the 
 Crown, and that is, that before accepting office he m\ist hold 
 opinions notoriously opposed to those of the people he is 
 going to govern. Under these circumstances can there be 
 any wonder if Irishmen are discontented with the present 
 system of government ? Can there be any wonder that 
 Irish wants and aspirations are misunderstood 1 Can there 
 be any doubt of the enormous practical advantage which 
 would ensue to Ireland from the adoption of the principle 
 of federalism, whereby Irish matters would be ruled wholly 
 by Irishmen, who alone can thoroughly vinderstand them ? 
 
 Ah ! were I to mention all those Irish interests and 
 industries which would be benefited by Home Rule I shodd 
 name every Irish interest and every Irish industry — the 
 
196 Historical and Political Addresses, 
 
 agricultural interest, the manufacturing interest, the rail- 
 way interest, the fisheries, aU languishing and neglected; 
 the commerce of the country ruined; the general trade 
 paralysed ; the education of the country stunted; the 
 national life of the country suppressed. A man whose 
 words should be received with weight in this country has 
 Avritten upon this subject, and I will read a few sentences 
 from what he says. The man I refer to is Sir George Grey. 
 He says : — 
 
 " Give to Ireland a State Legislature and a State Executive in 
 Dublin; secure thereby the residence of its ablest men in the country, 
 open a fair field as Ministers, legi-lators, orators to its best and wisest 
 men ; afford from the same source, as would necessarily and certainly 
 be done, occupation to Irish architects, sculptors, painters ; and 
 secure a resident aristocracy of worth, talent, and wisdom ; and you 
 •will, at the same time, restore the wealth, trade, and commerce of 
 Dublin and Ireland. Dumb Ireland will then speak again. Half 
 inanimate Ireland will again awaken to national life and breathe the 
 breath of hope and freedom. Whilst, by again accustoming the Irish 
 people to the management of their own affairs, and to the administra- 
 tive duties of the highest order, a willing people will be educated ia 
 that political knowledge which will enable them to put an end to the 
 ills which afflict them, * the cause aud cure of which none can under- 
 stand so well as themselves.' " 
 
 So much then, for the practical advantages that would 
 result from Home Rule to Ireland ; but I may be asked what 
 practical advantages would ensue to England and the 
 Empire. What practical advantage to England 1 Will it 
 not l)e the means of relieving the over-burthened Imperial 
 Parliament, and of converting Ireland from what she ua^ 
 doubtedly is to-day, the weak spot in the armour of the 
 Empire, into a prosperous and coiatented portion of it ? 
 
 Grattan once warned Pitt that he was puUing down one 
 of the pillais of the Empire in passing the Union. I know- 
 not if Irish loyalty may be considered a pillar of the 
 
Home Rule — Its Real Meaning. 197 
 
 Empii-e, but this I do know, if the Union did not destroy 
 Irish loyalty it tended to weaken it. I am very loath, 
 indeed, to weary the patience of those who have listened to 
 me so attentively up to the present, but I want, if I can, to 
 make my case complete. I hold here an extract from 
 Mr. Lecky, whose name requires no introduction to any 
 man of political or historical thought and research. He 
 says : — 
 
 " It appears to me perfectly evident that no Government will ever 
 command the real affection and loyalty of the people which is not in 
 Bome degree national, administered in a great measure by Irishmen 
 and through Irish institutions. If the present discontent is ever to 
 be checked, if the ruling power is ever to carry with it the moral 
 weight which is essential to its success, it can only be by calling into 
 being a strong local political feeling, directed by men who have the 
 responsibility of property, who are attached to the Constitution, and 
 who, at the same time, possess the confidence of the Irish people. As 
 in Hung^iry, as in Poland, as in Belgium, national institutions will 
 alone obtain the confidence of the nation, and any system of policy 
 which fails to recognise this craving of the national sentiment will 
 fail also to strike a chord of true gratitude. It may palliate, but it 
 cannot cure. It may deal with local symptoms, but it cannot remove 
 the chronic disease. To call into active political life the upper class 
 of Irishmen, and to enlarge the sphere of their political work — to 
 give, in a word, to Ireland the greatest amount of self-government 
 that is compatible with the unity and integTity of the Empire — should 
 be the aim of every statesman." 
 
 Now, I have two or three more quotations. I have 
 quoted from eminent jurists, political philosophers and 
 historians, and I now piu-pose to make two short quotations 
 from statesmen of the present English Government. The 
 first is a speech delivered recently by Mr. Herbert 
 Gladstone, the son of the Prime Minister, and also a 
 member of the present Government. It is as follows : — 
 
 ' ' The form of government in Ireland was as bad as it could be. In 
 his opinion it was one of tlie worst forms of government to be found 
 
198 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 in Europe. Centralisation was the curse of the country. Tlie form 
 of government should before long be radically changed, and the 
 people allowed to manage their own affairs. No government could 
 claim to exist on Constitutional principles which did not rest on the 
 will and support of the people. The Irish Government rested on the 
 Scotch and English majority in the British Parliament. How far 
 ought we to go in the way of concession to Irish demands for political 
 freedom ? Every man could see that in certain cases the granting of 
 full political freedom would lead to risks and dangers which no 
 government could rightly make. The converse of this was equally 
 true. Equal laws every Liberal at once conceded to them. The mere 
 mention, however, of an Irish Parliament, of Home Rule, aroused wild 
 cries of ' Disintegration of the Empire.' Yet, as we had given a 
 Parliament to all our great colonies with the most beneficial results, 
 and as we lost America through withholding elementary political 
 institutions, in the abstract there were strong reasons for its adoption. 
 But it was said that by granting Home Rule they would play into the 
 hands of the Separationists, and that the Irish were hopelessly 
 disloyal. He did not grant the latter ; but assuming it to be so, he 
 did not think a Parliament in Dublin would endanger the Queen's 
 authority in Ireland." 
 
 My next quotation is from a speech recently delivered at 
 Ashton by Mr. Chamberlain, also a member of the British 
 Government and the Cabinet : — 
 
 " Do not let us deceive ourselves. Do not let us suppose that our 
 work is yet complete. As long as Ireland is without any institutions 
 of local government worthy of the name — as long as nothing is done 
 ti. mltivate the sense of responsibility among the people — as long as 
 tha large proportion of the population are shut out from any part in 
 the management of their own affairs, while the education of the 
 people is stunted, their prejudices ignored — so long the seeds of 
 discontent aad disloyalty will remain, only to burst forth into 
 luxuriant growth at the first favourable season," 
 
 There are two objections to Home Rule which I would 
 wish to deal with, because they confront us on every hand. 
 
 The first is that, if Home Rule just in itself were granted, 
 we would then demand total separation the day after. Now, 
 granting Home Rule itself to be just, is that a valid argu- 
 
Home Rule — Its Real Meaning. 199 
 
 ment ? There are many people who believe that to-day the 
 Irish people would separate from England entirely if they 
 could. No doubt that is true of many of them. "What 
 prevents them ? No doubt those objectors would reply : 
 " England's power, her army and navy." Well, but 
 England's power — her army and navy — would remain 
 after Home Rule just as before, and the Imperial Govern- 
 ment would remain just as potent after Home Rule as it 
 is to-day to prevent separation. 
 
 The second familiar objection may be summed up in the 
 word " Scotland." Scotland is contented with the Union, 
 say the objectors, and Scotland is prosperous. True, but 
 what then ? Does that prove that self-government is wrong ? 
 I believe, in principle, Scotland is entitled to Home Rule ; 
 and I am very sure that if the majority of the Scotch 
 people demanded it as we do, it would be granted. They 
 do not demand it ; but does that prove it is wrong ? If 
 in the history of the world yovi find one country which has 
 prospered under the rule of another, and one only, does 
 that prove self-government is wrong, or rather does it not 
 become the exception which proves the rvde that no covintry 
 can be prosperous and contented unless she is mistress of 
 her own destinies. Scotland has prospered not because of, 
 but in spite of, the Union. She has had many advantages 
 denied to Ireland. Virtually, she has been ruled by Scotch- 
 men. I have never seen a Scotch Bill, receiving the support 
 of the majority of the Scotch Members, that was not 
 willingly passed into law by the Imperial Parliament with 
 as little hesitation as Irish Bills, supported by a majority of 
 the Irish Members, were invariably rejected. The Government 
 officials in Scotland are Scotchmen, while those in Ireland 
 are not Irishmen ; and in addition to all this, I am perfectly 
 convinced that the day is not far distant when Scotchmen 
 
200 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 will demand and get the privileges and rights which we are 
 demanding for Ireland. 
 
 I have now finished. I think I have explained what we 
 want under the name of Home Rule. I have endeavoured 
 to prove that Home Rule is reasonable theoretically, judged 
 by the test of common sense, political philosophy, and 
 history, and that it is likely to prove advantageous in 
 practice to Ireland, England, and the Empire; I have 
 quoted my authorities, and have combated some of the most 
 popular objections to the scheme. I trust I have fulfilled my 
 word not to make any appeal either to the passions or the 
 imagination of my audience, and I hope I have not done so 
 at the cost of being dull or uninteresting. I have discussed 
 mattex's calmly and dispassionately, with a due sense of the 
 responsibilities of my position as the representative of a 
 nation, and remembering that I am surrounded by men who 
 are only too anxious to seize upon my words and twist them 
 so as to i"ender them injvirious to me and to my cause. I 
 have dealt with my subject impartially and fairly. All that 
 I oan say in conclusion is this : I shall be amply repaid if 
 the few words which I have said on this question to-night 
 should prove the means of making intelligent men in this 
 land calmly consider the question. It is a question which 
 must come up for settlement sooner or later. Upon its 
 speedy and peaceful settlement between the two countries, I 
 believe in my heart and conscience, depends the future 
 welfare not only of Ireland but of the Empire. Without 
 some such settlement I see no hope for the permanent 
 prosperity and pacification of my country. Ireland's malady 
 is one which must be cured by Ireland herself. The vital 
 force which has lived through seven centuries of oppression 
 still animates our race. The simple faith, the kindly nature, 
 the indomitable couraa[e which made Ireland the centre of 
 
Home Rule — Its Real Meaning. 201 
 
 civilisation in the far-ofif ages of the past are not yet extinct. 
 Give them free scope. Give them the bracing influence of 
 a free constitution, and before a generation has passed 
 away the long and dreary ages of bitterness, and strife, and 
 hatred •will be forgotten, and Ireland, the Ireland of our 
 hopes and tears and prayers, will have entered upon a new 
 era of liberty, prosperity, and peace. 
 
THE HOME RULE BILL, 1886. 
 
 SPEECH ON SECOND BEADING IN HOTTSE OF COMMONS, 
 APKIL, 1886. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. — The House cannot have failed to notice 
 the diflference between the arguments advanced by the hon. 
 and learned gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. E. Clarke, 
 Q.C.) and those which were urged by the right hon. member 
 for Bury (Sir H. James). The right hon. member for Bury 
 argued that the BUI was so far-reaching that it would be 
 dangerous to pass it, and his argument was based on pro- 
 found distrust of the Irish people. The hon. and learned 
 member for Plymouth, on the contrary, contended that the 
 BUI provides so flimsy and worthless a scheme that if the 
 Irish people had any self-respect they woiUd not accept it. 
 Perhaps the Irish people might be allowed to judge for 
 themselves, and to speak for themselves in tlais 
 matter. I trust the House wUl accept with readi- 
 ness the statement of the representatives of the 
 Irish people that, on the whole, they are satisfied with this 
 BUI, and that, so far as their judgment goes, it provides a 
 settlement of the question. No one could have faUed to 
 note the bent given to the discussion now and on the 
 first reading by the enemies of this BUI. They have ex- 
 haustively criticised its detaUs, but have said nothing about 
 
The Home Ride Bill, 1886. 203 
 
 its vital principle. I prefer to take a course more suitable 
 to the present stage and to argue on the general principle 
 of the measure. What is its essential principle ? No 
 dissent was expressed when the right hon. gentleman, who 
 has spoken from the Government bench (Mr. Campbell- 
 Bannerman), described that principle as the establishment 
 of a Parliament in Ireland with certain well-defined powers 
 for the legislative and administrative control of Irish 
 afi"airs. Arguing the subject from the standpoint of an 
 Irishman and a Nationalist, the first thing I ask the House 
 to consider is whether that principle is one which Ireland 
 has a right to have conceded to her. I am aware this 
 argument of right may not appeal with much force to some 
 classes of English members, but it will appeal with force to 
 the English masses, who are a justice-loving people, and also, 
 I hope, to their representatives in this House. Grattan, 
 who, in addition to being an ardent Irish Nationalist, was 
 also a devoted adherent of the Imperial greatness of 
 England, argued thus upon this topic of right : — 
 
 " Before Ireland goes into her title, let us hear the title of Eng- 
 land, for it is not a question whether Ireland has a right to be free* 
 but whether Great Britain has a right to enslave her. When the 
 latter coimtry asks what right have the Irish to make laws for them- 
 selves, Ireland will not answer, but demands what right has England 
 to make laws for Ireland. Erom nature she has none. Nature has 
 not given one nation a right over another. She has not that right 
 from covenant. Let her show the covenant ; in what history is it 
 recorded ? " 
 
 Those who now argued against this BUI point to the Act 
 of Union as a covenant. The answer of the Irish repre- 
 sentatives to that argument is to point to the character of 
 the Act of Union, and above all to the means by which it was 
 passed. If the Act of Union is to be held to be a bar to 
 Ireland's right to self-government then those who so hold 
 
204 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 must regard that Act as a Treaty freely accepted by both 
 nations. Those were the grounds on which Mr. Pitt re- 
 commended the Act of Union in his great speech on 
 January 31st, 1799, he said it would be a 
 
 " Union by free consent on just and equal terms — the free and 
 voluntary association of two great countries, wMcli join for their 
 oommon benefit in one Empire, where each will retain its propor- 
 tional weight and importance under the security of equal laws and 
 reciprocal affection." 
 
 And he quoted the lines : — 
 
 " Paribus se legibus ambse Invictse gentes aetema in fsedera mittant.'' 
 
 Is that a correct description of what the Act of Union 
 has proved to be ? " Equal laws " ! Why, the whole 
 history of Iieland since the Act of Union has been one of 
 exceptional legislation. " Voluntary association of two 
 great countries " ! Every historian acknowledges there had 
 not been free consent by the Irish people. The Union was 
 carried in opposition to the will of almost the whole nation, 
 as the Premier has said, the entire of the unbribed intellect of 
 Ireland was against it. Mr. Grey (afterwards Lord Grey) 
 spoke on the matter of Ireland's consent in this House, and 
 he said : — 
 
 " There are in the Irish Parliament 300 members ; 120 of these 
 strenuously opposed the Union ; 162 members voted in favour of the 
 Union, and of these 116 were placemen." 
 
 Wniiam Cunningham Plunkett also spoke on this point and 
 his testimony was exactly the same ; and while I do not desire 
 to trouble the House by reading a number of quotations to 
 enforce a point which I think nobody can deny — not even 
 the hon. and learned gentleman who has last spoken — I 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1886. 205 
 
 will read for the benefit of some of his new friends ot the 
 Loyal and Patriotic Union, a few words by Mr. Lecky. In 
 Yol. II. of his History, Mr. Lecky wi'ote : — 
 
 "The years between 1779 and 1798 were probably the most pros- 
 perous* in Irish bistoiy, and the generation which followed the Union 
 was one of the most miserable. The sacrifice of nationality was 
 extorted by the most enormous corruption in the history of represen- 
 tative institutions. It was demanded by no considerable portion 
 of the Irish people ; it was accompanied by no signal political or 
 material benefit that could mitigate or counteract its unpopularity ; 
 and it was effected without a dissolution, in opposition to the immense 
 majority of the representatives of the counties and considerable 
 towns and to the innumerable addresses from every part of the 
 country. Whatever may be thought of the abstr.ict merits of the Act 
 of Union as it was carried, it was a crime of the deepest turpitude, 
 which by imposing with every circumstance of infamy a new form of 
 government on a reluctant and protesting nation, has vitiated the 
 whole course of Irish opinion." 4 
 
 On this question of right the right hon. member for West 
 Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) appears to be divided fi'om 
 the Irish representatives by a wide gulf. Last autumn 
 he made a speech which attracted mvtch attention and gave 
 no little offence in Ireland. He controverted Ireland's right 
 to self-government by the extraordinary statement that five 
 millions of Irishmen in Ireland had no more rischt to govern 
 themselves than five millions of Englishmen in London. 
 That was regarded by Ireland as a very feeble and very in- 
 sulting misrepresentation of her case. If he could have shown 
 that London was a country distinct from England, with 
 distinct historic traditions and distinct national character- 
 istics; that London has possessed, as Ireland has, distinct 
 Parliamentary institutions of her own for 600 years ; that 
 those Parliamentary institutions had been robbed from 
 London by means such as I have described against the will 
 of the people, and that an overwhelming majority of the 
 
206 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 people to-day demand their restoration, then indeed he 
 would have some title to institute a comparison between 
 the cases of London and Ireland. But no such analogy 
 exists. The fault at the bottom of the right hon. gentle- 
 man's argument is that he pre-supposes a perfect identity 
 between Ireland and England. Is there any such identity ? 
 There is not geographical identity — the countries are 
 divided by sixty miles of water. There is not historical 
 identity — no two nations in Europe have histories more 
 dissimilar. There is not identity of character — it is 
 actually part of the argument of our opponents that there 
 are deep and ineradicable dififerences of character between 
 the two peoples. There is not identity of condition — 
 England is rich — Ireland is poor. England is a manufac- 
 turing country, Ireland is an agricultural one. What 
 identity is there ? The identity imparted by the Act of 
 Union ! 
 
 The only argument in support of this idea of identity 
 must depend upon that Act, and some gentlemen go so 
 far as to say that the Act of Union is a fundamental 
 and unalterable law. Many hon. members will remember 
 Sydney Smith's remark, that " the man who talks about 
 an unalterable law proves himself to be an unalterable 
 fool." Lord Beaconsfield, at any rate, did not come within 
 that sweeping statement, for in a speech made by him in 
 the House in 18G8 on the Irish Chvirch Disestablishment 
 BUI, he said : — 
 
 " I take no exaggerated view of even tlie articles of Union. I have 
 not for a moment pretended that the articles of Union between the 
 two nations are irreversible. I have not for a moment pretended 
 that the articles of Union, and the great Acts of Parliament which 
 were passed to carry them into effect, caimot by the consent of the 
 Sovereign and of the estates of the realm be changed or modified." 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1886. 207 
 
 Shortly after that speech the Act of Union was modified. 
 All the Prime Minister now proposes, and all the Irish 
 representatives ask, is that the process of readjustment 
 wliich was commenced in 1869 should be carried to its 
 logical conclusion, so that the Government of Ireland should 
 be brought into sympathy with the wiU of the governed, 
 and into harmony with the ideas and conditions of this 
 period of the nineteenth century. So much on the argu- 
 ment of right. I come now to a lower, but, perhaps, a 
 more potent argument, namely, that of expediency. 
 
 Apart altogether from Ireland's inherent right, let me 
 ask, is it not manifestly expedient that this concession should 
 be made ? What is the history of England's effort to rule 
 Ireland from Westminster 1 No Englishman, who loves the 
 fair fame of his country, can contemplate without shame the 
 miserable record of eighty-five years of coercion, disafiiec- 
 tion, and ever-increasing poverty. How stands the record ? 
 Eighty-five years of English legislation for Ireland has re- 
 sulted in acts that speak volumes. In evidence of promised 
 contentment, order, and peace, there have been twelve Acts 
 for the suspension of habeas corpus ; 19 Peace Preservation 
 Acts, whether so-called or otherwise; 19 Acts for limiting 
 and controlling the possession of arms and gunpowder ; 1 7 
 for the prevention of resistance to the law by means of out- 
 rages against persons and property; 26 against unlawful and 
 dangerous societies, combinations, assemblies, and proces- 
 sions ; 1 1 for the suppression of rebellions, insurrections, and 
 disturbances ; and 2 for curtailing the freedom of the Press 
 — or a Coercion Act of some sort or other for every year since 
 that in which the Act of Union was passed. In evidence of 
 the anticipated prosperity, there have been 11 Acts for the 
 direct relief, otherwise than by the ordinary poor law, of 
 exceptionally extreme poverty, and consequent distress; 10 
 
208 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 for the inclii'ect relief of poverty by means of advancinfl 
 money for public works; 4 for giving the extremely poor 
 employment at the public expense ; 4 for contending with 
 famine fever ; 4 for saving from perishing by starvation the 
 thousands of children deserted through the abject poverty 
 of their parents ; 3 for the relief and assistance of railway 
 companies otherwise unable to proceed with their works ; 4 
 for the artificial assistance of banks, and for sustaining com- 
 mercial credit ; and 4 for the rescue of encumbered estates 
 from hopeless insolvency — making in all 43 Acts in acknow- 
 ledgment of the ruin and despair that have haunted all sorts 
 and conditions of men. I listened with surprise to the speech 
 of the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last (Mr. E. 
 Clarke). He spoke of the Parliament of Grattan having 
 checked the commercial development of Ireland. The hon. 
 and learned member is a high authoiity, no doubt, but I 
 think even he wUl himself admit that Lord Clare was quite 
 as high an authority, and he is in direct conflict with him 
 on this point. I will not pui'sue that further, but will quote 
 a few fig-ures to show how the development of Irish industiies 
 has been affected since the Union, I find that in Dublin in 
 the year 1800 there were 90 master woollen manufacturers, 
 employing 4,918 hands; and in the year 1840 the industry 
 was practically dead. There were in 1800 30 master wool- 
 combers in Dublin, employing 230 hands ; while in 1834 
 the industry was practically dead. There were 13 carpet 
 manufactiirers in Dublin in 1800, employing 230 hands, and 
 in 1841 there were none. In the town of Kilkenny there 
 were to be found in 1800 56 blanket manufacturers, em- 
 ploying 3,000 hands ; and in the year 1822 the industry was 
 dead. Then, again, I find that in Dublin, in the year 1800 
 there were 2,500 silk loom weavers at work, and in 1840 
 the industry was gone. In the year 1799 there were 2,500 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1886. 209 
 
 calico looms at work in. Balbriggan ; in 1841 there were but 
 228. In Wicklow in 1800, there were 1,000 hand looms at 
 work; in 1841 there were none. In the city of Cork there 
 were at work in the yea,r 1800 the following industries, 
 which had since declined : — 1,000 braid weavers, of whom 
 only 49 remained in 1834 ; 2,000 worsted weavers, of whom 
 only 90 remained in 1834; 3,000 hosiers, of whom only 28 
 remained in 1834. There were also 700 wool combers, 2,000 
 cotton weavers, and 600 linen check weavers, each of which 
 indvistries was dead in 1834. You have, therefore, the fact 
 that all these industries which had been in existence at the 
 tune of the Union have either totally disappeared or have 
 been partially destroyed before the year 1841. Now, I ask 
 the House, do they seriously believe that it has been to the 
 advantage of England or of the Empire that all these indvis- 
 tries in Ireland have died out, and that the entire popula- 
 tion has been compelled to fall back upon agriculture as its 
 only meens of living ? The answer is to be found in the 
 agrarian troubles that have occupied so much of the time of 
 Parliament, and baffled all the efforts of your ablest states- 
 men to cope with or remedy. The right hon. member for 
 West Birmingham has another argument, and it was this — 
 that the Bill will lead to separation. He said that the Bill 
 wovdd change Ireland into a " foreign and hostile country," 
 and the hon. member for Bury followed with the same argu- 
 ment. It would be well for them, however, to consider 
 whether they could make Ireland more " foreign " and 
 " hostile " than it admittedly is at present. But in almost 
 the same breath in which he spoke of this Bill making Ire- 
 land a " foreign " country, he said it would put her in the 
 position of Canada. Is Canada, then, a " foreign " country ? 
 The idea is almost preposterous. But why should not Ire- 
 land be put in the position of Canada 1 " Because," replies 
 
210 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 the right hon, gentleman, " Canada is friendly to the Em- 
 pire, and Ireland is not." But was Canada always friendly ? 
 The hon. member for "West Birmingham had quoted from 
 certain passages in the speeches of Mr. Butt on the subject. 
 I will, however, quote another passage from a speech of Mr. 
 Butt, in which, speaking of Canada, he said — 
 
 " In 1839 Canada was with difficulty he^d by force of arms for t>ic 
 British Crown. Canada was in open rebellion. Canada was at a dis- 
 tance from England — close to a great republic, which was certainly 
 not unwilling to incorporate the Canadian provinces with their States. 
 The experiment was tried of giving Canada Home Rule. It has not 
 disintegrated the Empire." 
 
 But it was argued the cases were different because in Ire- 
 land there were two nations. Well, I may say by way of 
 parentheses that we (Nationalists) detest the idea of there 
 being two nations in Ireland. There has been too much 
 bitterness between Irishmen, and we have always looked 
 forward with hope and some confidence to the day when 
 these bitter feelings would cease, and men of all creeds 
 in Ireland would be able to join in an effort for the 
 elevation of their common country. But were there no two 
 nations in Canada ? On the contrary. Canada had two 
 provinces differing in race, in religion, in language, and in 
 law. Lower Canada contained a great French population 
 hostile to ^England, alienated from her by the memories of 
 recent conquest, and Catholic in their religion. Upper 
 Canada was chiefly peopled by English Protestant settlers — 
 by Puritans from Scotland, and Irish Orangemen from the 
 Bann. Home Riile was granted to Canada. The two pro- 
 vinces were united under one Parliament — with all these 
 elements of distraction, and disaffection, and danger — is the 
 Empire disintegrated ? Has Canada flung herself into the 
 arms of the United States ? Is Canada torn hy domestic 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1886. 211 
 
 dissensions? Canada, instead of being as it was in 1839, 
 the most disaffected and rebellious dependency of Britain, is 
 now the most attached to the English connection, the most 
 loyal in its allegiance to the British Crown. Provinces that 
 seemed arrayed against each other in hopeless antagonism 
 and discord, are now united together. With the differences, 
 and the passions, and the party strifes that agitate all con- 
 stitutional governments — the French Catholics of Lower 
 Canada, and the English Puritans, and the Irish Orange- 
 men of Upper Canada, meet in one Parliament to serve the 
 interests of that common country, attachment to which is 
 no longer at variance with a true allegiance to the British 
 Crown. The right hon. gentleman says Canada is only held 
 by a " voluntary tie." But does the right hon. gentleman 
 who is regarded as a leader of democratic thought in this 
 country, mean to say he prefers an Union based vipon force, 
 as the present Union with Ireland, to an Union which rests 
 upon the will of the people ? Edmund Burke said — " A 
 voluntary tie is a more secure link of connection than sub- 
 ordination borne with grudging and discontent." So say 
 we, and so also we believe will say the democracy of England, 
 even though some of its so-called leaders refuse to trust the 
 people of Ireland. 
 
 But the argument of the right hon. gentleman may be 
 met in another way. I utterly deny that this Bill will put 
 Ireland in the position of Canada. No colony pays any 
 portion of the National Debt. Ireland under this Bill 
 will pay a portion of the National Debt. No colony 
 pays any portion of Imperial taxation while Ireland 
 would do so. No colony pays Custom duties imposed by 
 the Imperial Parliament, Ireland would do so. Tlie 
 colonies fix their own electoral law, but the electoral law 
 for Ireland was to be fixed by the Imperial Parliament. 
 
212 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Then the colonies could have an army and navy of their 
 own, but Ireland would not have either an army or navy 
 oi her own. But we were told because Irish Members are 
 to be Avithdrawn from Westminster, Ireland wiU become 
 a colony. On this much vexed question I have a word 
 or two to say. As a Nationalist, I may say I do not 
 regard as entirely palatable the idea that for ever and a 
 day Ireland's voice should be excluded from the councils of 
 an empire which the genius and valour of her sons have 
 done so much to build up, and of which she is to remain a 
 part. I conceive, however, that even in the BiU as it stands 
 the permanent exclusion of Irish Members is not contem- 
 plated, and the Premier, by one of the modifications which 
 he has announced, has provided that by address the Irish 
 Parliament can obtain the right of being heard at West- 
 minster Avhenever it desires. Beyond this, at present we do 
 not desire to go. We look at this matter as practical men. 
 If we get our Irish assembly, heaven knows we wiU have a 
 task heavy and weighty enough in the effort to bind 
 together the disunited fragments of the nation, and to repair 
 the shattered fortunes of our unfortunate country — a task 
 wliich win tax all the resources, aU the talent, and aU the 
 industry of Irishmen. I do believe that if that work is to 
 be satisfactorily performed we can not stand the additional 
 drain rendered necessary by representation in this House. 
 Further than this, I do not see how such representation is 
 under present conditions practicable. The Federal idea I 
 understand and sympathise with. I look forward to the 
 day when it may be applied to England, Scotland, and 
 Wales, as weU as Ireland. Then the character of the 
 so-called Imperial Parliament would be changed. It would 
 be then only an Imperial Parliament, and aU the kingdoms, 
 having their own National Parliaments, might be represented 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1886. 213 
 
 in it. But if Ireland alone has a Parliament of her own, I 
 do not see how she can be permanently represented in what 
 is not only the Imperial Parliament but the Legislature of 
 England and of Scotland. If such representation were 
 admitted, you must either allow Irishmen who had sole 
 control of Irish affairs to interfere in and probably decide 
 purely English and Scotch affairs — an obvious injustice, or 
 else you must do what the Premier declared it surpassed the 
 wit of man to accomplish, namely, make a definite and 
 permanent distinction between Imperial and local affairs. 
 The hon, member who last spoke said he believed that the 
 concession of autonomy to Ireland would lead to separation. 
 I would ask how Ireland was held now ? 
 
 Lord Arthur Hill — By force. 
 
 I thank the hon. member for the word. It is now 
 held by force; but does the present Bill propose to take 
 away that force, which I presume means the English army 
 and navy and the police? No; it still left these forces 
 under Imperial control. But in addition to physical force, 
 you would have working on the side of connection and 
 against separation the moral force springing from justice 
 conceded, which the English Government of Ireland has 
 never yet had upon its side. 
 
 I now come to what, after all, seemed to be the chief 
 objection to Home P^ule, in the minds of most Englishmen 
 and which might be summed iip in the word " Ulster.' 
 Ulster, they say, is a Protestant and anti-Nationalist 
 province, and could not be put under the dominion of 
 a Nationalist Parliament in Dublin. But let me ask 
 is Ulster either Protestant or anti-Nationalist? Fii'st, 
 is Ulster Protestant? Last year a return was issued 
 by Parliament giving the religious denominations of the 
 population of Ulster, Prom that it appeared that forty- 
 
214 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 eight per cent, of the whole population was Catholic, and 
 remaining fifty-two per cent, was made up of all other creeds, 
 and leaving Belfast out, the Catholics were to-day fifty-five 
 per cent, of the whole population. But their case was 
 stronger even than that. It had recently been pointed out 
 that Ulster might well be divided into two distinct portions 
 — one portion consisting of Antrim and portions of Down 
 and Armagh, containing a majority of Protestants, they 
 being three-fourths of the population ; the other portion, 
 consisting of Donegal, Tyrone, Derry, Fermanagh, Cavan, 
 Monaghan, and portions of Down and Armagh, containing 
 a majority of Catholics, they being two-thirds of the popula- 
 tion. The exact figures were — in the first portion, Catholics, 
 188,289; Protestants, 542,862. In the second portion. 
 Catholics, 645,279; and Protestants, 316,647. In the face 
 of these facts, can Ulster truthfully be termed a Protestant 
 province ? The right hon. gentleman, the member for 
 West Birmingham, speaks of the necessity of a separate 
 Parliament for Ulster. His object is to protect the Protes- 
 tants. But surely if any Protestants wanted protection, 
 they were, not those in Ulster, but those in the South and 
 West who were in such a miserable minority. But would 
 a Parliament in Ulster fulfil his object even in that province ? 
 Why, unless the entire basis of representation be changed, 
 such a Parliament must inevitably contain a majority of 
 Catholics. Now, let me ask, is Ulster anti-National ? The 
 answer is supplied by the returns at the last elections Out 
 of the nine counties of Ulster only one, namely Antrim, 
 went solid against Home Rule, and if my hon. friend the 
 Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had secured thirty-eight 
 more votes in Belfast, not even one solitary county in 
 Ulster or in Ireland would have declared against Home 
 Rule. Four entire counties — Donea:al, Fermanagh, Cavan, 
 
The Home Rule Dill, 1886. 215 
 
 and Monaghan — went solid for Home Rule. The remain- 
 ing four counties — namely, Derry, Tj'rone, Armagh, and 
 Down — were so divided that the net result was to give 
 the Nationalists a clear majority of the Ulster seats, 
 while Belfast and Derry were only lost by thirty-seven 
 and twenty-seven votes. In the face of these facts, it is 
 the utmost folly to speak of Ulster as anti-National. 
 There is one somewhat frivolous matter to which I wou.ld 
 wish to refer — the war-like intentions of a certain party 
 in Ireland, I hold in my hand an interesting statement 
 from a well-known gentleman in Ireland. Writing on this 
 subject, he says : — 
 
 " If the men of Ulster fight at all it will not be with the rest of 
 Ireland, but with each other. The men of Antrim, Down, and 
 Armagh, before conquering Leinster, Connaught, and Munster, will 
 have to take in hand the subjugation of the six other Ulster counties" 
 Ditches will have to be lined, not merely north of the Boyne, but west 
 of the Bann — not merely from Belfast to Dublin, but from Belfast to 
 Donegal, and from Armagh to Derry. In short, the idea of the 
 Protestant portion of Ulster conquering the Catholic portion is 
 as absurd as the contention that Lancashire could conquer the northern 
 counties of England. Although there are Orangemen and Protestants 
 in every one of the nine Ulster counties, it is only in Antrim, Down, 
 and Armagh that they could assemble in sufficient strengtli to overawe 
 the local Catholics. However, although it is the wildest nonsense to 
 imagine anything of the kind, let it be understood that the Orangemen 
 in the north-east of Ulster have taken up arms under the command 
 of Major Saunderson and Mr. Johnson, of Balljkilbeg, with a view to 
 the reduction and occupation of the remainder of the province as the 
 result of the Repeal of the Union. To begin with, on entering Mona- 
 ghan the Orange army, or rather mob, would find itself in a country 
 inhabited by 27,000 Protestants and 76,000 Catholics, On pushing 
 forward into Cavan, the Orangemen would be amongst 25,000 Pro- 
 testants and 105,000 Catholics. In Fermanagh, their task of subjuga- 
 tion would be comparatively light, as the Catholics in that county are 
 only fifty-six per cent. ; but in Donegal the Orange army or mob, or 
 rather what remained of it, would be simply swallowed up, for in that 
 wildly remote, and extensive and inhospitable region, possessing 
 
216 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 admirable facilities for a defeneive warfare, the Protestants are only 
 48,000 in number, the Catholics being 158,000." 
 
 I ought to apologise for even alluding shortly to this 
 matter, but I have done so for the purpose of enlivening the 
 somewhat tedious character of my remarks. I deeply 
 regret having to speak of Protestants and Catholics in 
 connection with the matter at all. Ours is not a sectarian 
 but a National movement. If Home Rule were granted, 
 the Protestant minority would have equ.al rights and liberties 
 with their Catholic fellow-countrymen. The truth is the 
 Catholics of Ireland entertain feelings of deep respect and 
 affection for their Protestant fellow-countrymen. Protestants 
 led the National movements of Ireland for generations. A 
 Protestant Parliament, in 1793, struck the first blow at the 
 Penal Code and commenced the work of Catholic Emanci- 
 pation ; Protestant patriots shed their blood on the scaffold 
 and in the field in defence of the liberties of their Catholic 
 countrymen ; and there is not a single one of the Catholic 
 leaders of the people to-day who would not reject with scorn 
 and derision any settlement of the National question which 
 did not secure for the Protestants of Ireland fuU civil and 
 religious liberty. Some hon, members in this House — 
 Radicals in principle — object to the first order which, elected 
 on a higher franchise, is to form part of the Irish Legislature 
 under this BUI, as being contrary to democratic ideas. Do 
 they think that we are less democratic than they are, 
 and do they wonder why we accept such provisions 1 I will 
 tell them. It is because, although we know the fears of 
 our Protestant fellow-countrymen are unworthy and un- 
 founded fears, at the same time we recognise those fears, 
 and we desire by every means in our power to give 
 guarantees to every section and every creed amongst 
 
The Home Rule Bill 1SS6. 217 
 
 our countrymen, that onr sole object in this movement 
 is to buUd up a united and a prosperou^s Irish nation. 
 On the details I will not speak further than I have 
 done, and I have only a few more words to say in 
 conclusion. 
 
 A passing allusion was made by the Prime Minister in 
 his great speech in introducing this measure to the historic 
 mission of Lord Fitzwilliam to Ireland in 1795. It 
 seems to me that there are many circumstances connected 
 with the present situation similar to the circumstances 
 which attended the mission of Lord Fitzwilliam, At that 
 time the Irish Parliament had commenced the work of 
 Catholic emancipation, and at last Edmund Burke and 
 some others had induced the English Cabinet to adopt a 
 policy of conciliation and emancipation, and Lord Fitz- 
 william was the bearer of a message of peace to Ireland, as 
 the right hon, gentlemen the Chief Secretary (Mr. Morley) 
 was the bearer of a message of peace to Ireland the other 
 day. The hopes of the Irish people were raised high, and 
 it would be difficult indeed for any man to say how entirely 
 different the whole coux'se of Irish history might have been 
 if Lord FitzwUliam had been allowed to carry his policy 
 into effect ; but evil counsels prevailed in England — the 
 policy of conciliation, that policy which has since been 
 acknowledged as a policy of justice — was wrecked. The 
 policy of justice was reversed. Lord Fitzwilliam was with- 
 drawn, and a return was made to the old old policy of repres- 
 sion. Then followed the rebellion of '98, and the many 
 disasters which have marked the connection of the two 
 countries. I don't wish to be a prophet of evil — I don't 
 believe that similar results wiU follow from the wrecking 
 of this BUI, but remember the words of Henry Grattan 
 when he said : — 
 
218 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 "Lord Fitzwilliam is offering to the Empire the affection of 
 millions of hearts." 
 
 I ask you, is the offering of the affection of millions of 
 hearts which the Prime Minister is to-day making to the 
 Empire to be rejected as was the offering of Lord Fitz- 
 william. One thing, English politicians must make up their 
 minds about, and that is that this question must be settled, 
 and every moment of delay increases the difficulties and 
 dangers of that position. Every speech conceived in a 
 bitter spirit, by either Irishmen or Englishmen, must tend 
 to increase the evils and dangers of the moment. The 
 spirit in which the Prime Minister has addressed himself to 
 the question, the spirit of large-heartedness and justice 
 which he exhibited, has called forth a responsive feeling in 
 the breasts of the Irish people right round the world. If 
 that be the spirit in which Englishmen address themselves 
 to the consideration of this question, then I have some hope 
 for the near future of Ireland. But if passion and pre- 
 judice, if forgetfulness of the history of Ireland, and 
 impatience at her faults are allowed once again to sway the 
 public mind and to influence Parliament, I confess I cannot 
 look forward to the near future without the gravest appre- 
 hension. Should calamity follow an unwise and hasty 
 rejection of this Bill, we, at any rate, wUl not be responsi- 
 ble, for we wiU allow no act or word of ours to intensify 
 the dangers and difficulties of the situation. We make our 
 appeal to-day to the newly enfranchised democracy of 
 England. Eternal wiU be its hono\ir through all the ages, 
 and priceless will be its recompense, if its first great work, 
 after achieving its own enfranchisement, should be to fill 
 up the gulf of hatred and distrust which for so long a time 
 has divided the two nations, by a just and a wise concession 
 
The Home Rule 'Bill, 1886. 219 
 
 to that national sentiment in Ireland which, however much 
 some Englishmen may affect to deride it, has yet dominated 
 Irish character for seven centui'ies, and must be recognised 
 and respected if Ireland is ever to become, as I fervently 
 pray she may soon become, a peaceful, free, and contented 
 nation. 
 
THE HOME RULE BILL, 1893. 
 
 SPEECH ON SECOND BEADING IN HOUSE OP COMMONS, 
 14th APRIL, 1893. 
 
 X. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. — There was one statement in the speech 
 of the right hon, gentleman (Right Hon. Henry Chaplin) 
 with which I most cordially agree. He described this 
 as a gi'eat occasion, and spoke of the gravity of the issue 
 at stake. But I venture to say that no right hon. gentleman 
 occupying the position of ex-Cabinet Minister ever made 
 upon a great and historic occasion, upon the discussion or a 
 great issue, a speech so absolutely flat, stale, and unprofitable. 
 That speech scarcely touched upon the great issue at stake. 
 That issue is whether this Parliament will confer upon 
 Ireland the management of her own affairs ; whether it will 
 enti ust to the people of Ireland a representative constitution, 
 and in a speech occupying the time of the House for an 
 hour and a-half the right hon. gentleman never did more 
 than read from quotations the opinion of others on the 
 abstract question. The right hon. gentleman is a type of 
 the English governors of Ireland — the men who have made 
 li eland disaffected, and who have made the concession of Home 
 Rule absolutely inevitable. Was there, from beginning to end 
 of the speech, a single statement to show that the right hon. 
 gentleman was acquainted with the past government or with 
 the history of the country whose right to self-government 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1893. 221 
 
 he ventured to deny ? Was there one generous thought in 
 his speech or one spark or glimmer of hope for Ireland? 
 The right hon. gentleman opposes the concession of 
 Home Rule to Ireland, but what is his alternative? It is 
 simply a continuance of the principles of government that 
 have made the name of England a by-word and a reproach 
 among the nations of the world. I do not desire to pursue 
 the speech of the right hon. gentleman. I did hope that it 
 would not be necessary for me in the fulfilment of a duty to 
 myself and to those whom I represent to take part in the 
 debate at this stage of the Bill. The speeches that have 
 been made in the course of the debate have been of two 
 distinct classes. We have had on one side those who have 
 criticised the details of the Bill which should be more 
 properly discussed in Committee, and on the other we have 
 had those who discussed the broad principle of the Bill. 
 This latter class of speakers have been hampered by the 
 consideration that they have been merely repeating for the 
 hundredth time every argument with which the country has 
 been ringing for the last seven years. I do not desire in 
 the observations I have to make to anticipate the Com. 
 mittee stage of the Bill, nor do I want merely to utter 
 platitudes on the principle of self - government ; and^ 
 indeed, I should have been content to remain silent 
 altogether but for the duty cast upon me by statements 
 made in this House and out of it. It is said that we have 
 refused to accept this measure — that wc dispute the supre- 
 macy of the Imperial Parliament; that we will make no 
 compromise between what we consider the full measure of 
 right that we are entitled to, and the concession which one 
 of the great parties of the State is willing to make to us 
 Now, that is a complete misrepresentation. Of course this Bill 
 does not concede to Ireland all that we ask or all that Ave 
 
222 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 are entitled to. This BUI is a oompromise between the full 
 demands which Ireland has made in the past and that 
 which you are willing to concede to us. The constitution 
 oflFered is a compromise, and is accepted as a compromise. 
 The right hon. gentleman the member for West Birmingham 
 complains that we do not say that this is a final and immu- 
 table constitution. I would ask the right hon. gentleman 
 what right this House or what right England has to ask 
 any such guarantee from us. I say candidly that I do not 
 believe that this measure, if passed into law, will be final or 
 immutable. 
 
 I believe this constitution will be a success, and I believe 
 it will be a success because I believe — that will be the 
 reason of its success — that it will develope. In the future, 
 in the working of this constitution, the bonds of freedom 
 wUl be made wider still for Ireland, and that with the con- 
 sent of England, as a direct result of the reasonable use of 
 the powers obtained under it. If Ireland shows, as she will 
 show, a real capacity for self-government, this constitution 
 must develop. He would be a rash man, indeed, who would 
 say that the written constitution you now seek to confer is 
 for all time, or is to remain a final and immutable constitu- 
 tion. Let me test this matter. Suppose you put into the 
 Bill a clause saying that it is to be a final and immutable 
 settlement, it wovild not be worth the paper it would be 
 written upon. The very fact that this Imperial Parliament 
 is, and will continue to be supreme, if the Act of Union 
 is valid, makes it utterly impossible for any law that 
 it may make to be final and immutable. And, again, 
 suppose that every Irishman alive w^ere to join in giving an 
 undertaking that he would regard the constitution as final, 
 of what value would that guarantee be ? No, we canr>ot 
 bind the future — the future, with its new interests, its 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 2893. 223 
 
 wider opinions, and its higher aspirations in the generations 
 to come. In that sense I absolutely decline to give any 
 such guarantee as the right hon. gentleman the member for 
 West Birmingham thinks necessary from those who com- 
 mend this BiU to the consideration of the country. But 
 that was not what the right hon. gentleman meant. He 
 meant that we in saying that we wUl accept this BUI wUl 
 do so in bad faith, and with no desire to find in the working 
 of the measure a solution of the Irish question, and that 
 is for the pm-pose of showing that this measure has designs 
 hostile to the English Government and the Empire. That 
 is Avhat he means. For my part, I disclaim any such in- 
 tention. 
 
 It is tnie we decline to pledge ourselves that this must 
 remain a final settlement. It is true we regard this 
 Bill as a compromise and not as a full concession of all we 
 are entitled to obtain, but we wish to accept the measure in 
 a fair, honest, and candid spirit, and to work it for all it is 
 worth in the hope and belief that it may put an end to the 
 old chapter of English oppression and Irish resistance. But 
 the right hon. gentleman, the member for West Birmingham 
 says there is the question of the Imperial Parliament. It is 
 not necessary for me to dwell a moment longer upon that 
 point. I challenge anyone in this House to quote a state- 
 ment of mine, or any of those associated with me^ that so 
 jong as we remain partners in the Empire at all, and so 
 long as the Act of Union remains unrepealed the supremacy 
 >f the Imperial Parliament is to be, or can be abrogated. 
 We have maintained that the concession of free institu- 
 tions in Ireland means that you have put trust in the Irish 
 people, and that the interference of this Parliament in the 
 working of those institutions would be absolutely inconsis- 
 tant. Representative institutions exists in other portions 
 
224 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 of the Empire. How many of them woiJd exist in six 
 months if this House took into its head to exercise its right 
 as a supreme legislature 1 The concession of representative 
 institutions to Ireland means that you have made up your 
 minds to let vxs manage our own affairs, free from the 
 interfei"ence of the Imperial Parliament. It is true that 
 hon. gentlemen anticipate that the necessity for interference 
 by this Parliament will cease. That may be. I think it 
 wUl, for I am one of those who agree with Mr. Parnell's 
 opinion, that the Irish people under Home Rule will 
 be shrewd enough to know that any violation of the 
 constitution or oppression by that Parliament will be so 
 many nails driven into the coffin of the constitvition, and 
 I do not, therefore, think that the occasion for interference 
 will arise. If it does arise nothing we can say, nothing we 
 can do, nothing that you can put in an Act of Parliament 
 now so long as the Union remains unrepealed, can deprive 
 you of the right to control the Irish Parliament, as you can 
 control the Australian and Canadian Parliaments, and to 
 check the growth of oppression and injustice. 
 
 I do not intend to dwell, even for a moment, on the ques- 
 tion of finance. I have nothing to add — I have not been 
 able to add — to my sources of information, and therefore I 
 have nothing to add to what I said on the first reading of 
 the Bill on this point. But the longer these financial clauses 
 have been studied, the more they have been distrusted. It 
 is right we should be perfectly candid in a matter of this 
 kind. I have met no member of any political party what, 
 ever in Ireland who has been able to tell me that Ireland 
 could be successfully worked and successfully governed under 
 the financial clauses of the Bill as they now stand ; and I 
 would add that if the clauses are to remain in their present 
 form, the Government amd their supporter in this House 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1S93. 225 
 
 will have to recognise the fact that it will become a horrible 
 responsibility for any Irish representative to accept this Bill 
 as a settlement. No representative can do so unless the Bill 
 contains in the financial portion provisions to enable the 
 Government of Ireland to be successfully carried on. Leav- 
 ing details on this head aside for discussion in Committee, I 
 pass on to what I take to be the real issue at stake. 
 
 The real issue is whether you will make up your minds to 
 confer upon Ireland a representative Government — a Govern- 
 ment which will give constitutional expression to the will and 
 the voice of her people. There are two ways in which this great 
 and vital principle might be regarded. There is the Irish 
 way and there is the English way. We look upon the prin- 
 ciple as one to be conceded to us as of right. We do not 
 entirely or mainly rest our claim for free representative 
 institutions on grievances. We rest our claim on right. 
 The right hon. gentleman, the member for \/est Birming- 
 ham, thinks that if Mr. Pitt had been able to carry Catholic 
 Emancipation the Union would have been popular, and that 
 the passage of remedial measures would have been of equal 
 service in cementing the Irish and English peoples. We 
 look at it from a diflPerent standpoint. We do not rest our 
 claim solely or mainly on grievances. If the government of 
 my country by Englishmen were the best that could have 
 been devised by the wit of man, I would be as strong a 
 Home Ruler as I am to-day. Without exaggeration, I 
 believe this — that Irish Nationalists would rather be badly 
 governed by their own countrymen than live under the best 
 English government you could give them. We say that 
 Ireland is a distinct and separate Nationality in point of 
 historic importance. It was a nation long before England. 
 For over 600 years Ireland had her own Parliament, 
 which had an exclusive right to legislate for the Irish 
 
 Q 
 
226 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 people. That Parliament was robbed from Ireland by 
 violence and corruption, and against the wUl of the people. 
 Do English members always recall that fact ? 
 
 In 1799, when the Government of the day proposed the 
 Union^ that measure would not have been carried had that 
 Parliament been dissolved after the defeat of the Govern- 
 ment. But it was not dissolved. The Catholics had been 
 enfranchised years before, but they were not allowed to 
 exercise the franchise. The right hon. gentleman referred 
 to armed insurrection, and said that Ireland was deficient 
 in the qualities that would sustain such insurrection. It is 
 impossible for a country like Ireland, with all the advances of 
 military science, to be ready for armed insurrection, but I assert 
 the spirit of resistance stUl lives as it ought to live, the spirit is 
 alive now as in any period for the last century, and my most 
 fervent prayer is that it will meet with no provocation in the 
 rejection of measures of conciliation or in unworthy taunts 
 such as those of the member for West Birmingham. So 
 much for the Irish way. I know it is of far greater 
 moment to dwell on the matter from an English point of 
 view. From the point of view of most Irishmen this matter 
 is looked at from the standpoint that they are entitled to it 
 by right. How did the facts stand from the other point of 
 view ? Here are two countries closely connected with much 
 in common by nature and by admixture of race, yet distinct 
 in history and in nationality. The present Prime Minister 
 spoke some remarkable words on this subject in this House 
 even so long ao;o as 1866. What is the relation which has 
 existed between these two peoples? It cannot be denied 
 that it is a record of shame on one side — of resistance on the 
 other ; of bloodshed, of wasted treasui'e, of national dishonour. 
 Has your government of Ireland succeeded ? I don't want 
 to go back into history. I won't go fm'ther than the Act of 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1893. 227 
 
 Union. You have had famines. You have had armed 
 insurrections. You have been obliged to keep a standing 
 army in Ireland equal to that you had at the Crunea. 
 During the whole of the century you have had a Coercion 
 Act for every year. The right hon. gentleman who addressed 
 the House to-night spoke lightly of coercion, but coercion 
 means the abrogation more or less at different times of the 
 full benefits of the British Constitution. It, therefore, means 
 that during your ninety-three years' rule of Ireland you 
 have had eighty Coercion Acts, each one of them abrogating 
 more or less the full rights of the British Constitution. 
 Ireland's population has diminished. Her material prosper- 
 ity has disappeared. Your government of Ireland has 
 become a bye-word amongst the nations ; and finally at the 
 end of this nineteenth century, which has seen the blessings of 
 liberty slowly but surely reaching almost every subject race 
 in the world, at the end of that century a great English 
 party has been obliged by the Bill now before the House to 
 condemn that union, that system of government which has 
 so uttei'ly failed, and which can only be preserved by the 
 permanent suspension of those rights of constitution such as 
 the right of trial by jury which it is your boast that you 
 desire to see extended to even the eastern races under your 
 sway. It seems to me that aU this goes to show conclusively 
 that the old system has been tried and has failed — that it 
 has hampered and almost destroyed this Parliament — that 
 the whole world has caUed " Shame on it ; " and whether it 
 be amended by this Bill and by this Government, or by 
 another Bill and another Government I know not, but 
 every far-seeing man must admit in his heart that the day 
 is almost dawning when that system will be replaced b>' a 
 system based on the affections, the will, and the confidence 
 of the j-overned. 
 
228 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 I notice that the opponents of the Bill have kept them- 
 selves clear from broad considerations and principles such as 
 these. They have taken up rather a policy of fastening on 
 particular difficulties, and magnifying them enormou.sly, in 
 order to frighten public opinion, but they forget that if all the 
 difficulties, probably many, which may follow from Home 
 Ru.le were increased a hundred fold, they could not by any 
 possibility create as bad a state of things as exists in the 
 relations between the two countries at the present moment. 
 The right hon. gentleman, the member for West Birming- 
 ham, fears that after Home Rule Ireland will be disaffected. 
 Does he believe that Ireland is well aflfected now? He 
 believes that England's difficulty will be Irel{*nd's oppor- 
 tunity after Home Rule, Does he not know that if you 
 reject this measure of concession it will be the darling wish 
 of every Irishman to use all your difficulties as opportunities 
 for advancing the National cause ? Has he ever considered 
 what will happen if this Bill is rejected? Heaven forbid 
 that I should indulge in what might be construed by our 
 enemies into menaces. But can any man contemplate 
 with equanimity what consequences may follow if you 
 reject that which has kept Ireland tranquil and crimeless 
 for seven years ? We are told that if this BiU passes there 
 will be disturbances in Ulster, Can hon, gentlemen consider 
 the possibility of disturbances in other parts of Ireland if the 
 Bill is rejected? Reject this Bill, wreck the hopes upon 
 which the Irish people have been relying, reimpose coercion 
 and which of you wiU undertake the government of Ireland 
 by any form of Constitutional Government whatever ? The 
 alternative to the policy represented by the Bill would be 
 not only a Coercion Act, but it would inevitably be a 
 disfranchisement of Ireland and the establishment of a 
 military despotism 
 
The Rome Rule Bill, 1893. 229 
 
 The argument about Ulster is false and misleading. The 
 very name of the Ulster question itself is a false one. There 
 is no Ulster question. There may be a Belfast question — 
 there may be a question of a small corner of Ulster, but 
 it is false to speak of this question as an Ulster ques- 
 tion. The present population of Ulster, including Belfast, 
 contains forty-six per cent, of Catholics. Leaving out 
 Belfast, it shows a fair majority of Catholics over Protes- 
 tants. I den^'^ altogether that every Protestant is an anti" 
 Nationalist. I know somethins: of the means that are used 
 in Ireland to keep up this agitation against Home Rule- 
 You talk of boycotting in the time of the Land League. I 
 say that boycotting has been brought to a fine art by the 
 Unionists of Ireland against any Protestant who is indepen_ 
 dent enough to declare himself on our side. There are in 
 Ulster, including even Belfast, forty-six per cent, of 
 Catholics, and admittedly the Ulster Catholics are Home 
 Rulers, and with a margin of Protestants in favour of Home 
 Rule, I am convinced that at least one-half of the entire 
 population of Ulster is favourable to this Bill. But suppose 
 there are only forty-six per cent, of the population of Ulster 
 favourable to the BUI, how false to speak of this as an 
 Ulster question. Besides that, Ulster is not, as is so often 
 said, the only prosperous province in Ireland. I wish 
 Ulster were as prosperous as Unionist members endeavoiir 
 to depict her. Belfast is prosperous, and long live her 
 prosperity ; but as Belfast has grown in prosperity 
 Ulster has declined. There are nine counties in Ulster, 
 and within the last fifty years whilst the population 
 of Belfast has increased the population of these nine 
 counties has diminished by one million of people. In 
 face of that fact, can it be pretended that the popu- 
 lation of Ulster is the only prosperous population in 
 
230 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Ireland ? That ditniuution of the population of Ulster 
 is greater than the diminution in some of the other 
 provinces, and the strange thing is that the decrease 
 in population is not greatest where the people are thrift- 
 less Catholic Nationalists — the diminution is less in the 
 Catholic County of Donegal than in those counties which 
 contain a large proportion of prosperous Protestants. I 
 say, that this agitation against the Bill is promoted by a 
 small minority of the Protestants of Ireland, Large masses 
 of the Protestants are, no doubt, frightened by the Bill. I 
 do not wonder at it. They have had in their hands for 
 generations an absolute monopoly of all power and place and 
 patronage. To be born a child of this favovired race in 
 Ireland is to be provided for by some place or position of 
 emolument from one's cradle. No wonder, then, that large 
 masses of them are against a system which would distribute 
 this patronage, power, and influence amongst the people- 
 But whilst these feelings are prevalent amongst Protestants 
 generally, the men who have fomented and instigated this 
 bitter and violent agitation in Ireland against Home Rule 
 are not the general body but a small section comprising the 
 Orange Society. 
 
 I would recall to the House the origin of the Society. It 
 sprang into existence in 1795 — a fateful and terrible year 
 for Ireland. At that time the Protestant Parliament of 
 Ireland had commenced the work of Catholic Emancipation 
 — commenced it thirty years before yoiu- enlightened 
 English Parliament carried it out. That Protestant Par- 
 liament of Ireland had at its back in support of Catholic 
 Emancipation the far larger part of the Protestants of the 
 country. Lord Fitzwilliam has declared that at the time of 
 his recall the Protestants of Ireland generally were favour- 
 able to Emancipation. But the minority — the unreason- 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1893. 231 
 
 ing and fanatical minority amongst the Protestants — used 
 their influence with England, and the beneficent policy of 
 Lord Fitzwilliam was reversed. Lord Fitzwilliam was 
 withdrawn. This unreasoning minority of Protestants at 
 once formed themselves into the Orange Society, and then 
 by their excesses, their fanaticism, they drove the Irish 
 people to arms. I have here abundant proof of my state- 
 ment. Lord Cornwallis, writing to the Duke of Portland 
 in July, 1798, said: — 
 
 " The principal persons (i.e., the Orangemen) are in general ad- 
 verse to all acts of clemency, and although they do not express it, 
 and perhaps are too much heated to see the ultimate effects which 
 their violence must produce, would pursue measures that could only 
 terminate in the extirpation of the great number of the inhabitantsj 
 and in the utter destruction of the countty. The words Papists and 
 Priests are forever in their mouths, and by this unaccountable folly 
 they would drive four-fifths of the couimuuity into irreconcilable 
 rebellion." 
 
 In the same year Lord Cornwallis also wrote : — 
 
 "The principal personages — i.e., Beresford, &c. — who have long 
 been in the habit of directing the Councils of the Lord Lieutenants, 
 are blinded by their passions and prejudices, talk of nothing but 
 strong measures, and arrogate to themselves the exclusive knowledge 
 of a country of which from their mode of governing it they have 
 in my opinion, proved themselves totally ignorant. Keligious 
 animosities increase, and I am sorry to say are encouraged by the 
 foolish violence of all the principal persons who have been in the 
 habit of governing this island." 
 
 I say there are abundant proofs of my statement that this 
 unreasonable minority, comprising the Orange Society, 
 drove the people into insurrection. Mr. Goodwin Smith, 
 who is now a Unionist, and whose voice is received as the 
 voice of a prophet, wrote in his Irish History and Irish 
 Character : — 
 
232 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 "The peasantry though undoubtedly in a disturbed state, might 
 have been kept quiet by lenity, but they were gratuitously scourged 
 and tortured into open rebellion. These were crimes not of indivi- 
 dual ruffians, but of faction — a faction which must take its place in 
 history beside that of Robespierre, Couthon, and Carriere. The 
 murders by the Jacobins may have excited more indignation aud 
 pity, because the victims were of high rank, but in the use of 
 torture the Orangemen seemed to have reached a pitch of fiendish 
 cruelty, which was scarcely attained by the Jacobins. The dreadful 
 Civil War of 1798 was the crime, as a candid study of its history will 
 prove — not of the Irish people — but of the Orange terrorists, who 
 literally goaded the people into insurrection." 
 
 This is the faction who in Ireland to-day are the instiga- 
 tors and the promoters of the more violent and unreasoning 
 features of the Protestant agitation against Home Rule. That 
 faction instigated religious differences — one of the greatest 
 crimes that a man could be guilty of. They invoked 
 religious hatreds in order to destroy the Parliament of 
 Ireland, and to-day precisely the same agencies are at work. 
 Religious fears and differences are availed of in support of 
 the Union by men whose father's bigotry and intolerance 
 brought about the Union. 
 
 It has been said that Grattan's Parliament was a failure, 
 I deny it. Grattan's Parliament in 1793 admitted the 
 Catholics to the franchise, to serve on juries, to the pro- 
 fessions, and to the universities, and it was not till thirty 
 years afterwards that this Imperial Parliament completed 
 the work of Emancipation. That Protestant Parliament 
 was willing to extend liberty to their Catholic fellow- 
 countrymen, and it was the hand of England that inter- 
 posed between the Protestant Parliament and the masses of 
 their countrymen. The minority of Protestants who 
 opposed Catholic Emancipation in 1793, who got Lord Fitz- 
 william recalled in 1795, and whose bigotry and fanaticism 
 drove the people into arms in 1798 — these are the men 
 
The Home Rule Bill 1S03. 233 
 
 whose lineal descendants to-day are promoters of this unrea- 
 soning and violent agitation against Hop^e Ptule. These are 
 the men of whom Mr. John Bright, speaking in this House, 
 used these words : — 
 
 "These Ulstennen have stood in the way of improvement in the 
 franchise, in the Church and in the Land question. They have pur- 
 chased Protestant ascendancy, and the price paid for it is the ruin and 
 degradation of their country." 
 
 What, I ask, is the meaning of this Belfast scare ? Do 
 hon. gentlemen really think that the Irish Parliament will 
 at once set itself to the task of destroying Belfast ? Why, 
 it is too absurd to argue. Do they really think that the Catho- 
 lic majority in that Parliament will at once set about perse- 
 cuting the Protestant minority? A more insulting and 
 humiliating charge was never brought against the people. 
 We are entitled, when that charge is made, to ask our 
 opponents to point to a single period of Irish history 
 when the Irish Catholics were guilty of those acts of 
 oppression which English Catholics were undoubtedly 
 guilty of. There were periods when the Catholics of 
 Ireland had in their hands the power to oppress their 
 Protestant fellow-countrymen, but these periods were 
 marked by a spirit of tolerance displayed by the Catho- 
 lics towards the Protestants. The reign of Mary was 
 marked by the oppression of Protestants by Catholics 
 in England, including the burning of several Protestants at 
 the stake, but we have it on the authority of the Protestant 
 historians, Leland and Taylor, that in the reign of Mary the 
 Dublin Corporation rented seventy-four houses for the shelter 
 of refugees from the persecution of Protestants in England. 
 The Protestant writer, Taylor, in his history of the civil wax*s 
 in Ireland, testifies as follows : — 
 
234 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 " The restoration of the religion was effected without violence. No 
 persecution of the Protestants was attempted, and several of the 
 EngUsh who fled from the furious zeal of Mary's inquisitors found a 
 safe refuge among the Catholics of Ireland. It is but justice to this 
 maligned body to add that on those occasions of their obtaining the 
 upper hand they never injured a single person in life or limb for pro- 
 fessing a religion different to their own. They had suffered persecu- 
 tion and learned mercy as they showed in the reign of Mary, in the 
 ■wars from 1641 to 16i8, and during the brief triumph of James 11.** 
 
 The Secretary for Scotland in his speech the other night 
 told us that some very horrible woodcuts, by George Cruik- 
 shank, depicting horrible occurrences in Ireland were being 
 cii'culated throughout England. The same policy was 
 adopted in 1886. The most atrocious falsehoods and calum- 
 nies against the people of Ireland, pictorial and otherwise, 
 were circulated throughout this country. I hold in my 
 hand a publication issued by a Tory candidate and a 
 Tory association, and I will read an extract from it to show 
 the kind of calumny that is being palmed off on the people 
 of England. It is in the fonn of a catechism, with questions 
 and answers : — 
 
 " Question — Have the Irish ever had Home Rule, and how did they 
 
 behave? 
 
 " Answer — They murdered every Englishman and Protestant they 
 could lay their hands on in 1641. They were set on by the priests, 
 ■who said that Protestants were devils and served the devil, and that 
 the killing of them was a meritorious act. Altogether they killed in 
 that year 150,000 Protestant men and women and children." 
 
 That is the kind of calumny that is spread by our oppo- 
 nents throughout English constituencies. But what does Mr. 
 Lecky say on this question of Catholic oppression — and 
 surely hon.- members will listen to Mr. Lecky's words as the 
 words of an impartial witness 1 He writes : — 
 
The Home Rule Bill, J8D3. 235 
 
 "Irish history contains its full share of violence and massacre, but 
 whoever will examine these episodes with impartiality may easily con- 
 vince himself that their connection with religion has been most super- 
 ficial. Religious crises have been sometimes raised. Religious 
 enthusiasm has been often appealed to in the agony of a struggle, but 
 the real causes have usually been the conflicts of races and classes, the 
 struggle of nationality against annihilation. Among the Catholics — 
 at least religious intolerance — has never been a prevailing vice, and 
 those who have studied closely the history and character of the Irish 
 people can hardly fail to be struck with the deep respect for sincere 
 religion in every form which they have commonly evinced. Their 
 original conversion to Chi-istianity was probably accompanied by 
 less violence and bloodshed than that of any equally considerable 
 nation in Europe, and in spite of the fearful calamities which followed 
 the Reformation, it is a memorable fact that not a single Protestant 
 suffered for his religion in Ireland diu'ing all the period of the Marian 
 persecution in England. The treatment of Bedell, a Protestant 
 prelate, during the outbreak of 1641, and the Act establishing liberty 
 of conscience passed by the Irish Parliament in 1689, in the full flush 
 of the brief Catholic ascendancy under James II., exhibit very 
 remarkably the aspect of the Irish character," 
 
 I am conscious that all this might be met by our opponents 
 saying : — That is not the kind of persecution that we fear. 
 We don't fear that we shall be burned at the stake, but 
 we do fear that there will be a Catholic clerical ascendancy. 
 
 You wiU understand me when I say that I am likely to 
 give impartial testimony on that matter. It is true that in 
 the political life of Ireland the Catholic priesthood wield an 
 enormous preponderating power, but they wield it largely 
 because of the character of the struggle the people are 
 waging. Still I am as convinced as I am of my own 
 existence that the political power — the political supremac_)-, 
 if you like — of the Catholic clergy, avlU not, if it is tried, be 
 used successfully under a free Parliament of the Irish 
 people. Surely the events of the past couple of years in 
 Ireland, instead of giving alarm to the Protestants, should 
 give them some encouragement. The hon. member for 
 
236 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Londonderry said in his speech the other night that I ought 
 to be the last man in the House to say a word upon this 
 subject. I say there is no man in this House who has a 
 better right to speak on it. I and my comrades sit in this 
 House as the resvilt of defeating the unanimous opposition 
 of the priests and bishops of Ireland. There is not one of 
 us who was not opposed, as I was, determinedly, consistently, 
 and unanimously by the entire priesthood of Ireland. Only 
 a few of us have been returned, but I ask when in the past 
 history of Ireland — even when the right hon. gentleman the 
 member for West Birmingham was thinking of giving over 
 education without any restriction to the people of Ireland — 
 when, I ask, was such a spectacle afforded as 70,000 
 Catholic votes being recorded against practically the open 
 opposition of the whole body of the priesthood of Ireland ? 
 I say that it is in that spirit of independence to clerical 
 interference in political matters the Protestants will find in 
 the future their best guarantee and safeguard. 
 
 To the Protestants of Ireland generally I will say this — 
 If I believed that Home Rule would mean for the 
 Protestants of Ireland, not the oppression at the stake, 
 which, as you say, is unlikely and impossible — but if 
 I thought it meant the abrogation of one whit of 
 their just, civil, and religious liberties, I would, as an 
 Irish Nationalist, oppose Home Rule, and would quit 
 my country whose people had not learned the first elements 
 of liberty. We, Irish Catholic Nationalists, owe too much 
 in our past history to our Protestant fellow-countrymen ever 
 to be guilty of the baseness of betrayal. We do not forget 
 the history of Ireland. We do not forget that it was 
 Protestants who won the Parliament of 1782 ; that it was 
 Piotestants who organized the Society of United Irishmen 
 both before and after it had become a revolutionary organis- 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1S03. 237 
 
 ation. We do not forget that it was Protestants who gave 
 the franchise to Catholics in 1793, that Protestants led the 
 rebel army in '98, that Protestants gallantly but vainly 
 defended Irish liberty m 1800; and we do not foi-get that 
 every day that has passed smce has witnessed the eftbrts of 
 Protestants to defend and promote civil aixd z'eligious liberty 
 in the national life of Ireland. 
 
 The member for West Birmingham laid great stress 
 on his distrust of the present Irish leaders. He did 
 not, he said, distrust the people of Ireland, The 
 right hon. gentleman resented the accusation that he 
 had reproached the Irish people with having little of 
 humanity except their form. Now it was not the 
 people of Ireland the right hon. gentleman distrusted, but 
 their leaders. But if he distrvisted the leaders he must 
 distrust those who followed them. If he distrusted the 
 people, then he had a right to oppose this BUI ; but I ask 
 how long is it since the right hon, gentleman learned this 
 dlstriist of the Irish leaders ? I have abstained from argu- 
 ments of a fu quocpie character, which had been too frequent 
 in that debate, but the temptation is irresistable to remind 
 the right hon. gentleman of some incidents in his own past 
 career. One of the reasons for the ricjlit hon, gentleman 
 distrusting the Irish leaders was that they had been 
 denounced as "marching through rapine andplvinder" by the 
 Prime Minister; but m the year 1885, long after the Prime 
 Mmister had denoimced them as marching through rapine 
 to dismemberment — long after the right hon, gentleman had 
 made himself perfectly acquainted with them, and at a time 
 when, as a matter of fact, the right hon. gentleman was in 
 the closest and most confidential relation-; with some of the 
 Irish leaders, there was published an article in the Fort 
 nightly Review, which the right hon. gentleman ailmitted 
 
238 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 when challenged in that House had been published with 
 liis sanction and approval, and the main lines of it could 
 be regarded as his. In that article, he said : — 
 
 " What is tlie root of Irish discontent ? Everyone recognises the 
 existence of great grievances which distinguished the Government of 
 Ireland at the commencement of the century, but many of them had 
 beea removed. The tithes have been abolished. Catholic Emanci- 
 pation has been granted. Religious disabilities have been removed. 
 The Irish Church has been disestablished, and last, and most important, 
 the land laws have been reformed. In addition there has been a large 
 use of Imperial funds and credit." 
 
 And now I woiild call the recollection of the House to 
 the statement of the member for West Birmingham, that 
 Ireland was improving under remedial legislation, and if 
 only the Prime Minister had let the improvement go on, and 
 had not been in a hurry in 1885, the improvement would 
 sooner or later have resulted in contentment. But what did 
 the right hon. gentleman say in 18851 The article pro- 
 ceeded : — • 
 
 " The Irish people are discontented still, and, probably there is more 
 deep-seated disaffection with the English connection at the present 
 time than at any previous period since the Union. These reforms 
 have all been late. They have been the result of compulsion, not of 
 justice. They have been proposed and carried by a foreign Govern- 
 ment. What is needed in Ireland is that Irish legislation should be 
 domestic and not foreign — Austria and Hungary." 
 
 I 
 
 The right hon. gentleman scoflfed at Austria and Hungary 
 as a precedent now : — 
 
 " Austria and Hungary have long since settled their differences, yet 
 England persists still in misgoverning Ireland, and has failed to 
 endow her with a constitution that will command the loyalty and 
 affection of the people." 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1893. 239 
 
 With what a face does the right hon. gentleman after 
 declarations of that kind come down to the House and 
 declare that the remedial legislation between 1869 and 1885 
 was gradually weaning the people away from disaffection, 
 and only for the wicked meddler, the Prime Minister, in 
 1885, by this time I suppose the Irish Chamiel would 
 have disappeared, or, at any rate, England and Ireland 
 as two nations, would have merged into one harmonious 
 whole. In conclusion, I earnestly impress just one 
 other consideration upon the House. The malady from 
 which Ireland is admittedly stiffering is a deadly malady, 
 and the case is urgent. It is not a case that wiU 
 brook of delay. "While doctors are differmg the patient 
 is dying. The very life-blood of Ireland is day by day 
 ebbing away from her. Every specific has been tried for 
 the cure of this malady. Every specific has been tried 
 except one, and that is to allow the Irish people to 
 make an attempt at any rate to cure themselves. Her 
 disease is alike of the mind and body. I remember 
 when a very young lad listening in the gallery of the 
 House to a speech on this subject in the year 1876, and I 
 remember Mr. Isaac Butt — whose name I, in common 
 with large masses of the Irish people, will ever recall with 
 reverence and affection — I remember Mr. Isaac Butt 
 quoting to the House those noble words in " Macbeth," 
 when Macbeth asked the physician : — 
 
 '• Cans't thou not minister to a mind diseased ; 
 Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow ; 
 Raise out the written troubles of the brain, 
 And with some sweet oblivious antidote 
 Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff 
 Which weighs upon her ? " 
 
 And I x'emember well the effect produced upon the 
 
240 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 House when. Mr. Butt went further, and recalled the 
 answer of the physician, who said : — 
 
 " Therein the patient must minister to herself." 
 
 That is our case for Home Rule. We say that Ire- 
 land must minister to herself. Her malady has baffled 
 the most skilful political physicians of this country, has 
 baffled England's ablest administrators, her wisest legisla- 
 tors, her sagest councillors and statesmen. We say 
 that Ireland's sole remaining hope is in herself. Ire- 
 land herself must minister to herself. She must bind 
 up her own wounds and cure her own disorder. Those 
 who say, as Lord Salisbury has done, that the Irish 
 people, because they were mostly of the Celtic race, were 
 unfitted for the use of representative institutions and for 
 the enjoyment of freedom, made a declaration foreign to 
 the whole experience and history of their Empire. In the 
 creation of the Empire, in the Government of the Empire, 
 in the councils of the Empire, in the exercise of those 
 virtues and talents which were necessary for the practice of 
 the arts of Govenmaent, I say that Irishmen have proved 
 themselves equal to the best of Englishmen or Scotchmen 
 or Welshmen. Go round the Empire on which you boast 
 the sun never sets, and I defy you to find one spot where 
 Irislimen have not made an exhibition of those talents and 
 those virtues except one spot — that spot being the land of 
 their birth and affections. I say to the House these 
 great qualities and virtues are not yet extinct in the 
 Irish race. Give them free scope, throw upon the shoulders 
 of the people the sobering influence of responsibility — give 
 them free scope, give them the bracing influences of a free 
 constitution, and I am convinced, as that we are assem- 
 bled in this Parliament to-day, that the Irish question, 
 
The Home Rule Bill, 1893. 241 
 
 which for a hundred 3'ears has been the torture and 
 disgrace of this united Imperial Parliament, will in a few 
 short years trouble them no more, and Ireland — poor 
 depopulated, scourged, rightly disaffected Ireland — will 
 be converted from what she is to-day, alike England's 
 weakness and England's shame, into a portion of the 
 Empire, which if not as prosperous and rich as happy 
 England, will at least be as contented, as peaceful, and as 
 free. 
 
IRISH NATIONAL CONVENTION IN 
 CHICAGO. 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED ON 18tH AUGrST, 1886. 
 
 XI. 
 
 The duty which devolves upon my colleagues and myself of 
 representing the Irish nation at home, at this great gather- 
 ing of the Irish nation abroad, is one in which the honour 
 is great and the responsibility heavy. Perhaps the greatest 
 glory of our nation is to be found in the fact that our 
 people, driven by misfortune and misrule from the land 
 of their fathers, and coming to this land rude, ignorant, 
 and poor, have yet been able to bear an honourable part in 
 building up the fortunes of America, and to give to the 
 world undeniable proof that, in addition to the qualities of 
 fidelity and honesty, Irishmen, under a free constitution, 
 can be worthy sons and good citizens of their adopted 
 country. The Irish people in this great republic, no less as 
 American citizens than as Irish Nationalists, have arrested 
 the attention and commanded the admiration of the world. 
 The assembly of this day is a proof of devotion to a great 
 cause, perhaps unparalleled in history. 
 
 The hardships, the oppressions, and the miseries which 
 drove you or your fathers from Ireland, have wedded your 
 hearts to Ireland's cause by ties which neither prosperity, 
 nor distance, nor time, can destroy or weaken. No selfish 
 
Convention in Chicago. 243 
 
 interests urge you to support the old cause, devotion to which 
 brought ruin and death upon your forefathers and exile upon 
 yourselves. Selfishness and worldly interests all point to 
 another course as the best ; but it is the undying glory of 
 Ireland that her exUed sons, in the midst of prosperity, and 
 in the light of liberty, have yet found time to absent them- 
 selves from felicity awhile to tell her story, aiid have made 
 it a part of their daily life and nightly dream to help in. 
 working out her redemption. 
 
 The Irish soldier, whose sword was consecrated to the ser- 
 vice of America, dreamed as he went into battle, of the day 
 when his arm, skilled in the service of his adopted country, 
 might strike a blow for Irish liberty. The Irish business 
 man, who found in one of your gigantic cities scope for his 
 enterprise and for his industry, looked forward to the day 
 when from his store help might go across the Atlantic to 
 sustain Ireland's champions on the old sod. The Irish 
 labourer, whose brawny arms have built your railroads and 
 reared your stately palaces, in the midst of his labours laid 
 aside his daily or weekly mite to help those who were fight- 
 ing, tune after time, with one weapon or another, in the old 
 cause against the old enemies of Ireland. Rich or poor, 
 high or low, alike, the Irish in America have never forgotten 
 the land whence they sprang, and our people at home, in their 
 joj's and their sorrows, in their hopes and in their fears, turn 
 ever for help and encouragement, and confidence to this great 
 republic, upon whose fortunes and whose futu.re rest to-day 
 the blessings of the Irish race. To assist at this great con- 
 vention of the Irish nation in America, especially to stand 
 here as we do, as the ambassadors sent here to represent the 
 Irish nation at home, is indeed a supreme honour which we 
 can never over-estimate and can never forget. 
 
 But it is also an honour which bears with it indeed an 
 
244 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 overwhelming £ense of responsibility — the responsibility of 
 showing to you that we who are conducting this movement at 
 home are worthy of your confidence, and hav^e a right to claim 
 your continued support ; the responsibility also of clearly 
 placing before you the conditions upon which alone we can 
 accept that support or value that confidence. Let me dwell 
 a moment vipon these two points. Are we worthy of your 
 confidence, and have we a right to claim your continued sup- 
 port 1 In order to answer this question satisfactorily we 
 must show, first, that we are guided by the same principle and 
 animated by the same hopes as youi'selves; and in the 
 second place, that our movement is conducted on a wise and 
 honest policy. What is the principle underlying this move- 
 ment ? It is the unquestioned recognition of the nationality 
 of Ireland. We are working not simply for the removal of 
 grievances or the amelioration of the material condition of 
 our people. Nothing, I think, is plainer than if Ireland had 
 in the past abandoned principle, she could easily have bar- 
 tered her national rights to England, and in return have 
 obtained a certain amount of material prosperity. If only 
 our forefathers had meekly accepted the yoke of an alien 
 rule, Ireland's fetters would have been gilded, and the hand 
 which for centuries has scourged her would have given her, 
 as a slave, indulgences and favours which would have per- 
 haps saved her from sufferings which are without a parallel 
 in the history of oppression. If, at the bidding of England, 
 Ireland had ages since abandoned her religion, and consented 
 to merge her nationalit}^, we might to-day be the sleekest of 
 slaves, fattened by the bounty of our conquerers. Scotland, 
 by even a smaller compromise of her national existence, has 
 secured for herself comparative prosperity. But Ireland has 
 preferred rags and an unconquered spirit of liberty to favours 
 won by national dishonour. 
 
Convention in Cliicago. 245 
 
 The principle embodied in the Irish movement of to-day 
 is jiist the same principle which was the soul of every Irish 
 movement for the last seven centuries — the principle of rebel- 
 lion against the rule of strangers ; the principle which Owen 
 Roe O'Neil vindicated at Benburb ; which animated Tone 
 and Fitzgerald, and to which Emmet sacrificed a stainless 
 life. Let no man desecrate that principle by giving it the 
 Ignoble name of hatred of England. Race hatred is at best 
 an unreasoning passion. I, for one, believe in the brother- 
 hood of nations, and bitter as the memory is of past wrongs 
 and present injustice inflicted upon our people by our alien 
 rulers, I assert the principle underlying our movement is not 
 the principle of revenge for the past but of justice for the 
 future. When a question of that principle arises there can 
 be no such thing as compromise. The Irish leader who 
 would propose to compromise the national claims of Ireland, 
 who would even incline for one second to accept as a settle- 
 ment of our demand any concession short of the unques- 
 tioned recognition of that nationality which has come down 
 to lis sanctified by the blood and tears of centuries, would be 
 false to Ireland's history and would forfeit all claims upon 
 your confidence or support. Such a contingency can never 
 arise, for the man who would be traitor enough to propose such 
 a coui'se would find himself no longer a leader. No man can 
 barter away the honour of a nation. The one great prin- 
 ciple of any settlement of the Irish question must be the re- 
 cognition of the divine right of Irishmen and Irishmen alone, 
 to rule Ireland. This is the principle in support of which you 
 are assembled to-day ; this is the principle which guides our 
 movement in Ireland. But consistently with that principle 
 we believe it is possible to bring about a settlement honour- 
 able to England and Ireland alike, whereby the wrongs and 
 miseries of the past may be forgotten : whereby the chapter 
 
246 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 of English wrongs and of Irish resistance may be closed; and 
 whereby a future of freedom and of amity between the two 
 nations may be inaugurated. 
 
 Such a settlement, we believe, was offered to us by Mr. 
 Gladstone, and quite apart from the increased strength 
 which Mr. Gladstone's proposals, even though temporarily 
 defeated, have given to our cause, we have, I think, reason 
 to rejoice at the opportunity which they afforded to our 
 suflt'ering and exasperated people to show the magnanimity 
 of their natures and the unalloyed purity of their love of 
 liberty. What a spectacle Ireland afforded to the world, 
 when at last one great Englishman arose bold enovigh and 
 wise enough to do justice to her character ! Ages of heart- 
 less oppression and bitter wrong, hundreds of thousands of 
 martyrs to Irish freedom, ages of stupid religious persecu- 
 tion, ages of depopulation and state-created famine, never- 
 ending insult, and ruthless calumny — aU in that one moment 
 were forgotten, and the feelings uppermost in the hearts of 
 the Irish race at home and abroad were gratitude to the aged 
 statesman who simply proposed to do justice, and anxiety 
 for a " blessed oblivion of the past." Who, in the face of 
 the reception given to the Bill of Mr. Gladstone, cramped 
 and deformed as it was by humiliating safeguards and unne- 
 cessary limitations, wUl dare to say that the principle of our 
 movement is merely race hatred of England 1 
 
 No ! Last April Ireland was ready to forget and forgive. 
 She was ready to sacrifice many things for peace, as long as 
 the one essential principle for which she struggled was con- 
 ceded. She was willing, on the day when the portals of her 
 ancient senate-house were re-opened, to shake hands with 
 her hereditary foe, and to proclaim peace between the 
 democracies of two nations whom the Almighty placed side 
 by side to be friends, but who had been kept apart by the 
 
Convention in Chicago. 247 
 
 avarice, the passions, and the injustice of a few. What 
 centuries of oppression had failed to do seemed about to be 
 accomplished by one word of conciliation, by one act of 
 justice. 
 
 Almost one hundred years before a similar opportunity 
 arose. Wolfe Tone and the Society of United Irishmen 
 demanded Catholic emancipation and Parliamentary reform, • 
 and in 1795 Lord Fitzwilliam came to Ireland to carry out 
 a policy of justice. Then, just as last April, the Irish 
 question was on the very brink of settlement. The passion 
 of revenge died out, ancient wrongs were forgotten, faction 
 faded at the approach of liberty, and for one brief moment 
 the clouds lifted over Ireland. But the moment was brief. 
 
 Lord Fitzwilliam was recalled, and Lord Camden went to 
 Ireland and deliberately commenced the policy which 
 culminated in the rebellion of 1798. Fatally alike in 
 almost all its details was the crisis of that day to the crisis 
 of to-day. Once again the policy of conciliation has 
 been cast aside by England. The English Viceroy who 
 represented the policy of liberty, and who Avas the first 
 English Viceroy since 1795 who was greeted with the 
 acclamations of the populace in Dublin, has left our 
 shores, and in his place has come one bearing the hated 
 name of Castlereagh. Once again all thought of amity 
 with England has been banished from the minds of 
 Irishmen, and to-day we are once more face to face 
 with our hereditary foes. The storm cloud has descended 
 once more upon our land, but we have a right to call on 
 the world to remember, when by and by it perhaps shudders 
 at the darkness and gloom and horror of the scene, how 
 brightly and peacefully the Ir-ish landscape smiled during 
 the brief sunshine of the last few months. 
 
 The duty of the moment is clear. We have given 
 
248 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 England the most convincing proof that on the concession 
 of liberty we can be trusty friends ; it now remains for us 
 to prove for the thousandth time that as slaves we can be 
 formidable foes. I assert here to-day that the government 
 of Ireland by England is an impossibility, and 1 believe it 
 to be our duty to keep it so. Were our people tamely to 
 submit to the j6k.G which has been once again placed on 
 their necks they would be unworthy of the blood which 
 they have inherited from fathei's who preferred poverty, to 
 dishonour and death to national slavery. 
 
 But there is no danger of such a disgrace. The national 
 movement is in the hands of a man who can be bold as well 
 as cautious, and I claim the confidence and support of the 
 Irish in America, not only because they are animated by 
 the same principle and the same hopes as we are, but 
 because our movement at home is conducted on a wise and 
 honest policy. Judged by the test of success, how does that 
 policy stand 1 Has our cause for one instant stopped in its 
 progress toward triumph ? When last you assembled in 
 convention, two years ago, the Irish party in Parliament 
 did not number more than forty , to-day we hold five-sixths 
 of the Irish seats, and speak in the name of five-sixths of the 
 Irish people in Ireland. Two j'ears ago we had arrayed 
 against iis all English political parties and every English 
 ■statesman . to-da\' wo have upon our side one of the great 
 English political parties, which, though its past traditions 
 in Ireland have been evil, still represents the party of 
 progress in England, and the greatest statesman of tlie day 
 who has staked his all upon winning for Ireland her national 
 rights. Two years ago England had in truth, in Mitchel's 
 -phrase, the ear of the world. To-day, at last, that ear. so 
 long poisoned with calumnies of our people, is now open to 
 the voice of Ireland. Two years ago the public opinion of 
 
Convention in Chicago. 249 
 
 the world — aye, and even of this free land of America — 
 was doubtful as to the justice of our movement ; to-day the 
 opinion of the civilized world, and of America in particular, 
 is clearly and distinctly upon our side. Has the policy 
 which has wrought this change been a success, and 
 are the men who have raised the Irish cause to its 
 present position worthy of your continued confidence and 
 support ? 
 
 Well, but for the future, what is the policy and who are 
 to be the framers of that policy ? Here I come to the 
 second point I mentioned at the beginning — namely, the 
 condition upon which alone we can value your confidence or 
 accept your support. So long as we are true to the great 
 principles of Irish nationality, resolutely refusing either to 
 be bought or coerced from a rigid adherence to the full 
 measure of national right, and so long as we are able to 
 point to our past policy as honest and successful, we say we, 
 and no others, are entitled to decide for ourselves upon Irish 
 soil and upon our own responsibility what our policy for the 
 future is to be. This is the condition upon which you have 
 given your support to us in the past, and it is the condition 
 upon which alone we can accept your support for the future. 
 Of one thing, however, you may rest assured — the policy in 
 Ireland in the near future will be one of fight. The chief 
 of the present English Government recently prescribed as a 
 remedy for Irish discontent twenty years' coercion. He 
 forgot the historical fact that since the Act of Union there 
 had been eighty-six years' coercion, and that the spirit 
 of the people is sterner and higher to-day than ever 
 is was before. For coercion he was quite prepared, 
 and to coercion Lord Salisbury will most assuredly be 
 forced to come, although the policy of the new Govern- 
 ment seems to be to try and stave off stern measures 
 
250 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 for awhile. They will, howevei^, soon find out their 
 mistake. 
 
 To the concession of justice and liberty there is no alter- 
 native but coercion. To imagine that Ireland could jog 
 along peacefvilly for even six months vinder the rule of th& 
 new Castlereagh is to set down our people as cravens or 
 fools. In the coming winter the laws. of nature itself will 
 forbid the possibility of peace. For the last six months the 
 tenant farmers of Ireland have played a part too little 
 known and appreciated here. They submitted to untold 
 privations and sufferings and exactions in patience and in 
 silence, lest by one word or act of theirs they should 
 embarrass their leaders in Parliament, or retard by one 
 moment the concession of Home Rule. The landlords of 
 Ireland noted, but totally misundei-stood the meaning of the 
 change of attitude. They mistook forbearance and patriot, 
 ism for cowardice, and the crowbar brigade once more set to 
 work. Still the tenants suffered in silence. Mr. Gladstone 
 proposed a Land Bill which would have bought out the 
 landlords at an extravagantly high figure, yet the Irish 
 tenants were ready, because it was coupled with the 
 concession of Home Rule, to pay this exorbitant sum as the 
 price to be paid for national freedom. But all motive for 
 forbearance on their part is now gone, the sands have 
 run through the hour- glass, and the old fight between 
 landlord and tenant must revive if the people are not 
 to be swept out of existence while they are waiting for 
 Home Rule. 
 
 Once more Irish landlords have behaved with unaccount- 
 able folly and stupidity. They have once more stood 
 between Ireland and her freedom, and have refused even an 
 extravagant price for the land because the ofi'er was coupled 
 with the concession of an Irish Parliament. So be it. I 
 
Convention in Chicago. 251 
 
 believe the last offer has been made to Irish landlordism. 
 The ultimate settlement of this question must now be 
 reserved for the Parliament of Ireland, and meantime the 
 people miist take care to protect themselves and their 
 childi'en. In many parts of Ireland, I assert, rent is to-day 
 an impossibility, and in every part of Ireland the rents 
 demanded are exorbitant, and will not and cannot be paid. 
 The old struggle will be revived, and before three months 
 are over the new Government will be forced, as of old, in 
 defence of the rents of the landlords, to attempt to forge 
 anew the fetters of coercion. The process will not be an 
 easy one, and even if successful, we have no reason to fear 
 the worst they can do. For my part, indeed, I think it but 
 right and fitting, that so long as Englishmen rule Ireland 
 they should be forced to do so by coercion. We have to day 
 no constitution, and it is well that the mask of constitution- 
 alism should be torn from the faces of our rulers and the fact 
 made patent to the world. In this coming struggle, which 
 we honestly believe will be the final one before victory, we 
 claim the assistance of our fellow-countrymen and the 
 sympathy of all the citizens of this great Republic. Gentle- 
 men, I have now done. The memory of this day will live 
 with me whUe memory lasts. The effects of the work upon 
 "which you have been engaged wUl, I believe, live and be 
 felt so long as tliis struggle continues. Your wisdom will 
 giiide our policy, your courage will inspire our hearts, your 
 marvellous union will excite our emulation. You have good 
 reason, indeed, to be proud of the proceedings of this day. 
 You are, in truth, engaged in a noble and a sacred work — • 
 nothing less than championing the weak against the strong, 
 the helpless against the powerful, the aflflicted against the 
 prosperous. You have long since earned for yourselves and 
 your adopted countxy the blessings of the poor, and rest 
 
252 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 assured when at last, victory sits upon our cause and freedom 
 is again enthroned in Ireland, you also will reap a reward, 
 ■for the God of the poor and the oppressed, the God of 
 justice and of mercy, will also increase your prosperity 
 and watch eternally over your liberties. 
 
THE COERCION ACT. 
 
 SPEECH FOR THE DEFEXCE IN THE CASE OF Q. V. REDMOND, 
 TRIED AT FERNS, CO. "WEXFORD, 6tH SEPTEMBER, 1888. 
 
 XII. 
 
 I INTEND to call no witnesses for the defence. The facts of 
 the case are practically undisputed. The shorthand writer's 
 report appears to be a fairly accurate one. I made the 
 speech in question. I stand by every word of it, and it is 
 for you to say whether or not in that speech I have violated 
 the law. This being so, I think I will best consult my own 
 self-respect and dignity by confining the remarks which I 
 have to address to the Bench within the naiTowest possible 
 compass. 
 
 First of all, let me say, I don't intend to raise any legal 
 questions here to-day, or to argue any complications of law 
 whatever. If any such enter into this case you will forgive 
 me for saying that I do not consider this the proper time to 
 discuss them, or the proper tribunal to decide them. I 
 am accused here of using intimidation towards Captain 
 AValker in my speech at Scarawalsh. I utterly repudiate 
 and deny that accusation, and I maintain that no fair or 
 honest interpretation of my words can support it. No 
 portion of my speech can, in my judgment, come within 
 that definition. 
 
 During the entire of my public life, extending over ten 
 years of stormy political strife, I have ever denounced 
 
254 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 violence and crime of every kind, and have sought by the 
 action of public opinion alone to stay the hand of oppression 
 and to protect the people in their homes. In my speech at 
 Scarawalsh my principle object was, if I could, to induce 
 and persuade this landlord to act with leniency and justice 
 to this particular tenant. I ask you do these words support 
 a charge of intimidation ? 
 
 I spoke as follows : — 
 
 " We have met here to-day for a very clear and definite 
 reason ; we have not met here to talk platitudes or genera- 
 lities about the National cause, or the cause of the farmers ; 
 we are here to direct public attention to a particidar instance 
 of the way in which the tenants of Ireland have been 
 impoverished by the land system and driven from their 
 homes. Wo are here holding a meeting at the door of an 
 evicted tenant to protest against eviction, and to make it 
 perfectly plain to every man in the community that this 
 evicted farm is to remain idle, and that so long as Clinch is 
 kept out of the land, so long no farmer in the district wUj 
 have hand, act, or part in working that land. Now, you 
 may, and probably all of you know that I have alwaj's during 
 my political career endeavoured to act and speak as a 
 moderate man; I have always endeavoured before advo- 
 cating any particular cause to find out that that was a good 
 cause, and in no instance have I backed up a tenant merely 
 because he was a tenant, if I thought that tenant was guUty 
 of injustice and the landlord had not treated him unfairly. 
 Therefore, I think it right to examine for a moment the 
 facts of the case. I would not be here to-day were it not 
 that I know this man Clinch has been under the form of 
 law robbed of his property just as clearly and as certainly as 
 Captain Walker met him on the roadside at night and took 
 the money out of his pocket. What is the history of this 
 
The Coercion Act. 255 
 
 farm ? I drove past it just now, and I coiild not help think- 
 ing that there appears a farm which is a credit to the whole 
 countryside, I would challenge any part of Ireland to 
 produce a more comfortable homestead or a better treated 
 farm. If I am rightly informed, the Clinches have been in 
 the possession of the farm — son and father, grandfather and 
 great grandfather — for a hundred years, and that house 
 there, every stone of it, was built by the father of the late 
 tenant. I am informed that the land was planted by the 
 mother and grandfather, that the drains and reclamations 
 were done by them, and that, in fact, if the land to-day is 
 worth £\ an acre, that something like 18s, an acre is the 
 direct i-esult of the industry and capital of the tenant and 
 his forefathers. Now, that is the history of the farm in the 
 past. What has happened recently 1 The tenant fell into 
 arrears. He owed three years' rent — a rent considerably 
 over the valuation, and that valuation, remember, beino- 
 made on the improvements of his fathers — he owed three 
 years' rent, and he has been evicted. Before his eviction, I 
 am given to understand that an offer was made to him to 
 sell his interest in the farm for a large sum, I believe £800 
 or £900. He refused to do it, and he may have been wise 
 or unwise in so doing, but what I want to point out is that 
 he had a property in the farm which was valued at the least 
 at £800 or £900, and to-day by the action of law that 
 property has been transferred from him into the pocket of ■ 
 the landlord, and the landlord has not vouchsafed to give 
 him one penny compensation. I am told, indeed, that there 
 was an offer made to the tenant ; and what do you think 
 the offer made to the tenant was — whose forefathers made 
 the land what it is and built the houses — that offer was, that 
 if he would give up the farm quietly, the landlord, if you 
 please, would give him a present of £50 and the price of a 
 
256 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 ticket to America. Yes, that is the spirit in which landlord- 
 ism has acted in Ireland in the past ; it endeavoured to 
 clear the people out of the country, to send them to America. 
 Australia — anywhere, so long as they cleared out of com- 
 fortable and snug farms like this, that they might be handed 
 over to some of the landlord's friends when they were cleared 
 out. Now, I deeply regret, speaking as a Wexfordman, as 
 one well acquainted with the history of this county and the 
 history of the difterent families of this county — I deeply 
 regret that the landlord who has acted in this way is Captain 
 Walker, and I tell you why. I am a very young man, but 
 I remember when a boy hearing of Captain Walker's father 
 — Charles Arthur Walker, TykUlen — as a good and humane 
 man, who loved the people and was loved by them, and I 
 feel the deepest regret and humiliation, as a Wexfordman 
 to-day, to think the son of a man who has inherited from 
 him traditions he ought to be proud of should stoop to such 
 means and treat a tenant as Captain Walker has treated 
 this man. Now, I ask, is there any way in which this 
 wretched position in which Captain Walker has placed him- 
 self, could be put an end to, with honour to the tenant and 
 credit to the landlord ? I say there is. The tenant was a 
 leaseholder and debarred under the Land Act ; he is willing 
 now, if the landlord reinstates him, to go into the Land 
 Courts, and have his rent fixed on the condition that the 
 arreai's of rent due by him should be calculated on the basis 
 of the new rent. Is that, I ask, a fair and honest offer ; 
 and if it is, let Captain Walker take the responsibility of 
 refusing it, He is willing to do more than that — there are 
 other tenants on the property here who are much in the 
 same position as Clinch, but the landlord has treated them 
 differently r they did not prominently identify themselves 
 as he had with certain elections and other matters of public 
 
The Coercion 'Act. 257 
 
 interest here. They who observed and maintained a sub- 
 servient and humble front to their landlord have been 
 treated differently — not only have they not been evicted, 
 but the rents were received from them in any instalments 
 they could pay, and an offer has actually been made to 
 them to purchase their land under Lord Ashbourne's Act, 
 I know nothing of the terms of that offer, and consequently 
 cannot say anything on the point. Whether it ought to be 
 accepted by the tenants or not, but I ask if there was any 
 offer made to Clinch, and if not, why not ? And to-day up 
 to the last minute, will Captain Walker take the responsi- 
 bility of I'efusing to Clinch the same measure of justice he 
 is willing to extend to the other tenants. Now, I men- 
 tioned two courses open to Captain Walker, because, as I 
 have said before, I would wish to see this dispute settled, if 
 not for the sake of Captain Walker, at any rate for the 
 sake of the memory of his father, who, during a long life, 
 was never hostile to the wishes, the feelings or the interests 
 of the people of this county. But there is something more 
 to be said, and it is this : — 
 
 " If Captain Walker is determined on fighting this man, 
 he will very soon find out that in fighting him he is fighting 
 the people of this county. Captain Walker is a resident 
 landlord, and a sportsman, and he could not afford to have 
 arrayed against him the united hostility of the entire people 
 amongst whom he lives, and I say if the matter is fought 
 out to the end. why, then, the people will stand by Clinch, 
 and Captain Walker will find bef oi-e the fight is over that not 
 only has he got no tenant for this land — God forbid any man 
 in the county should be wicked enough or mad enough to lay 
 hands on the land from which Clinch has been evicted — but 
 he will find more than that — the injustice done to this man 
 wUl confront him wherever he goes and wherever he puts 
 
258 ^Historical and Political Addresses- 
 
 his foot. Until the injustice is remedied, he will find 
 nothing in the county except the hostility of men who 
 resent injustice. I will say no more about Clinch, but I 
 hope what I have said will reach the landlord. Whether 
 it does or not, I am sure of this, that what I have said will 
 reach the people. Clinch's is not the only case of oppression 
 in this district. There are other cases besides Clinch's, and 
 I am glad and prou^d to know that in those several cases of 
 evicted farms the land is left idle on the hands of the land- 
 lords, as I saw myself coming along the road the weeds and 
 thistles are springing up on the evicted farms, as witness 
 of the fact that the landlords, by injustice, have doomed the 
 land to sterility." 
 
 Gentlemen, in making this speech I was exercising my 
 constitutional right of addressing my constituents. I was 
 not there as a stranorer or as an adventurer without riocht 
 or title to address the people. On the contrary I was there 
 in fulfilment of a grave and imperative duty. I am connected 
 with this county by the strongest ties. I am a Wexfordman 
 myself, bound to the county by ties of parentage and pro- 
 perty. For half a century my family have been connected 
 with the Parliamentary representation of Wexford, and I, 
 myself, am the elected representative of the people. 
 
 When speaking at Scarawalsh I spoke with a grave 
 sense of my responsibility, and I have no desire to-day to 
 shirk or to shrmk from the consequence of my words. If 
 amongst these consequences should be a term of imprison- 
 ment for me I shall bear it with a cheerful mind and the 
 easy conscience of a man who knows that he has honestly 
 fulfilled his duty. But if I am to be imprisoned, let every- 
 one clearly imderstand my offence. Let no one be deceived 
 by the claptrap of those who assert that my offence is an 
 offence under the ordinary law. That is one of those half 
 
The Coercion Act. 259 
 
 truths which are worse than, falsehoods. Intimidation is, of 
 covirse, an offence under the ordinary law, but I could not 
 be found giiilty of it without the approval of a jury of my 
 countrymen indifferently chosen, and I venture to assert 
 without fear of contradiction, that on the evidence of my 
 speech at Scarawalsh no jury in Ireland or in Great Britain 
 could be found to convict me. No, I am not being tried 
 under ^he ordinary law. I am being tried under an ex- 
 ceptional and oppressive Act of Parliament, which outrages 
 the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and robs me 
 of my primary right as the citizen of a free country — 
 namely, my right of trial by a jury of my countrymen 
 indifferently chosen. I am being tried before a tribunal of 
 deputies of the Executive Government, who though they 
 combine the functions of judge and jm-y, »f neither 
 indifferently chosen as jurymen nor independent of the 
 Execvitive as jiidges. 
 
 Condemnation by such a tribiinal will have no moral 
 weight or authority behind it, and wUl be to me not a 
 reproach but an honoui". 
 
 Gentlemen, I have now finished, I invite you to proceed 
 to deliver judgment. For my part I can only say I am 
 quite prepared if need be to go to prison proudly in a cause 
 in which far better men than I have in the past sacrificed 
 liberty and life. In my case the rigours of prison life will 
 be sweetened by the consciousness that what I am being 
 pimished for was done in the interest of my constituents, 
 and in the spirit and faithful discharge of my duty to them, 
 and, above all, by the consciousness that I will bring with 
 me to my prison cell the confidence of the entire people of 
 this country, almost without exception, and the good-will 
 of the friends of Ireland throughout the world. 
 
THE COERCION ACT. 
 
 SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE IN CASE OF Q. -y. DILLON AND OTHEES, 
 TRIED AT TIPPERARY, 16tH NOVEMBER, 1890. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 I EISE, in the discharge of my duty to my clients, to state 
 to the Court the defence which they intend to ofter to the 
 grave and extraordinary charge which has been preferred 
 against them. I rise with feelings of the profoundest diffi- 
 dence and distrust in my own powers to do justice to their 
 case, and I cannot help saying how deeply I feel the misf or 
 tune which has deprived the defendants, at such a critical 
 period of their case, of the services of my learned friend,. 
 Mr. Healy. His enforced absence has been to me a source 
 of difficulty and embarrassment, but to his clients it has 
 been nothing short of a calamity — how heavy a calamity na 
 one feels more accurately than I do, in rising now to open 
 the case for the defence. 
 
 I appear here on behalf of Mr. Michael O'Brien Dalton 
 and Mr. Daniel Kelly. Neither of these gentlemen are 
 public men. They are both Tipperarj'men, and both ex- 
 tenants of Mr. Smith-Barry, and, I may be allowed, perhaps,, 
 to say, that while I would esteem it an honour to appear 
 here in defence of those of the traversers who are colleagues 
 of mine in the House of Commons, I esteem it a still 
 greater honour to speak here on behalf of these two gallant 
 
The Coercion Act. 261 
 
 Tipperarymen, who, I think, I will be able to show 3-ou 
 before I sit down, so far from having been guilty of any 
 crime or any dishonourable act, have earned for themselves 
 the eternal gratitude of their country, by a deed as pure, as 
 unselfish, and heroic, as any to be found in the annals of any 
 country in the world. 
 
 Gentlemen, this is no ordinary case. It is nothing 
 short of a great State trial, and a State trial held 
 Tinder conditions so novel, and of a nature so extra- 
 ordinary, as to be absolutely without a parallel in the 
 history of our country. That history — bloodstained and 
 <Usgraceful to our rulers as it has been — affords many 
 instances of tyrannical and oppressive proceedings against 
 the liberties of the people, also innumerable examples of 
 State trials, in which the most honoured of our race have 
 been persecuted and punished as malefactors and criminals, 
 but a more iniquitous proceeding than the trial in this 
 ■Court of a great case of alleged conspiracy is not to be 
 found, I believe, in the whole history of British misrule in 
 Ireland. 
 
 YovT are here sitting in the double capacity of judge and 
 jur}' tr^dng a case of criminal conspiracy ; you are here 
 administering that portion of the criminal law which is 
 most inconsistent with the liberty which, according to the 
 theory of the constitution vinder which we are supposed to 
 live, is the birthright of every subject of the Crown. The 
 law of criminal conspiracy has at all times been the 
 ■cherished instrument of oppression. Times out of mind it 
 has, both in England and Ireland, been used to oppress the 
 liberties of the people. It has been described by a great 
 English jurist, as so wide-reaching in its effect, as to maJ^it 
 hazardous, under certain conditions, for any man to perform 
 the most ordinary duties of life. It violates the fundamental 
 
262 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 principle of English law, which is, that no man shall be 
 criminally responsible save for his own acts. The doctrine 
 of criminal conspiracy has, of late years, been pushed to such 
 a dangerous extent, as to include the combination of two or 
 more persons to do any act which the judges may hold 
 to be morally wrong or socially or politically inexpedient. 
 The very existence of such a law would be absolutely 
 destructive of the liberties of us all, were it not that the 
 Constitution provides a safeguard against its wanton or 
 oppressive application, by interposing between the subject 
 and the Crown the verdict of a jury. In this country that 
 safeguard has, for the present, been withdrawn ; but I am 
 bound to confess that I do not believe that the Legislature 
 which passed the statute under which you. are sitting here, 
 ever, for one instant, contemplated the trial of such a case 
 as this before a tribiinal of this kind. 
 
 This case has lasted thirty days. Ninety witnesses have 
 been examined. The most difficult questions of fact, the 
 nicest qtiestions of law, have arisen. The charge is of a 
 vagiie and indefinite character. The evidence is of the most 
 complicated nature, covering the thoughts, woixls, and deeds, 
 not only of the defendants, but of countless persons, known 
 and unknown, covering a period of nearly two years ; and 
 I say again, a more monstrous proceeding was never heard 
 of than to send such a case for trial to a tribunal consisting 
 of two gentlemen who combine in their own persons the 
 functions of judge and of jury, but who, as jiirymen, are 
 not indifferently chosen between the Crown and the accused, 
 and, as judges, are not independent of the Executive, which 
 is here the prosecutor. 
 
 What has been the method of this prosecution 1 I have 
 said the evidence extended over nearly two years. What 
 is the explanation of this delay in preferring this charge ? 
 
The Coercion 'Act. 2G3 
 
 Though, during these months, the Government have been 
 watching the growth and progress of this alleged conspirac}', 
 yet they took no steps to arrest it. They had their short- 
 hand notes of the speeches which they ask you to hold were 
 criminal speeches; but they took no step. They had week 
 by week the issues of the papers in their possession which 
 they now allege contained illegal matter, biit they never 
 stirred. They had their reports from their spies and 
 shadows, informing them, day by day for sixteen months, 
 of the pviblic and private acts of the defendants which they 
 now ask you to hold were criminal acts, but they gave no 
 sign. They lay in wait. They watched with tender care 
 the growth for a year and a-half of this conspii'acy. They 
 preferred no charge against the defendants, and I say here 
 their object was perfectly plain. They dared not prosecute 
 the editors for what their papers contained, for they had 
 not violated the law. They dared not prosecute the 
 Members of Parliament for their speeches, for those speeches 
 were neither seditious nor illegal. They dared not challeno-e 
 any single act of any one of the defendants, for those acts 
 were lawful; but they occupied themselves for sixteen 
 months in spreading their conspiracy net, in the hope that 
 by showing combination they could make legal acts illegal, 
 relying on the newspapers to convict the Members of Parlia- 
 ment, and the speeches of the Members of Parliament to 
 convict the editors. 
 
 What is the object which the Crown had in view in 
 instituting this prosecution? I may be told their object 
 was to vindicate the law, and to bring criminals to justice. 
 This is my answer — If the newspaper editors violated the 
 law, why, for sixteen months, did they not prosecute them ? 
 If the speeches delivered by the defendants were illegal, why 
 did they not prosecute the speakers ? If the meetings held 
 
264 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 were unlawful, why were not those who organised or 
 attended them brought before the bar of justice ? The 
 Crown, by their inaction for sixteen months, admit the 
 legality of these things taken separately, but they now, 
 having sedulously collected all these innocent acts into one, 
 ask you, under the pretence of conspiracy, to hold them to 
 be criminal, and to regard each one of the defendants as 
 responsible for the words and acts of all the others, and 
 mark you, not merely for the words and acts of their 
 co-defendants, but for the doings of those numerous persons, 
 unknown, whose deeds have formed, by far, the greater 
 portion of the Crown cases. Is their object to break down 
 the combination of the Smith-Barry tenants ? If so, they 
 are attempting, as I wUl show you, to use the criminal law, 
 and to use you merely as a political instrument ; and they 
 have entered on a course of incredible folly, doomed to 
 certain and disgraceful failure. Are thej^ solicitous for the 
 peace of this town of Tipperary, and anxious to allay the 
 bitterness of feeling which exists here? If so, a more 
 unfortimate expedient never was adopted than to endeavour 
 to conciliate the people by victimising their most honoured 
 and trusted leaders^. 
 
 The defendants here are charged with having conspired 
 for the purpose of intimidating the tenants of Mr. Smith 
 Barr}'. I do not for one instant mean to deny, what indeed 
 is a matter of notoriety all over the civilised world, that 
 there is in existence at this moment in Tipperary, amongst 
 Mr. Smith-Barry's tenants, a vast and formidable com- 
 bination. To deny this would not only be folly but would 
 be a betrayal of my duty to my clients. My case will be 
 the exact reverse. My clients admit that combination, and 
 my duty to-day is to justify and to vindicate it, and, heavy 
 though the penalty is which this trial must entail upon the 
 
The Coercion Act. 265 
 
 defendants, no matter what your decision may be, I, for 
 one, rejoice at the opportunity which this prosecution 
 affords, of refuting the calumnies which unscrupulous 
 political opponents have for so long a time been levelling 
 against the fair fame of Tipperary, and of letting the world 
 know the true merits of the great struggle which is here 
 proceeding, and upon which side are truth, justice, and 
 honour. 
 
 I propose to prove to you in the defence which we will lay 
 before you, that the combination of the Smith-Barry tenants 
 has been, and is an honourable, peaceful, and legal one. 
 Let me without further preface come to the facts. 
 
 Was this combination an honourable one ? The key-note 
 to the combination is contained in the memorial which, in 
 June, 1889, Smith-Barry's tenants presented to their land- 
 lord. This is already in evidence, and is as follows : — 
 
 "To Aethue Hugh Smith-Baeey, Esq., M.P. 
 " SiE, — We, the undersigned tenants on your Tipperary estate, have 
 learned with alarm and indignation, that you have placed yourself at 
 the head of a landlord confederacy for the purpose of clearing the 
 Ponsonby estate of its tenantry, and that your agent, Mr. Horace 
 Townsend, has become the agent also of this unjust and inhuman pro- 
 ject. We deplore your interference in a struggle which, but for you, 
 was on the point of being amicably settled. We repudiate the right of 
 any body of speculators, whether for the purposes of gain or of pjliti- 
 cal capital, to purchase over the heads of the tenantry, while a settle- 
 ment was imminent. We are informed that the tenants were and are 
 willing to stibmit their claims to any court of arbitration, and that 
 your agent, Mr. Horace Townsend, himself, acknowledg-es the exces- 
 sive character of the rental of the Ponsonby estate. \7e have read 
 with horror the sufferings that have been caused to a poor and over- 
 burdened tenantry by the evictions already executed by the syndicate 
 of ■which you are the principal. We declare that proceedings so unjust 
 and revolting to human feeling are calculated to prejudice and inflame 
 the worst antagonism between landlord and tenant, and cannot fail to 
 produce a counter combination for the tenants' protection, to which 
 we would feel ourselves forced by every feeling of humanity and self- 
 
266 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 protection to adhere. We would, therefore, earnestly urge you, in the 
 interest of tranquillity upon this hitherto peaceful estate, to relinquish 
 the \fotk of extermination on the Ponsonby estate, and withdraw from 
 a syndicate which is a menace to the security of the tenant-farmers of 
 Ireland, and a direct incentive to iU-will and disturbance in the com- 
 munity.' ' 
 
 That memorial was adopted at a meeting of the tenants 
 held in Tipperary on the 23rd Jmae, 1889, and reported in 
 United Ireland of 29th June, At that meeting Mr. William 
 O'Brien made the following speech : — 
 
 Me. Smith-Baeet, 
 " I need hardly tell you I have not come here to-day for the purpose 
 of receiving a complhnentary address, kind as you are. I have come 
 here for a different object. You and I have assembled here to do a 
 certain thing. It is, in the iirst place, absolutely legal — that is to say, 
 if there is a single rag of legality left for the protection of the Irish 
 people. Mr. Smith-Barry claimed in the House of Commons on Fri- 
 day night the right to combine with the landlords of other counties 
 for the extermination of a body of rack-rented tenantry with whom he 
 had no connection whatever, and no business to meddle. Very well. 
 If he claims that right, I ask you, the Tipperary tenantry of Smith- 
 Barry, that you shall claim the right in the same manner to combine 
 with the tenants of other counties to save them from destruction. 
 Your right of combination is immeasureably stronger than liis. 
 
 The Aggeessoe. 
 " Remember this, that he is the aggressor — the wicked and wanton 
 aggressor — in the whole transaction. He had peace and quietness 
 here on his own estate in Tipperary. A voice — Too much of it. Aye, 
 possiby, he had too much of it, for he has not been content with it. 
 On the contrary, he has abused your patience. He has taken advan- 
 tage of the peacefulness of his own estate in Tipperary, and he and 
 his agent have gone around London to organise a conspiracy of Eng- 
 lish speculators to exterminate a body of tenantry who never inj ured 
 him. Their calculation is that they can bribe Tipperary to stand 
 quietly by while they harass Cork, and by and by that they can bribe 
 Cork to stand by while they are crushing Tipperary. Well, these are 
 not the first men who have trespassed too far on the patience and good 
 will of the people of Tipperary. 
 
The Coercioji Act. 267 
 
 Combination. 
 " The unity of the Irish race in our time is not bounded by parishes 
 or by counties. The Irish cause does not stop at the Galtee moun- 
 tains. If the landlords of Cork and Tipperary can combine for hate, 
 then, I say, the tenants of Cork and Tipperary can combine for love. 
 They can, and I promise they will combine to warn Mr. Smith-Barry 
 and Mr. Horace Townsend that if they are determined to create deso- 
 late homes on the Ponsonby estate in. Cork, their tenants may possibly 
 be driven to leave them a desolate rent-office of their own in Tipperary. 
 Eemember, again, that this man is a most wicked aggressor in this 
 whole business. First he has left you no alternative except to take 
 sides either with him or against him. If you were to stand inactively 
 by here while he and his agent were using your money to perpetrate 
 this abominable wrong upon your brother tenants in Cork, well, all I 
 can say is, you are as much his accomphces as if you enlisted as his 
 emergeiicymen and took up the crowbar against your neighbours' 
 homes. It is the case of the Ponsonby tenants to-day ; it may be your 
 own case to-morrow, if onco the landlords get it into their heads that 
 the tenantry of one county can be bribed to look on mutely while they 
 are destroying the tenantry of a neighboiu'ing county," 
 
 And the following resolution was adopted : — 
 
 "Dr. O' Ryan proposed — 'That we, the tenantry on Mr, Smith- 
 Barry's Tipperary Estate, have learned with indignation that Mr, 
 Smith-Barry and his agent, Mr, Horace Townsend, had put themselves 
 at the head of a secret landlord organisation who are engaged in 
 exterminating the rack-rented tenantry on the Ponsonby estate ; that 
 we condemn the wicked and unprovoked interference of Mr. Smith- 
 BaiTy and Mr. Horace Townsend upon an estate with which they had 
 no concern, which interference had the effect of destroying a settle- 
 ment actually arrived at between Mr, Ponsonby and his tenants, and 
 exposing 400 tenants to the destruction of their homes and confiscation 
 ©f their property, in consequence of their inability to pay rack-rents, 
 which they were willing to have submitted to the judgment of any 
 independent tribunal ; that steps be taken forthwith to appoint a 
 delegation to wait upon Mr, Smith-Barry and Mr. Townsend, in the 
 name of the Tipperary tenantry, to represent with what horror their 
 action has been received in Tipperary, and to demand their withdrawal 
 from the landlord conspiracy against the Ponsonby tenants, said 
 delegation to report the result of their interview to a convention of 
 Mr. Smith-Barry's Tipperary tenants.' Mr. John Cadogan seconded 
 the resolution," 
 
•268 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Gentlemen, the Ponsonby estate to which reference is 
 thus made, is situate in the County of Cork, and was the 
 property of a retired naval officer, Mr. Talbot Ponsonby. 
 It was a rack-rented and a poor estate. A dispute arose 
 between the tenants and their landlord in the year 1886, and 
 after passing through a number of phases, which it is un- 
 necessary for me to deal with, it at last, owing to the 
 negotiations of Canon Keller, the Parish Priest of Youghal, 
 and Mr. Brunker, an agent of Mr. Ponsonby, was on the 
 very brink of settlement. The tenants proposed to buy 
 their holdings, and the landlord consented to sell to them. 
 The tenants offered £106,000 for the estate, and the land- 
 lord at first asked £127,000, which sum he finally reduced 
 to £110,000. Thus, the amount in dispute was a small 
 one, and Mr. Brunker, who acted for Mr. Ponsonby, declared 
 it to be his opinion that with some modifications the 
 tenants' offer was a fair one, and would be recommended, 
 by him. It was at this moment Mr. Smith-Barry interfered. 
 It was no concern of his ; but, out of pure wantonness, he 
 stepped in between the landlord and the tenants, and in 
 the name of a syndicate of English capitalists he bought 
 the estate from Mr. Ponsonby over the heads of the tenants. 
 Then commenced on this unfortunate estate a war of 
 vengeance and extermination. There were between 300 
 and 400 families on the property. Every one of these 
 families has been evicted, and their houses levelled to the 
 ground ; 10,000 acres of land have been laid waste, and are 
 to-day rapidly going back to bog moor and waste. This is 
 the direct handiv/ork of Mr. Smith-Barry. In vain the 
 tenants asked for arbitration. Vengeance, and not justice, 
 was what was required. A generous and philanthropic 
 Irishman, Sir John Arnott, attempted to settle the matter 
 by bu^'ing back the estate from the syndicate at the land- 
 
The Coercion Act. 261) 
 
 lord's own price, offering to pa}' out of his own pocket a. 
 princely sum to enable the tenants to go back to their 
 homes ; but Mr. Smith-Barry frustrated his noble intention 
 by demanding £25,000 more for the estate now, with its 
 weed-choked fields and ruined homesteads, than was asked 
 by Mr. Ponsonby two years ago, before a single tenant had 
 been evicted. Now, Mr. Smith-Barry, who thus interfered 
 with other people's business, was himself an Irish landlord. 
 He possessed here in this lovely Tipperary vale a large and 
 valuable estate. He owned the greater part of this town. 
 His tenants were steady, industrious, and enterprising men. 
 They created this thriving town. They found in Mr. Smith- 
 Barry an avaricious and grinding landlord. I noticed, that 
 of the tenants called as witnesses for the Crown, not a single 
 one could be found to contradict the statement made by 
 the informer, Sadlier, that the tenants on this estate were 
 rank-rented and oppressed. Still the soil was kind ; they 
 were prosperous, and, for the sake of peace, they paid their 
 rack-rents regularly, until they were rudely startled from 
 their lethargy by the story of the Ponsonby estate, and 
 learned that the man responsible for the devastation of 400 
 homes in Cork was the same man whose rack-rents they had 
 been paying without a murmur for so long. 
 
 Then it was that they determined to combine, not for 
 their own rights, but for the protection of their brother 
 tenants in the County Cork. Was that a dishonourable 
 motive 1 I assert here, it is a motive so honourable and 
 noble as to go far of itself to justify the entire movement. 
 But it is asserted the combination was unjust because it 
 withheld Mr. Smith-Barry's rents. This is another gross 
 calumny. What the combination did was to determine 
 that, unless their landlord desisted from his devil's work 
 on the Ponsonby estate, the relation of landlord and tenant 
 
270 'Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 between them should cease. They owed half a year's rent, 
 but they, in payment of that debt, allowed their entire 
 property in their holdings to go to Smith-Barry. Property 
 valued, according to the evidence of the sub-sheriff, a hostile 
 witness, as fifty, aye, a hundred times the amount of rent 
 due, was surrendered by these tenants, and the man who, 
 in the face of these facts, speaks of dishonesty or injustice 
 in the same breadth as the Tipperary combination, is 
 guilty of uttering the blackest and foulest calumny. 
 
 Men have called this action of the tenants insane. There 
 never was a great act of unselfishness done in the world's 
 history which the prudent and worldly wise of that day 
 did not disparage as rashness or insanity. Horatius, who 
 held the bridge in the brave days of old, risked life and 
 limb in the enterprise, and was a rash and foolhardy 
 man. The three hundred who died at Thermopolae would 
 have been more prudent had they quietly given up their 
 arms when asked from them, and sued for pardon like 
 reasonable men. The Russians who burned Moscow, sooner 
 than allow it to shelter their country's enemies, must have 
 sacrificed a great deal of valuable property and " interfered 
 sadly with the trade of a thriving town." They were foolish 
 because they were imselfish, but their unselfishness was 
 gloriou.s, and their heroism is written in letters of gold 
 upon the page of history. So I say also of this Tipperary 
 combination. These men have risked all that makes life 
 sweetest — their homes, the welfare and comfort of their 
 children, their prospects, their means of livelihood — in 
 defence of the poor, the weak and the oppressed, for the 
 cause of the tenant-farmers, and the honour of Ireland, and 
 for my part, I regard with feelings of absolute reverence the 
 poorest and humblest man who, for such a motive, entered 
 such a combination ; and I shall cherish as long as I live. 
 
The Coercion Act. 271 
 
 as one of my most valued treasures, the memory of having 
 had the privilege of appearing here as counsel in this case 
 for my friend, Michael O'Brien Dalton, and my friend 
 Daniel Kelly. 
 
 I think I have now said enough to show why it is I 
 assert that the combination is an honourable combination. 
 I will now pass on to my second statement. I assert that 
 the combination is not only honourable, but that it has 
 been peaceful in its workings. There is no part of the 
 case I am more anxious and ready to deal with than this. 
 Calumnies of the grossest kind have been uttered, both in 
 court and out of it, in reference to that matter. It has 
 been asserted that the movement has been worked through 
 outrage, crime and intimidation. I have a report of the 
 oration of my learned friend, Mr. Ronan, at the opening of 
 the case, and, if incorrect, Mr. Ronan can contradict the 
 extract I am going to read from it ; — 
 
 " Having said that tlie combination was unlawful, he (Mr. Ronan) 
 intended to establish as clear as the sun in broad noonday, that the 
 conspiracy was carried out by coercion, intimidation, boycotting, and 
 outrage." 
 
 I state that in the evidence which Mr. Ronan produced 
 in sustainment of that statement it has been shown that 
 that statement was a gross calumny upon the people of 
 Tipperary. Consider for a moment what the movement 
 was. It lasted sixteen months. It consisted in practically 
 a state of social war in that district. What happened in the 
 town of Tipperary alone? The sub-sherijff stated that he 
 himself had personally superintended no less than 176 
 evictions in the town and its immediate neighbourhood. 
 Could you in any country in the world put your finger 
 upon any great social movement of that kind which had 
 
272 Historical and' Political Addresses. 
 
 been so absolutely free from bloodshed, or disorder, or 
 violence or outrage ? It has lasted sixteen months. 
 During that time the whole population of Tipperary was 
 arrayed upon the side of the Smith-Barry tenants, and on 
 the other side there were the policemen, some emergency- 
 men, and a few other individuals, who, as hangers-on o£ 
 the landlord's cause, were unpopular with the people, and 
 during those sixteen months of struggle how many lives 
 were lost 1 One life ; the life of a poor boy, fourteen years 
 of age, shot in cold blood in the streets of Tipperary by the 
 police. During those sixteen months how many persons 
 were seiiously wounded 1 Three ; the boy who was shot 
 dead and two other boys, ten and twelve years old, also shot 
 in the streets of Tipperary b}' the police. 
 
 On the other side, how many police were seriously wounded 
 during the whole of the struggle in Tipperary ? Not a single 
 man. How many police were off duty in consequence of any 
 injury received, or who received medical advice? Not a 
 sinsrle man. Some evidence was ofiven of the outrages and 
 violence committed by the people on the police, and what did 
 it come to ? One policeman — it is horrible to have to relate 
 it — received a blow of a stone on his ankle, and had to fall 
 out of the ranks for ten minutes. Another policeman 
 received a blow of a stone on the thigh, and his officer did 
 not think it necessary for him to go ofF duty, and when he 
 saw the doctor in the morninor the doctor laughed at him. 
 Another policeman had a very narrow escape. He deposed 
 — amid the awe-stricken silence of the Court — that his pipe 
 Avas broken in his mouth. These were the outrages com- 
 mitted on one side which were to balance the accomit of the 
 boy shot dead and the two other boys shot in the streets of 
 Tipperary. In speaking of serious injury done to the police 
 I ought not to confine it to them. Has there been a single 
 
The Coercion Act. 273 
 
 instance of anj^ civilian on the other side been seriously 
 injured'? Not a single one, and I assert that, so far as 
 injuries to life and limb were concerned, the statement that 
 this movement has been worked by outrage is a gross and 
 v/icked fabrication. But it may be said that the injuries 
 were to property. Were they ? I will not speak of the 
 injviry done to the properties of these tenants. I wUl not 
 speak of Mr. O'Brien Dalton's mill battered down after 
 eviction out of pure wantoness, while Mr. Arnold Power, 
 whose work was done, remained as a disinterested spectator 
 to smoke a friendly cigar and witness the work of the 
 battering ram. I wUl not speak of these things, but let me 
 ask, on the other side what injm'y has been done to 
 pi-operty ? Some windows were broken. In sixteen months 
 a few panes of glass were broken in Tipperary. English 
 people who never heard of a window being broken in their 
 country in the coui'se of a street row, will be horrified to 
 hear of the conduct of a Tipperary mob who, in the course 
 of sixteen months, broke a few panes of glass ; a calico 
 window blind, price one shilling, was set fire to and burned • 
 and, worse than this, an ass's cartload of straw was set fire 
 to on the street. There was the sum total of the outrages 
 to property during these sixteen months. But let me go a 
 step further now. The great case has been the case of the 
 explosion. The three kingdoms have been ringing with the 
 story of this Nihilism, started into life under the banner of 
 the tenants' combination in Tipperary town. Tipperary up 
 to that time had been a peacefiil town, but under the shadow 
 of this evil combination of the Smith-Barry tenantry a 
 system of Nihilism sprang up, infernal machines were placed 
 in houses, and every kind of explosive was used to ruin the 
 property and destroy the lives of certain people. That is 
 the accusation, and when you come to examine the evidence 
 
274 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 upon what does it rest ? Now, there were three things with 
 reference to these explosions that on the face of the evidence 
 are incontrovertible. We have had evidence of very few 
 explosions, and in all that were asserted to have taken place 
 not one single hnman being received so much as a scratch 
 on the top of his little finger. That fact was number one, 
 which is incontrovertible on the evidence. Now, fact 
 number two. With the exception of the breaking of a 
 fanlight at Godfrey's, and with the exception of setting fire 
 to a sixpenny calico blind at the rent office, there has been no 
 injury to property done by these explosives. There are two 
 facts, and they did not stand alone, which of themselves 
 dispose absolutely of this wicked and absurd calumny, that 
 tliis work has been carried on by a species of Nihilism in 
 Tipperary. But what was the third fact, which absolutely 
 disposed, once and for all, of this talk, and the attempt made 
 to hold the defendants and the Smith-Barry tenants respon- 
 sible for these explosions. 
 
 We had a number of interesting police witnesses, but the 
 most interesting: of aU was ex-Sergeant Culleton. Culleton 
 had been twenty-nine years stationed in Tipperary, and 
 during the whole of that time he told us that it had been 
 the custom of the people of Tipperary occasionally, at all 
 times of public commotion, rejoicing, or excitement, to let 
 ofi" gunpowder on the streets — a most mischievous practice 
 which every reasonable man would put down as a most 
 mischievous practice, just as we all condemned the firing of 
 squibs and the burning of effigies of the Pope on Guy 
 Fawkes' Day in England. But what is the important 
 part of Sergeant Culleton's evidence ? It is, that it gives 
 the lie direct to the statement that this letting off of 
 explosives is the result of the Smith-Barry tenants' combina- 
 tion. It has been the mischievous custom of the people of 
 
The Coercion Act. 275 
 
 the town of Tipperary for the whole of the twenty-nine 
 years that Sergeant CuUeton was on duty there, and he said 
 more than that, because during the whole of these twent}'- 
 nine years, includmg the sixteen months of " horrible 
 outrage and crime," he never as much as heard of a single 
 individual being hurt or scratched by an explosion, and, 
 except for a few panes of glass and a sixpenny blind, he 
 never during the twenty-nine years heard of even a shilling's 
 worth of injury having been done to property by explosions. 
 Now, there are three incontrovertible facts. First, no one 
 was injured ; secondly, no injury was done to property ; and 
 thirdly, this practice was twenty-nine years old, and during 
 the whole of that time had never called forth the righteous 
 indignation of the upholders of law and order until they 
 found it convenient to use these petty explosions as a means 
 of blackening the character of political opponents, and 
 blackening the cause of the Smith-Barry tenants. I find 
 that some evidence was given about nine of these explosions 
 One of the nine was not proved, but evidence was given 
 which pomted to the possibility of an explosion having taken 
 place — the one about Fitzgerald. But in eight instances it 
 was proved that explosions of some sort had taken place 
 The explosion in the rent office had the result of setting fire 
 to this blind. That was the amount of injury it did, and I 
 have no doubt it startled the old woman who was in the 
 house. The next explosion was the one in the bridewell 
 and the evidence showed that it was of such a deadlv 
 character that it exploded within two feet of the bridewell 
 keeper, and did not scratch, or hurt, or touch him. It was 
 a little bit of iron pipe, five inches long, and an inch across, 
 and only one piece exploded out of it, and although it 
 exploded in a little yard there was not a single mark on 
 any of the walls which went around the yard, and the two 
 
276 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 pieces were found lying four yards apart, and neither of 
 them scratched the wall, which gives a fair idea of the 
 deadly nature of the explosives. 
 
 Then as to the next case. The evidence is, that in the 
 vicinity of Hanrahan's a kettle was found full of powder. 
 What I have got to point out in reference to this case is this 
 — admittedly it was found twenty or thirty yards from 
 Hanrahan's house on the far side of a wall six feet six inches 
 high. Whoever placed it there might have been bent on 
 mischief or on making a noise, but one thing was clear, and 
 that was that they could not have been bent upon any 
 injury to life or limb or property. Then we have the 
 explosion at Godfrey's. I took occasion to look at Godfrey's 
 fanlight myself. It is still kept there in its broken condition, 
 I suppose as a sign and token of what took place. We have 
 in evidence the dimension of this fanlight, and it was not 
 all blown out, two pieces of it still remained. According to 
 the evidence, a little jar, as near as possible the size of a 
 sixpenny ink jar, was filled with powder and placed on the 
 window sill, and it went off with a " terrible report." That 
 was the case for the Crown. 
 
 A policeman picked up the fragments of this jar, and 
 in answer to me, he admitted that he examined the 
 jamb of the door and the frame of the fanlight, and he said 
 he found indentations made by the flying portions of the jar ; 
 but on being questioned, he admitted that these indentations 
 amounted merely to scratches of the paint, and there we 
 have indication of the terrible force and deadly character of 
 this explosion — the pieces flying apart with such force and 
 deadly power that they absolutely succeeded in scratching the 
 paint on the door. There was a matter about Godfrey's 
 explosion that I regret I have to allude to. I would be the 
 last person in the world to make an accusation or an insinu- 
 
The Coercion Act. 277 
 
 aiion without reason for doing it, and, consequently, I will 
 simply point to the fact to which I am about to alkide, and 
 will not found any accusation at all upon it except against 
 the Crown. It was proved that this explosion at Godfrey's 
 was heard by a policeman at a considerable distance in 
 another street. He heard it in the direction of Godfrey's, 
 and came down into Godfrey's street and found nobody 
 there. He then went vip, and another policeman came, 
 and they collected these fragments and made an examina- 
 tion. Now, this constable admitted in cross-examination that 
 there had been a Constable Boyle on duty in that street 
 watchmg that house that very night. Where is Constable 
 Boyle 1 Constable Boyle, if he was fulfilling his diitj', was 
 watching that house at the very time the explosion took place ; 
 but when the other policeman came up to the house. Con- 
 stable Boyle was not there. I waited day after day for 
 three Aveeks for the production of Constable Boyle, but he 
 was not produced, and his absence was not explained, and in 
 view of the cu'cumstances attending Constable Palmer's case, 
 to which I shall have to allude in a moment, without making 
 any accusation, I say the absence of explanation of Con. 
 stable Boyle's movements at that time is sufl&cient to throw 
 grave suspicion on the genumeness of the whole transaction, 
 and grave suspicion on the case of the Crown. 
 
 I need not go at any great length into the cases of the 
 other explosions. Evidence was given by William Sadlier, 
 that three dreadful " bombs " were thrown at him and two 
 friends on the road, but though the bombs burst at their feet 
 they sustained not a scratch or injury, and when looked for 
 not a fragment of the burst bombs could anywhere be found. 
 
 Now, I wish to call special attention to an extraordinar}^ 
 statement made b}" Mr. Ronan in his opening speech. Mr. 
 Ronan stated that on the 25th of Jul}- a bomb was burst at 
 
278 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 the window in Mr. Duggan's house at which Mrs. Dnggan 
 and her nine children were sitting. Now there is not a 
 shred of foundation for that statement. What are the 
 facts ? A policeman was on duty at the house, and he saw 
 something thrown in the direction of the house that fell on 
 the pavement about two yards from the door, which was 
 closed, and exploded, and that explosion, the constable 
 admitted, made no mark whatever on the door or on the 
 house. The bomb was picked up, and what did this deadly 
 weapon consist of ? It was the cock of a beer barrel, and it 
 was open to argument whether the thing had burst at all 
 but, whether it did or not, there was absolutely no founda- 
 tion whatever for Mr. Ronan's story of the bomb having 
 been thrown at the windows at which Mrs. Duggan and her 
 nine children were sitting. What an extreme man Mr- 
 Ronan is. A wife and family would not be sufficient. No, 
 it should be a wife and nine children. That story is on a 
 par with all the other stories which had been imported into 
 this case for the purpose of blackening the character of the 
 defendants and their cause, and which were absolutely 
 without foundation. But the most monstrous part of the 
 accusation against the defendants is this — it was sought to 
 make them responsible for every explosion of gunpowder 
 that took place, for every stone thrown, and for every 
 window broken. 
 
 The Crown had given evidence of a great many speeches 
 that had been delivered, but he noticed that they did not 
 give in evidence a speech which had been made on the 8th of 
 September, immediately after the sale in Thurles, and after 
 the window breaking and the shooting down of the boy by 
 the police, at a meeting at which the defendants were, most 
 of them present. It was a speech delivered by Mr. J. E. 
 Redmond. MR, in the course of which he said : — 
 
The Coercion Act. 279 
 
 "There were two plain and manifest duties which they were bound 
 to fulfil towards these men. The first duty they owed to these men 
 was to put down disorder in the town. He (Mr. Redmond) had read 
 with pain of the breaking of windows and the throwing of stones. He 
 was not afraid to speak his mind to Tipperarymen. He came from 
 a county which had shown that when extreme measures were desir- 
 able it was prepared to take such measures. Stone-throwing and 
 window-breaking were unworthy of Tipperary. It was a cowardly 
 proceeding, and was bound to bring injury to the Smith-Barry 
 tenantry, and the cause of Ireland generally. He asked them to put 
 down disorder with a strong hand, and thus to deprive their enemies 
 of the only weapon which they had to use against them — that is the 
 weapon of misrepresenting their movement as a lawless, a turbulent, 
 and an unjust one." 
 
 The entire and absolute absence of violence and outrage 
 of any kind which characterised the Tipperary struggle 
 seems to me nothing short of marvellous. Just consider 
 M-hat the struggle meant. In this small town 176 evictions 
 were carried out by the sheriff, and were carried out with- 
 out a single act of violence. The sherijBf himself admitted 
 that no violence had been used to him, and, what was 
 perhaps most extraordinary was the fact that Father 
 Humphreys was present at the evictions, and the very fact 
 that he had stood at some of the doors reading the FreeniarHs 
 journal whilst the evictions were taking place, was used 
 in the case agauist him, although the absence of dis- 
 turbance was manifestly due to his presence. Another 
 matter to which I wish to refer is this. A series of outrages 
 took place in Tipperary last June, and when the malefactor 
 was caught by the people themselves redhanded in the act 
 of breakins; windows and breaking into houses, who did he 
 tiurn out to be ? "Was he a Smith-Barry tenant ? No ! he 
 was a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary — Constable 
 Palmer. Well, the Crown proceeded against the constable 
 in a leisurely fashion. They issued summonses against him, 
 
280 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 but in the meantime Constable Palmer proceeded to Queens- 
 town, openly pui"cliased a ticket, openly went on board an 
 American steamer, and disappeared out of the country. 
 The proceedings went on in his absence, and his pimishment 
 was of a very terrible character, especially as he was safe 
 out of Ireland, He was fined £3. What I would like to 
 know would be the fate of a Tipperary peasant if he had 
 been found guilty of the same ojGFence ? If Constable Palmer 
 had not been caught breaking into the house, these outrages 
 of the constable would have been brought up in evidence 
 against the defendants here, for you are asked in reference 
 to the acts alleged to say that at least if the defendants did 
 not do them themselves, still that they were responsible in 
 law and in justice for them. Now, I do not go very far, I 
 think, when I ask the Court to say that the fact that a 
 policeman was caught doing these things ought to some 
 extent aid in negativmg the presumption that every window 
 broken ia Tipperary was broken with the approval or under 
 the orders of the defendants in this case. In this regard I 
 wish for a moment to revert to Constable Boyle. An 
 explosion took place at Godfrey's. Constable Boyle was on 
 duty at the hovise, and it was his duty to catch the per- 
 petrators of it. But why was not Constable Boyle produced ? 
 So far as that was concerned, Constable Boyle is no^i est, 
 and for all we know he, too, might have taken a ticket for 
 New York, and yet though this policeman is thus mysteriously 
 absent, the Court is asked to hold the defendants responsible 
 for the explosion at Godfrey's, just as you would have been 
 asked to hold them responsible for outrages committed by 
 Palmer if Palmer had not been cau.ght by the people. 
 
 Turning now to another branch of the case, I ask the 
 Court to say that the combination in this case is not only 
 an honourable and a peaceful combination, as it appeared 
 
The Coercion Act. 281 
 
 on the evidence, but also a perfectly legal combination. 
 If the combination in Tipperary was, as I contend it was, a 
 perfectly free and voluntary combination entered into by 
 the Smith-Barry tenants for the purpose of putting an end 
 to the relation of landlord and tenant between them and 
 their landlord, and if the combination was carried out by 
 legal means, then I tell the Court, and I defy anyone to 
 controvert my assertion, that it was a perfectly legal com- 
 bination. Remember this, that if the desire to punish 
 Smith-Barry, or to injure Smith-Barry, were proved 
 to be the primary object of this combination, still that 
 would not be sufficient of itself to make this combina- 
 tion illegal. The Crown, however, said, and undertook to 
 prove, that this was a combination entered into for the 
 purpose of coercing the Smith-Barry tenants. Now, I admit 
 there is a combination in existence, but I assert that it 
 is a combination of an entirely different character. On the 
 question of this being a free and voluntary combination I 
 will read another extract from a speech delivered by the 
 same gentleman whom I previously quoted, at the same 
 critical period of this struggle, just after the Thurles sales, 
 and after the smashing of the windows, on which the Crown 
 so much relied. The gentleman referred to spoke as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' ' The night before the sales in Thurles he was asked to enter into 
 consultation with tenants. He met the tenants, and what he then 
 said to the tenants in private he was ready to say to them in public. 
 He told them they were entering into a very grave phase in the situa- 
 tion. He told them they were about to face probable sacrifice and 
 suffering. He told them they should act upon their own responsibUitj 
 and in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences ; and he 
 told them, though he spoke not for himself, but for Mr. ParneU, still 
 he for his part would not take the responsibility of coercing or induc- 
 ing, or even advising, any man on that estate to take any course which 
 
282 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 he did not approve of in his heart and conscience, and which he was 
 not bound as an honest and honourable man to take. He gave the 
 tenants absokitely no advice. So far from persuading — he believed 
 many of them were now present, and knew what he spoke was true — so 
 far from persuading them, he believed the effects of his words must be 
 to turn the tenants, if that were possible, from the manly course they 
 were resolved upon. He stated that, because the action they did take on 
 this occasion redounded all the more to their honour and courage. They 
 acted ujion their own responsibility. Not one advised them or per- 
 suaded them, and, acting upon their own responsibility, some of the 
 richest and most substantial tenants upon that Smith-Barry estate 
 allowed their valuable property to be sold out for a song to the land- 
 lord." 
 
 It has been proved, no doubt, that a number of persons 
 have been boycotted in Tipperary in the sense of their trade 
 having left them. On that matter I have got very little to 
 say. The legal right of every member of the public to deal 
 with whom he pleased, and to refuse to deal with whom he 
 pleased, could not be controverted. Take the case of the 
 Smith-Barry struggle, in which the vast and overwhelming 
 preponderance of public opinion was in favour of the action 
 taken by the tenants, and take a shopkeeper in Tipperary 
 enjoying the favour and the patronage of the public through 
 whom, perhaps, he was making a fortune — take such a man 
 committing some act which left the public to believe that he 
 had betrayed the interests of his brother tenants, and doing 
 something which, whether rightly or wrongly, was considered 
 dishonourable and mean, and take the fact of his customers 
 immediately leaving his shop, what is more natural than to 
 infer that that loss of his trade was the result of public 
 opinion, and not the work of one or two tenants who, for- 
 sooth, were coercing the whole district of Tipperary not to 
 deal with a certain individual. And you are asked to be- 
 lieve that the fact of these shopkeepers having lost their 
 trade is evidence — of what 1 That Father Humphreys and 
 
The Coercion Act. 283 
 
 Mr. Dalton and the rest of the defendants had entered into 
 a conspiracy to compel the Smith-Barry tenants not to pay 
 their rents. Similar evidence had been given with reference 
 to Ballykisteen. You have evidence that Ballykisteen is a 
 large farm, with five hovxses upon it, and is at present in the 
 occupation of some tenants who have been evicted by Mr. 
 Smith-Barry. For my part I wish that the Crown had gone 
 more fully into this matter, and given evidence of that most 
 marvellous spectacle of recent times — the growth of a new 
 .town in place of the old town of Tipperary. Why did not 
 the Crown go into that ? If it was a crime to take Bally- 
 kisteen for the accommodation of the evicted tenants, stUl 
 more was it a crime to have any part in the building of New 
 Tipperary. Mr. Dalton was proved to have had some connec- 
 tion with the taking of Ballykisteen. "Was it a proof that he 
 was anxious to provide houses and land for some of his brother 
 evicted tenants ? Not at all. It was proof conclusive that 
 he had entered into a combination to coerce his brother ten- 
 ants. Surely the arg-ument was absurd. Our position with re- 
 ference to Ballykisteen and to New Tipperary is this. All the 
 transactions took place after the tenants had been evicted; 
 they were all done for the purpose of providing lands, and 
 houses, and homes, for the evicted families. We deny and 
 scout as absurd the presumption that that is either in itself 
 a crime or could be received as evidence of this alleged con- 
 spiracy. One thing I desire to make clear. Whatever this 
 Court may think of it, the defendants are proud of their 
 connection with New Tipperary and Ballykisteen ; and if the 
 same thing had to be done to-morrow, and if far heavier 
 consequences than those which this Court can inflict were to 
 ensue, they would do the same thing again, for it was a noble 
 duty to provide for the comfort of tenants driven from their 
 homes by Mr. Smith-Barry. I submit that there is no evi- 
 
284 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 clence whatever of the existence of any such combination as 
 stated in the charge. 
 
 You may, pex'haps, be inclined to hold that there is evi- 
 dence of the existence of a combination on the part of the 
 Smith-Barry tenants to pimish Mr. Smith-Barry for his own 
 action on the Ponsonby estate. I submit that, even if that 
 were so, it would not be an illegal conspiracy. Even if you 
 come to the conclusion that such a conspiracy exists, and 
 that it is illegal, you cannot hold the defendants guilty upon 
 this charge, which is one of having taken part in quite a 
 different conspiracy — one to coerce and intimidate the 
 Smith-Barry tenants into not paying their rent. I submit I 
 have shown to you that this combmation was an honourable 
 combination, a peaceful combination, and in the third place 
 a perfectly legal one. 
 
 There still remains, however, the second part to the case. 
 For the sake of argument let me suppose that you differ 
 entirely with me, and held that there was evidence of the 
 existence of an illegal conspiracy of the precise nature 
 alleged by the Crown, then you have to consider a second 
 question — had each of the defendants been a member of 
 that conspiracy ? In deciding that question you are bound 
 to consider only the evidence of the acts committed within 
 the six months covered by the charge. Outside that period 
 you cannot go. You must judge of the connection of each 
 defendant with the conspiracy by his own acts alone, and 
 by his acts committed within the six months over which, 
 only, you have summary jurisdiction. Those acts must be 
 judged on their merits. If they are acts, imiocent or even 
 ambiguous in their character, so long as they are capable of 
 an innocent interpretation, you must acquit the defendants. 
 Baron Rolfe, in the Chartist case, told the jury that before 
 convicting they must have evidence of " such acts perpe- 
 
The Coercion Act. 285 
 
 tratecl by the accused as indicate such a complete union of 
 design as makes it impossible not to see there must have 
 been some combination beforehand," A great Irishman, 
 Chief Justice "Whiteside, in defending one of the traversers 
 in the Queen v. O'Connell said to the jury, " you must be 
 satisfied, in order to find a verdict of gixilty, that it is im- 
 possible that the traversers could have done these acts except 
 for the purpose of carrying out that complete, fixed, and 
 settled combination, confederation, and agreement specified 
 in the indictment." 
 
 I ask you to apply this test to the acts proved against 
 each of the defendants in this case. Could these acts have 
 been committed except for the purpose of forwarding a 
 conspiracy to intimidate Smith-Barry's tenants ? 
 
 I have taken out from the mass of irrelevant matter 
 printed by the Crown at the expense of the ratepayers all 
 the acts alleged against Mr. Kelly and Mr. Dalton within 
 the six months. They occupied but a small sheet of paper. 
 On the 7th of August Constable Fitzmaurice saw Mr. Kelly 
 call at Father Humphrey's house, and on the 8th of 
 August he saw him do the same thing, and both of them 
 proceeded to the railway station, where they purchased a 
 copy of the Freemaii s Journal. On the 9 th of August the 
 same thing happened, but there was an additional element 
 of criminality from the fact that Mr. Dalton formed one of 
 the party. All three gentlemen belonged to the town of 
 Tipperary, and it was absolutely an appalling thing they 
 should happen to meet on two days in one week in their 
 own town. Then, as regarded Mr. Dalton, Constable 
 Hobson saw him meet Mr. David Sheehy, and they were 
 afterwards in the company of Father Humphreys and Mr 
 Cullinan. On the 31st August Mr. Dalton met Mr. J. V. 
 Bourke. On the 28th August Constable King saw Mr. 
 
286 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Dalton go into Mr. Kelly's house. On the 11th June 
 Father Humphreys went along the railway line ; two police- 
 men followed him. He got on a car, the police followed. 
 At a certain point Mr. Kelly came out of a house. The 
 police, however, had missed Father Humphreys. One of 
 them remained to watch Mr. Kelly and the other proceeded 
 on his way. Further on he met Father Humphreys with a 
 number of people, and he gave it as his opinion that a 
 meeting had been held. This was one of the facts given iu 
 evidence agamst Mr. Kelly ; though if a meeting had been 
 held at all it was manifest that Mr. Kelly could not have 
 been present at it. On another occasion Mr. Dalton was 
 observed to shake hands with Messrs. William O'Brien and 
 John Dillon at Thurles, where they were on a private visit 
 to the Archbishop of Cashel, and you are asked to believe 
 that he did this in fui'therance of the conspiracy. 
 This was the entire evidence of acts of Mr. Dalton and Mr. 
 Kelly within the six months. Let me take another instance 
 of the evidence which was produced against the defendants. 
 On the 24th May my friend Mr. Condon was seen at the 
 Limerick Junction. If being at the Limerick Junction was 
 a crime, I need not say how deeply dyed with criminality 
 your worships would be, and as for Mr. Ronan, he could 
 never show his face in a court of justice again. On another 
 occasion Mr. Condon was seen at Cashel in company with 
 his two sisters, one of whom was a nun, and came from a 
 foreign land to visit the Rock of Cashel. In the name of 
 common sense v/hat is the meaning of a responsible govern- 
 ment submitting such acts to any tribunal ? It was an 
 insult to common sense. It was a gross insult to two men 
 of common sense and intelligence to ask them on evidence 
 of that sort to convict anybody, even a Parnellite member 
 of Parliament. 
 
The Coercion Act. 287 
 
 One useful result of that trial at least would be that it 
 had exposed the system of shadowing. What did shadowing 
 mean ? It meant following a man about, dogging a man 
 from place to place, watching every act of his public and 
 private life, trying to overhear his private conversation, 
 peeping through window blinds to see what was going on 
 in private rooms, going into public-houses and hiding in the 
 snugs partitioned off from the shops, to try and hear the 
 conversations of the people at the counter, bursting into 
 houses and following people into private rooms, following 
 a priest even into the church and to the altar, dogginw a 
 man's steps in such a way as would be impossible in any 
 other country in the world, and in a way, which, in my 
 opinion, amounted to an absolute illegal practice which any 
 man would be justified in resenting and meeting with 
 physical violence. Every act of the defendants, public and 
 private, for the six months charged, had been noted in the 
 books of the " shadows," and the Court has before it what 
 the sum total of it all amounted to. After all their 
 shadowing and all their spying, after flooding Tipperary 
 with armies of plain clothes policemen and uniformed 
 policemen until the town presented the appearance of a 
 place besieged, no single act of the defendants had been 
 proved which, taken by itself, was not an innocent act and 
 an unambiguous act, and the whole case for the Crown was 
 simply this, the putting together of all these legal acts in a 
 conspiracy net, and then asking the Court to hold that they 
 become guilty acts by combination, and by asking it further 
 to hold, without a particle of justification, that the defen- 
 dants were responsible for every act that might have been 
 done by a corner boy, and for every stone or squib thrown 
 in the town during this time. 
 
 I submit in the first place that this combination 
 
288 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 amongst the Smith-Barry tenants is an honourable combi- 
 nation ] secondly, that it was a peaceful combination ; and 
 thirdly, that it is a legal combination ; and that on what 
 ever point of view you look at it, whether you regard it as 
 legal or illegal, yet that it was not such an illegal combina- 
 tion as described in the charge, but one of a totally different 
 character. I have shown conclusively that even if you 
 regard the combination as illegal, stUl that all the acts of 
 the defendants proved within the six months were reason- 
 ably capable of an innocent interpretation, and were not 
 sufficient to convict them. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have finished. I confess I feel some 
 embarrassment as to what words to address to jovi in con- 
 clusion. Were I addressing a jury I would urge them in 
 the name of liberty and justice to find a verdict for my 
 clients. I would remind them that the history of British 
 liberty is to a great extent the history of the courage and 
 constancy of English jurors in refusing, time after time, to 
 acquiesce in attempts by the Crown similar to the attempt 
 made in this case, to fix the insiduous and terrible charge of 
 conspiracy iipon the leaders of the people. I would call 
 upon them to emulate the courage and independence of 
 these English jm-ors, and by their verdict to put down the 
 use of this rusty weapon of oppression. I would urge them 
 to banish from their minds every preconceived prejudice, 
 every political predilection, and to bring in a verdict, brave, 
 honourable, and independent. You will forgive me when I 
 say I cannot with sincerity address such observations to you. 
 Your decision upon the difficvilt points of law which have 
 arisen in this case cannot be accepted as final, and must go 
 elsewhere for review. Your decision on the facts will not 
 be received by anyone inside this Court or out of it as 
 conclusive. For my clients I have to say they wUl receive 
 
The Coercio7i Act. 289 
 
 your decision, whatever it may be, with equanimity. If 
 that decision be an advei^se one and be upheld elsewhere, 
 they are ready to go to prison with alacrity and with pride 
 in this cause, cheered by the knowledge that, at every stage 
 of the history of their country, the prison cell has been 
 hallowed b}^ the sufifermgs of the best and bravest of their 
 race, and strong in the conviction that that outside public, 
 Avhose opinion they value more than they do the opinion of 
 this Court, will justify their policy, appreciate their motive, 
 and applaud their action. 
 
THE PARNELL CRISIS. 
 
 SPEECH AT MEETING OF IRISH PARLIAMENTARY PARTY TN 
 
 COMMITTEE ROOM 15 OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 ON DECEMBER IST, 1890. 
 
 MR. PARNELL IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 The speech to which we have just listened from Mr. Sexton 
 seems to me, in its tone at any rate, to be a strong argument 
 for a delay of this question, and I have risen for the purpose 
 of supporting the amendment moved by my hon. and gallantj 
 friend, Colonel Nolan, for an adjoiirnment of the meeting to 
 Dublin. One of the earlier declarations made by Mr. Sexton 
 is one which bodes ill for any useful purpose from a debate of 
 this question in this room. I allude to this statement that 
 no power on earth can change his mind upon the matter. If 
 that be so, I ask myself what earthly use is debate or 
 discussion on the matter if men's minds are closed to argu- 
 ment and to reason ? If that be so, would it not be better 
 for us at once, and without the delay of even half an hour, 
 to give our votes without reason, or argument, or discussion 
 upon this mere matter of party organisation, which, when 
 looked more closely into, involves the deposition of the leader 
 of the Irish race ? 
 
 I claim the right to speak as one of those who, 
 during the ten years that have elapsed, both in Parliament 
 md in the country, in America, in Australia, and throughout 
 
The Parnell Crisis, 291 
 
 the world, have freely given the best years, perhaps, of my 
 life in sustainment of the cause which Mr, Sexton served 
 and you led. There was one portion of Mr. Sexton's 
 speech which found a responsive echo in my heart, and 
 it was that portion where he deprecated any heated 
 expression from members of his party which might lead to 
 bitterness and animosity, which probably, if not checked, 
 might last for a lifetime. I echo that, but in echoing it, I 
 am bound, as an honest man, to say that that consideration 
 did not have the effect of modifying manj^ of the expressions 
 used and almost the whole of the tone adopted by Mr. 
 Sexton himself. This is a question, gentlemen, whether 
 you will come to a decision now on the question of 
 retirement of the leader of the party or whether you will 
 adjourn for further consideration. One of the arguments 
 used by my honourable and gallant friend, Captain Nolan, is 
 that we ought to meet for this purpose in the metropolis of 
 our country. That may seem a matter more of sentiment 
 than of practical importance ; but I am bound to say that in 
 this matter it is impossible, in my opinion, for the represen- 
 tatives of the Irish nation to place sentiment entirely out of 
 their minds. It was in the capital of the Irish nation that you 
 were called formerly to the chair that you occupy, and I do 
 say that if you are to be deposed from that chair the proper 
 place to do it is in the capital of the Irish nation and in the 
 face of the Irish people. Mr. Sexton denies that this is a 
 question that he feels boimd to appeal to his constituents 
 upon. That seems to me an unanswerable argument if his 
 description of these proceedings be true, that they are a 
 matter merely of party organisation. Then I admit that 
 this party, meeting anywhere, at very short notice, might 
 deal with it. But let us not shuffle with the real situation. 
 This is not a mere question of party organisation. It is a 
 
292 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 question as to whether the man who is not merely the leader 
 of this party, but who has by his services earned for himself 
 the position of leader of the Irish race throughout the world, 
 is to be deposed from that position by a vote of the represen- 
 tatives of the Irish people ; and it does seem to me a heart- 
 breaking circumstance that any consideration of danger to a 
 party alliance in England, should have such an effect upon 
 the minds of the National representatives of the Irish people 
 as to indvice men like Mr. Sexton to deprecate in this matter 
 a short delay, that the Irish members may make sure that in 
 this matter they are acting in accordance with the full wishes 
 and opinions of the Irish race at home and abroad. Mr. 
 Sexton used a very strong argument — if this were a small 
 matter such as he described — in saying that a dissolution of 
 Parliament may take place, I understood, within the eight 
 daj's for v.-hich my friend Colonel Nolan asks for an adjourn- 
 ment, or to take the other extreme limit which my hon. and 
 gallant friend suggested, three weeks — that a dissolution of 
 Parliament may find us, if it takes place during that period, 
 in a disorganised and dismiited position. Is there any man in 
 this room sanguine enough to say that if to-day, by your 
 vote, you depose from that chair the leader of thp Irish race 
 that m eight days the result of that action will have so 
 disappeared that Ireland will present to the enemy an 
 unbroken and united front 1 My position in this matter is 
 a very plain one. I have been, as you know, Mr. Parnell, a 
 faithful and loyal colleagTie and follower of yours. I have, 
 as you, gentlemen, know — those of you at any rate who have 
 been for years in this party with me — that I have 
 been a faithful comrade. I owe loyalty to my leader, 
 and I also owe loyalty to my party, and I think, 
 although this is not perhaps the main issue, the sooner 
 \ve make our positions clear the better. In this matter I 
 
The Parnell Crisis. 293 
 
 intend to vote and to use every exertion in my power 
 for the leadership of this party and the Irish people 
 by Mr. Parnell ; but, at the same time I recognise the duty 
 I owe to this party, and I recognise the obligation of the 
 pledge which I took when, in 1885, I was elected a member 
 of this party, and if this party, acting in a regular way, 
 comes to a hostile decision to my view, then, before taking 
 any steps to support Mr. Parnell if he chooses to go further, 
 I wiU deem it my duty to resign my seat, and in the most 
 formal way consult the wishes of my constituents. This is 
 the position I take up here, and the sooner that position 
 is made clear to my friends the better. It seems to me 
 that this amendment raises matters of the gravest import- 
 ance. Mr. Sexton has based his refusal of a delay upon 
 this ground, namely — that this matter is urgent. And 
 why is it urgent? Because, it is said, the continued 
 leadership of Mr. Parnell for eight days means the utter 
 destruction of the Liberal alliance. Now, the danger to 
 the alliance between the Irish party and an English party 
 at this moment is no doubt a matter of concern and 
 importance; but in deciding a question of this kind? 
 where we are asked to sell our leader to preserve an 
 alliance, it seems to me that we are bound to inquire 
 what we are getting for the price that we are to pay. 
 
 But first, it seems to me that, in selling our leader, 
 in order to preserve the Liberal alliance, we are selling 
 absolutely and irrevocably the independence of the Irish 
 party. This party has been powerful only becavise it 
 has been independent. Every Irish party that ever 
 existed in this House fell in the same way — through 
 the independence of the party being bartered away, 
 and I believe in my heart, that if we sacrifice you to 
 preserve this alliance, the days in our generation of the 
 
294 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 independence of the Irish party are at an end. What I 
 would like to know would be the position of this party if 
 you were sacrificed, and if a portion of the party held 
 together — I am supposing a number of things — and if the 
 Liberal party came back to power and a Home Rule Bill 
 were proposed, what position, I want to know, would the 
 Irish party under such circumstances be in, if they went to 
 Mr. Gladstone and demanded from him a full measure of 
 our national rights ? Why, Mr. Gladstone would be 
 absolutely unfettered, and he would have the Irish party, 
 so to speak, in the hollow of his hand, the independence of 
 the party would be gone, and it would be — and this is one of 
 the most urgent reasons for the course I am taking — a 
 discredited and powerless tool of the Liberal party. 
 
 In estimatins: the value of a Liberal alliance we are 
 bound to take into accoimt the statements made by you, Mr. 
 Parnell, in the manifesto which you have issued. Now, you 
 have made certain statements with reference to the provi- 
 sions of the Home Rule Bill which Mr. Gladstone says he 
 will introduce if he comes back to power. You have given 
 a description of that Bill as to which I challenge contradic- 
 tion from any Nationalist in this room when I say that it 
 redvices the Bill to a sham and a fraud on the Nationalist 
 aspirations. And if that description given by you be true^ 
 then all the sacrifices made to obtain that Bill would be 
 thrown away, and we would be sacrificing you for what 
 would be regarded by the Irish race throughout the world 
 as a compromise of our principles and a betrayal of our 
 cause. But Mr. Gladstone has made a denial. He has 
 stated that his recollection on the four points mentioned by 
 you — upon the vital point of the control by the Irish Execu- 
 tive of the Irish police, upon the equally vital point of 
 power to deal with the land qiuestion being given to the 
 
The Farnell Crisis. 295 
 
 Irish Parliament — he says his recollection differs from yours, 
 and he denies your version of the provisions of the Bill. But 
 Mr. Gladstone abstains absolutely from giving to the public 
 or the Irish nation anything hi the shape of a definite or 
 clear statement as to what he proposes, and if it comes to a 
 question of recollection or of veracity, I have no hesitation 
 in saying that I am prepared to take j'our word before his. 
 But what I want to point out is this. This party is pro- 
 bably aware — if it is not aware of it I will ask you, sir, to 
 confirm what I say, and I will appeal to Mr. Justin 
 M'Carthy also to confirm it — this part}- is probably aware 
 that on Saturday last you made a proposal to Mr. Gladstone 
 of such a character as, I venture to say, stamps the whole 
 of 3'our conduct in this matter as highly patriotic and self- 
 sacrificing. 
 
 That proposal, as I vmderstood it — I speak subject to 
 the correction of these gentlemen — was this, that if 
 Mr. Parnell's recollection of what took place at that 
 interview was wrong, then let Mr, Gladstone give definite 
 and clear assurances to give power to a Parliament in 
 Dublin to deal with the land question, and to give to that 
 Parliament control over the police ; that then, under these 
 circumstances, you were willing, having gained that for the 
 Irish nation, to sacrifice every personal consideration and 
 retire from the chair ; and, Mr. Parnell, as I understand 
 the situation, that overture to Mr. Gladstone has been fruit- 
 less, and for one reason or another, as to which others must 
 speak, Mr. Gladstone declined to give the assxirances required. 
 Now, sir, I mention these things for two I'easons ; first of 
 aU — and God knows it seems a heart-breakmg thing for an 
 Irish Nationalist member to have to say it — I use this 
 argument because I think it seems your conduct is honour- 
 able, patriotic, and self-sacrificing. I allude to it also 
 
296 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 because it shows the measure of the value of this Liberal 
 alliance for which we are asked to sacrifice you. This 
 Liberal alliance means this — that if we consent to sacri- 
 fice you, the Liberals will, forsooth, make some little 
 endeavour in the country to act up to their solemn pledges 
 of supporting Home Rule as a just cause, and they hope — a 
 very delusive hope as it seems to me — that xmder these cir- 
 cumstances they may be able to obtain a majority at the 
 English polls. Yery well. And that will mean the intro- 
 duction by Mr. Gladstone of a Home Rule Bill. You have 
 challenged the Home Rule Bill as a fraud upon the national 
 hopes, and you have told Mr. Gladstone that if he 
 says he will introduce provisions making it a genuine 
 Home Rule Bill you will retire, and I say that you can 
 appeal with confidence to the Irish race to decide between 
 you. If this be the measui'e of the benefit to be gained by 
 Ireland by the preservation of the Home Rule alliance I do 
 not believe the Home Rule alliance is worth preservation at 
 the enormous, at the terrible, cost of sacrificing you. Mr. 
 Parnell, I was one of those who, I am bovmd to say, in com- 
 mon with most of my colleagues in this room, in common 
 with Mr, Healy, in common with a large number of other 
 gentlemen in this room, spoke at once in Dublin, freely 
 spoke our mind on your political position, immediately after 
 the newspapers had told us the details of the recent trial. 
 I was not present at your re-election on Tuesday, but as I 
 understood it, the party unanimously re-elected you as 
 chairman with the full knowledge, of course, of the pro- 
 ceedings to which I have alluded. The alteration in the 
 attitude of the party only came about when Mr. Gladstone 
 issued his ukase that, forsooth, you should be trampled 
 under foot. I say that attitude taken by Mi\ Gladstone 
 was unworthy of a great man. I say that in my belief the 
 
The Parnell Crisis. 297 
 
 attitude taken by him was not the attitude, and up to this 
 moment is not the attitude, of an honest man. My belief 
 is that if he were a great man he would not have been so 
 precipitate in writing that letter. My belief is that if he 
 were an honest man, and true in his denials of your mani- 
 festo, he would now, even at the eleventh hour, <rive such 
 assurances as would ease the political situation. No ; it 
 seems to me that his desire is that you should be trampled 
 to the ground, and whoever tramples you I will not take 
 part in the transaction. As to your retention being a 
 danger to the Irish cause and the Home Rule cause, I do 
 not believe that it is a real danger. And these are the 
 reasons why I do not believe my friend Mr. Sexton's argu- 
 ment is a sound one when he says that this matter is 
 urgent because this alliance would be broken up if you are 
 retained. There is one other matter to which I want to 
 allude. It is a matter which has not been directly men- 
 tioned in this room, excepting some communications read 
 from the chair, but which has formed, both in your mani- 
 festo and outside, a considerable ground of argument and 
 discussion, viz., the question of evicted tenants in Ireland. 
 Now, I am speaking in presence of my friends Mr. Condon, 
 Mr. Sheehy, and Mr. Roche, and other men who have been 
 specially connected with this question, and I claim from 
 them the concession of this position to me, that I have been 
 identified during the whole of this Campaign movement 
 in Ireland as much as they have been identified with these 
 tenants, and I am as much pledged to those tenants as they 
 are. When Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien were leaving this 
 country they did me the honour of asking me to take some 
 share with one or two of my friends in the management of 
 the afi'airs on these estates, and, therefore, I think I can 
 speak as one who has had some responsibility m the matter, 
 
298 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 and as one who, by his action, has shown he is full of sym- 
 pathy for these tenants ; and I say here that I would sooner 
 cut off my right hand than do anything which would have 
 the effect of destroying the hopes of these men and leaving 
 them to starvation. But, sir, I take a different view alto- 
 gether with reference to this matter from that taken by my 
 friends. I fear that if this party, yielding to English 
 clamour, yielding to the dictation of English statesmen, 
 sacrifices you, the source of supply on which these tenants 
 have been depending for so long — the generosity of the Irish 
 people in America — wUl be diverted in a way which could 
 not be possible under any other conceivable circumstances. 
 Any man who has been in America, as I have, and knows 
 America as intimately as I do, must be aware of the fact 
 that your dethronement will rend the Irish people in 
 America in twain; and I say in the face of such a calamity 
 as that in America it wiU be impossible to rely on the source 
 of the generosity which has been sufficient to sustain those 
 tenants in the past. More than that. I believe that in the 
 pledge you have given you will stand by those tenants, 
 they have the most complete assurance that their case 
 will in future be dealt with, that the portion of your 
 demands on the Home Rule Bill in reference to the power 
 to be given to the Irish Parliament to deal with the land 
 question is a direct demand on your part for power to restore 
 these tenants to their homes. And I believe more than 
 tliis ; I believe that these tenants would unanimously repro- 
 bate the idea that you are to be sacrificed for them. I 
 believe that if these Campaign tenants were to be polled to- 
 morrow they would have sufficient manliness and patriotism 
 to say to their representatives here — " Your first duty is 
 Ireland — your first duty is the loyalty you owe to the 
 independence of your party and your leader ; and jovl are 
 
The Parneli Crisis. 299 
 
 not to allow our position or interests in the remotest 
 degree to interfere with the discharge of that duty." 
 I will say nothing about my motive in this matter. I dis- 
 dain to do it. My public record, without any boasting. I 
 should say, entitles me to entertain the belief that whatever 
 course I take the Irish people will believe that I am actu- 
 ated by the highest motives of pariotism. 
 
 It is true that I have a feeling of personal loyalty to you. 
 I have said elsewhere, and I say here, that you have been 
 my friend, and I think this is no time in which a man who 
 has been once your friend should turn against you. But I 
 most solemnly say that while you remain my friend, and my 
 personal attachment is the same to you as it always was, I 
 declare most solemnly that in this consideration I am not 
 allowing my personal attachment to you to weigh iia the bal- 
 ance. I would sacrifice my liberty. I would sacrifice my 
 life, I would sacrifice the liberty and life of the truest and 
 best friend I have in the world for the sake of the indepen- 
 dence of my comitry. It is not a personal motive that ani- 
 mates me; it is because I believe your maintenance is necessary 
 to the success of our cause ; it is because I believe that your 
 overthrow will be an instance of ingratitude such as has been 
 shown by no other country in the world, and such as will 
 stamp the Irish people as unworthy of those rights for which 
 you and all of us have been working. For this reason, and 
 with a full sense of my responsibility, I am here to support 
 your leadership, and I hope it will not be considered irre- 
 verent of me if I say that I hope the God of our fathers will 
 direct the heart and conscience of every man in this room to 
 come to a just decision ; and I consider whatever argument 
 may sway the minds of men that their main reason for sup- ' 
 porting you, or even opposing you, will be a desire for the 
 Avelfare of their country, Expressing my hope, with which 
 
300 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 I will conclude, that this terrible crisis in the history of Ire- 
 land, and in the history of the party, may not be allowed, 
 shall not be allowed, to bring once more upon our people the 
 terrible curse of disunion, second only to the terrible curse of 
 want of independence to which in the past we have owed 
 most of the miseries and misfortunes of our country, I invite 
 you, gentlemen, to give your votes for Iz'eland — I invite you 
 to give your vote for the independence and honour of Ire- 
 land's representation, and, from my point of view, you cannot 
 give your vote for Ireland or the independence of our party, 
 or the cause of our freedom, unless you give it in support of 
 the man who has brought us to our present position, and 
 who, in spite of all, in my humble judgment, is destined to 
 lead us to the fulfilment of all the hopes and apirations of 
 our race, 
 
THE PARJSFELL CRISIS. 
 
 SECOND SPEECH IN COMMITTEE ROOM 15. 
 
 XV. 
 
 I TAKE too grave and serious a view of my responsibility 
 as a representative of the people, in the face of a crisis such 
 as this, to allow myself by intemperate and hysterical 
 langviage, such as has been used by Mr, Healy, to be tempted 
 into descending to answer his vituperation. He, forsooth, 
 has spoken about insults hurled, or likely to be hurled, at 
 him. His whole speech from beginning to end was one 
 string of insults to you and your friends, for I need not say 
 to any man who heard that speech, that the whole of it was 
 instinct from begimiing to end with insult. He spoke of our 
 bogus resolutions. He spoke of our action yesterday not 
 being bona fide. He spoke of our bad faith and of our desire 
 to waste time and to delay the decision of this party, I, for 
 my part, regard these accusations of his as amounting to in- 
 sult, and for my part nothing except the terrible and weighty 
 responsibility which rests upon every man in this room upon 
 this question restrains me from resenting those imputa- 
 tions as I believe they deserve to be resented. Sir, he has 
 spoken to-day as a man who has deliberately thrown to the 
 winds the position which he occvipied yesterday. Why, 
 yesterday evening Mr. Healy spoke of the blessed hope which 
 had dawned upon him of a golden bridge. He spoke yester- 
 day with tears in his voice of the opportunities which he 
 
802 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 thought he saw to bridge over this difficulty. I deliberately 
 declare my opinion, having listened to the speech now deliv- 
 ered, that he must have come into this room determined to 
 do his best at any cost to bi'eak down and destroy that golden 
 bridge. I, for the moment, refrain from answering certain 
 portions of Mr. Healy's speech which demand an answer, and 
 which shall be answered before I sit down. But first I de- 
 .sire to recall the reason and the recollection of this meeting 
 to the true facts of the situation. Gentlemen, I entreat of 
 you, my colleagues in the representation of Ireland, 
 not simply to listen to what I have to say, with minds 
 made up, and with determination not to answer me, as Mr. 
 Healy has invited you. I ask you to listen to my words as 
 the words of a man who desires to reach your reason, and 
 appeals to your patriotism, and I demand you shall listen 
 with open minds to what I have to say. I deny absolutely 
 the accuracy of the representation of the situ.ation which has 
 been given by Mr. Healy. I do not want to impute motives, 
 but deliberately or without deliberation, Mr. Healy has 
 absokitely misi^epresented the attitude taken up by the chair- 
 man. Our position yesterday was this. Mr. Clancy moved 
 a resolution to the effect that Mr. Gladstone should be asked 
 for certain assurances as to the Home Rtde Bill, and, as far 
 as I know, there has been no demand for the withdrawal of 
 the resolution. 
 
 It was to the effect that difference of recollection havuig 
 aidsen between Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gladstone with regard 
 to the Hawarden conference, that the whips of the party be 
 asked to communicate with Mr. Gladstone and to obtain 
 from him assurances on two vital points for the information 
 of the party ; and that pending the obtaining of that infor- 
 mation that the discussion of Mr. Barry's resolution for the 
 deposition of Mr. Parnell should be suspended. 
 
The Parnell Crisis. 303 
 
 I want, if I can, to bring you back from the heated atmos- 
 phere of vituperation and malice, back to the atmosphere of 
 reason and patient investigation of truth. 
 
 I appeal now to Mr. Sexton to foUow me. I understood 
 after Mr. Clancy's resolution was moved, that Mr Sextou' 
 raised two points of vital importance, and asked for an answer 
 First he wanted to know if he was correct in assuming that 
 if these communications were held with Mr. Gladstone and 
 if assurances on these two vital points of a satisfactory niture 
 were obtained, that Mr. Parnell would resign the leadership 
 of his party. I freely, for my part, said " yes," Mr. Clancy 
 said ''yes," and you, Mr. Parnell, said -yes," andone would 
 thmk, to listen to Mr. Healy now, that there had been some 
 receding from that position. I say there has been no reced- 
 ing from that position, and if Mr. Healy thinks so he is 
 actmg under a misapprehension. But the svhole point turns 
 on the second inquiry of Mr. Sexton. Having got that 
 assurance he went on to ask whether the majority of the 
 party, or Mr. Parnell himself was to be the jud^e as to 
 whether Mr. Gladstone's assurances were satisfactory or 
 not? Everybody who heard that inquiry realised 
 the fact that that was the crux, and upon that would 
 tm^n inevitably the result of this attempt to settle 
 
 the matter. I believe "siV fV>n + 
 
 , , oeiieve, sir, that your statement 
 
 has been misunderstood and misrepresented by Mr 
 Healy. "^ 
 
 What is the position wkich you take up, sir? You say 
 to the party-" You ask me to pledge myself to resign the 
 leadership of the party if you, the majority of the party 
 consider that the assurance on these two vital points are 
 satisfactory. Before pledging myself in that way before 
 Slu-rendering absolutely my individual responsibility that I 
 have not sought, but which has been placed upon me by my 
 
304 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 countrymen throughout the world, I am bound to make this 
 preliminary inquiry : — Are the views of the party on these 
 two points in consonance with the views of the Irish 
 race 1 " 
 
 Mr. Parnell said he believed there would be no difference 
 of opinion about this. I believe there cannot. In my 
 remarks the other day I challenged any man in the room 
 to stand up and deny that he would resent as an insult 
 and a betrayal of our cause such a Home Rule scheme as 
 was sketched in the Hawarden conversation. 
 
 Mr. Condon, Mr. Healy, and other gentlemen said they 
 would not accept such a scheme as satisfactory, and in point 
 of fact they demanded for the Irish Parliament full power to 
 deal with the police and to settle the land qviestion. If that be 
 so, I ask is it an unreasonable thing for Mr. Parnell to say, 
 before surrendering his personal responsibility and placing 
 himself in the hands of the majority, to ask from that ma- 
 jority an expression of their opinion as to what their views 
 are 1 For my part I am convinced that the views of the 
 great majority of the party are thoroughly sound as to the 
 settlement of this question. If that be so what is the mean- 
 ing of this attempt to break down this golden bridge because 
 Mr, ParneU has asked the party to assure him that their 
 views on those vital points agree with his 1 Mr. Parnell's 
 position is clear. He saj's : — 
 
 " If I find that the views of the party are sound views, then abso- 
 lutely and without reservation I place my leadership of this party in 
 th« hands of the majority of the party. Aye, a majority which I 
 know at this moment to be hostile to me and my future." 
 
 When Mr. Parnell has made it absolutely certain that 
 the Home Rule Bill will be a reality and not a sham, then 
 lie will place his future in the hands of a majority which he 
 knows is hostile to him at this moment. 
 
The ParneU Crisis. 305 
 
 What is the meaning of describing that as a sudden change 
 of attitude 1 I assert there is no change of attitude. I 
 assert that the change of attitude has been on the part of 
 Mr. Healy. We all heard, not without emotion, the broken 
 words of Mr. Healy last night. They seemed to me to be- 
 token a stirring of his better nature. Mr. Healy is an able 
 man. No man living has admired his dexterity and courage 
 in debate, and his powers as a dialectician in the past history 
 of the movement more than I have. He must forgive me 
 if I say I think he has one great defect. He is too liable to 
 be carried away by temper. He is too liable to be carried 
 away by hysteria. I say that his speech to-day was the 
 worst-tempered and most hysterical speech that was ever de- 
 livered by a man in the position of a leading politician — one 
 of those, perhaps, who will form one of the Triumvirate who 
 will rule Irish politics, as the Triumvirate after the death of 
 Julius Cresar tried to govern the Roman Empire with very 
 ill success to themselves. I regret the speech. I do him 
 the justice of saying that I believe it was the speech of an 
 ill-tempered and hysterical man. God forbid I should say 
 that his emotion last night was a piece of acting, and that 
 to-day he came into this room determined, as he was deter- 
 mined last night to break down this golden bridge. I make 
 no such accusation. I give him the credit of believing that 
 his speech was the speech of an ill-tempered and hysterical 
 man. Whatever his motive was, I say he has done his best 
 here to-day to destroy the only hope which, during these un- 
 happy days, has come to lighten our hearts and to brighten 
 the heavy load of our misery. I assume, Mr. Parnell, 
 from your silence, that I have accurately described your 
 position. 
 
 Mr. Parnell — Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. Redmond — I appeal to my friend, Mr. Sexton, to say 
 
306 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 what substantial difference there is between your attitude 
 yesterday and your attitude to-day. Does he state that there 
 was a change of front ? When Mr. Clancy's amendment 
 was moved yesterday you, sir, were asked a question. In 
 reply to that question you have given an answer which I 
 believe will be received in Ireland, as it was received by 
 many of your colleagues, as another proof of your soundness 
 of purpose and of your devotion to the cause which you have 
 led to the very threshold of victory. I say deliberately 
 that a heavy i-esponsibility will rest on every man, no matter 
 whether he is Priest, Bishop, or Member of Parliament, who 
 is instrumental in breaking down this golden bridge of peace, 
 and in plunging us, as they will if they twist and distort 
 your action and refuse your oflfer of peace, in plunging the 
 country into what inevitably must be a period of disunion 
 and turmoil. 
 
 I heard with sorrow the threats of Mi\ Healy. They use 
 threats about the breaking of Parliamentary pledges. I 
 know for my part that I have never taken a pledge which I 
 do not mean to keep. I say it is an insiilt to his colleagues 
 for Mr. Healy to insinuate, even in the most indirect way, 
 that any man of this party is more liable to break a pledge 
 than he is himself. 
 
 Our position, sir, in this matter is the position of 
 men who desire to maintain the independence of 
 the Irish party, of men who are not willing to 
 sacrifice a great political captain to English clamour, 
 unless we are clear and decided that in doing so we 
 are gaining some commensurate political advantage for our 
 country. We are in the position of men who have stood 
 around Mr. Parnell and have advised him that, if by these 
 nesotiations he could obtain this solid benefit for his 
 country in the shape of assurances which would bind the 
 
The Parnell Crisis. 807 
 
 Liberal party to make the Home Rule Bill a reality — that 
 if he could do that benefit to his country, he should retire in 
 God's name and stand down from the position he has so 
 long occupied before the Irish race. The position of the 
 men opposed to us is that of men who have again and again 
 declared that "the stench of the Divorce Court" (to use 
 Mr. Healy's phrase) would not prevent them from supporting 
 the continued leadership of Mr. Parnell, and who come here 
 in one or two hours after the issue of the ukase of Mr. 
 Gladstone calling for your dethronement, throw to the wind 
 all their previous declarations, and have not the courage to 
 say that theit change of attitude is due to the orders of him 
 who will be their new captain ; men who declared, as Mr. 
 Healy declared in my own hearing, at the Leinster Hall, 
 that if you, sir, were abandoned by the Irish nation the 
 Irish nation would no longer be his nation. They are men 
 who are willing to accept the vague and indefinite assur- 
 ances of Mr. Gladstone as to the future of Home Rule; 
 who are willing to sacrifice you without thought or heed of 
 what the sacrifice would entail ; they are, without knowing 
 fully what they are so doing, going to sacrifice the one man 
 who is capable of saving the nation. I heard the other day 
 a statement made in this room which struck me as un- 
 answerable. It was said that in every other change of 
 leadership the existing leader was driven out in order to put 
 in his place a man whom the sentiments of the people 
 pointed out as a better man. Who is the man to take your 
 place ? Who is the man who, when the Home Rule BUI 
 comes to be settled, can discuss its provisions on an equal 
 footing with the leaders of English parties ? There is no 
 such man, 
 
 Mr. T. M. Healy— Suppose Mr. Parnell died ? 
 
 Mr. Redmond — I will answer that. I say, Mr. Parnell 
 
808 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 being amongst us, why should we drive him out ? I say we 
 have in him the greatest Irishman since the days of Hugh 
 O'Neill, and we shall not drive him out. You ask me what 
 would happen if we had not got Mr. Parnell ? My answer 
 is, we should be obliged to take inferior men. But we have 
 got him. You, sir, have ofFei"ed to resign your political 
 future into the hands of a hostile majority of the party on 
 one condition, namely, that the majority obtains assurance 
 from Mr. Gladstone on these two important points, and 
 that offer has been met with insvilt of the deepest dye, vrith 
 bitter recrimination, with an endeavour to inflame the 
 comitry against you. Is it too late to ask this party to 
 calmly consider this question from the point of view of a 
 peaceful settlement on the lines laid down 1 Surely this 
 party can have no objection to concede Mr, Parnell's idea 
 of the power of a Home Rule Parliament over the police 
 and the land. Is there any objection to that ? I challenge 
 any man to stand up and say that is not his idea of a Home 
 Rule BUI. Is it unreasonable that you should approach 
 Mr. Gladstone on these points? It did not strike Mr. 
 Healy last night when he spoke with tear-laden accents of 
 a golden bridge that Mr. Parnell could ask for no assurances 
 from Mr. Gladstone. Why should Mr, Parnell ask for 
 assurances? Mr. Gladstone declares that Mr. Parnell's 
 statements about the interview at Hawarden are wrong, but 
 if Mr. Parnell is right the Home Rule Bill is a sham ; and 
 is it therefore unreasonable to go to Mr. Gladstone and say, 
 " One small point keeps us from union. That small matter 
 is in your hands, and in God's name, and for the sake of 
 the country you love, and to which you have devoted the 
 last days of your life, say the word that wUl end this 
 painful situation, that will enable us to unite and enable 
 .YOU to lead once more this Liberal alliance ? " Can Mr, 
 
The Parnell Crisis. 309 
 
 Gladstone refuse an appeal of that kind ? I say he cannot. 
 It is absolutely impossible that he can. It seems to me 
 that those who think he can must believe in the supposition 
 which seems to be entertained to some extent by Mr. 
 Parnell, that it is impossible to get a straight answer from 
 Mr. Gladstone. If that is not your view, and if the request 
 is a reasonable one, I ask, why should you now break down 
 this golden bridge across which it was hoped we would be 
 able to pass from the land of dissension and disunity into 
 once more the land of peace and amity. Let no man in the 
 room foolishly believe that if this debate is hurried to a 
 close the matter is going to end here. My belief is that in 
 the moment when, by an adverse vote of this party, you 
 succeed in driving Mr. Parnell from the chair, and attempt 
 to drive him out of public life, and trample him under foot, 
 that very moment the Irish race throughout the world will 
 be rent in twain. I do not say on what side the balance 
 will be, but I do say a division will be created. I assert 
 my belief that the dethronement of Mr. Parnell will be the 
 signal of the kindling of the fires of dissension in every land 
 where a man of the Irish race has found a home. It is because 
 I look forward with dread and horror to that future that I 
 have taken my stand so firmly by your side, Mr. Parnell. 
 I believe that the one hope of safety for Ireland and the 
 Home Rule cause is that you should remain at your post, 
 or else abdicate your post, having obtained for Ireland, 
 security for the settlement of the question. If you, sir, 
 obtain that security for Ireland, and then retire, I believe 
 the Irish race will consent to your temporary withdrawal 
 from the position you now occupy, but will do so with • 
 sorrow-laden hearts. But if you are not allowed to obtain 
 that security, if, relying on the vague promises of Mr. 
 Gladstone and bartering away the independence of our 
 
310 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 party, my friends drive you from your position, I believe 
 that jvist as the assassination of Julius Ctesar was the signal 
 for " malice domestic and fierce civil strife that cumbered 
 all the parts of Italy," your withdrawal, I repeat, wUl be the 
 signal for lighting all over the world those fires of dissension 
 and discord with which we have been familiar in the past. 
 Let no man accuse me of wishing to ignite those fires, but 
 they wUl be lighted if this act is done, and in them will be 
 burned to ashes the last hopes of the Irish people in this 
 generation for the freedom of their country. 
 
THE NATIONAL DEMAND, 
 
 SPEECH IN THE ROTUNDA, DUBLIN, ST. PATRICK'S DAY 1892. 
 THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD MAYOR IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 My Lord Mayor, ladies and gentlemen — The subject which 
 I have chosen for my speech to-night is one that is capable 
 of treatment in many and various ways. For example : it 
 would be an easy and pleasant task upon St. Patrick's 
 Night to go back over the pages of Irish History and show 
 that the Irish National demand has been in substance the 
 self-same through all the ages that have passed since the 
 Norman foot first dared to pollute our independent shore. 
 It would be a useful and interesting study, no doubt, to trace 
 the fortunes of the Irish National cause, in sunshine and 
 in shadow, through the centuries that have passed, and 
 to point out how vastly and how surely that cause has lost 
 by subserviency to our traditional enemies, and by internal 
 treachery, and how every victory that we ever won was the 
 result of self-reliance and independence. My purpose to- 
 night, however, ladies and gentlemen, is not historic ; I desire 
 rather to deal with the Irish political situation as it exists 
 at this moment. I desire, if I can, to say something to 
 meet what I conceive to be the most urgent need of the 
 present situation in Ireland, and to face boldly and grapple 
 resolutely with those dangers, which, now that we ought 
 
312 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 to be upon, the very threshold of final victory, seem to 
 threaten the fortunes of that cause for which so many 
 countless thousands of our race have sacrificed liberty and 
 life. My Lord Mayor, it may seem a strange thing to say 
 at this period of the nineteenth century, and after a history 
 such as ours, yet, I believe it is absolutely true, that the 
 most urgent need of the political situ.ation in Ireland to-day 
 is for the Irish people to declare to friend and foe alike, in 
 clear and unmistakable language, what the National demand 
 is, and what is the irreducible minimum which Irish 
 Nationalists can ever be expected to accept as a settlement 
 of their claims. 
 
 I propose, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, to-night to 
 sketch in outline what the National demand is, and what, 
 in my judgment, alone will satisfy it. Before doing so, 
 however, I desire to explain why it is that I consider such 
 a definition necessary, especially at a moment like this, 
 when we see an effete Tory administration tottering to its 
 doom, and when, in all human probability, we are upon the 
 very eve of victory, at the English polls, of a great English 
 party pledged to the principles of Home Rule. 
 
 My reasons, ladies and gentlemen, for considering a 
 definition such as I have mentioned necessary to-day are 
 three-fold. My first reason is Mr. Gladstone's persistent 
 refusal under circumstances of an extraordinary character, 
 to let the electoi's of the Three Kingdoms know what are 
 the main provisions of his Home Rule scheme. 
 
 My second reason is to be found in certain speeches 
 which have recently been delivered in England by Sir Wm. 
 Harcourt, by Mr. Henry Eowler, and by Mr. Asquith, 
 and other important Liberal leaders, and also in speeches 
 delivered in Ireland by Mr. Davitt and some others. 
 And, gentlemen, my third reason is to be found i'^ the 
 
The National Demand. 313 
 
 danger, which, I believe, is becoming gi-eater and more 
 apparent every day that passes, that in the event of the 
 House of Lords rejecting the Home Rule proposals of Mr. 
 Gladstone the measure may be hung vip, and that the 
 Liberal majority in Parliament may proceed with a long 
 list of British reforms. Now, my Lord Mayor, it has often 
 been said during the mouths that have passed, that we 
 trusted Mr. Gladstone before the split in the Irish party, 
 and that Ave are equally safe in trusting to him now. The 
 answer is obvious. 
 
 A Voice. — Never trust an Englishman. 
 
 Mr. Redmond. — Before the disastrous proceedings in 
 December, 1890 — before the revolt in Committee Room 15 
 — Ireland had a I'epresentation absoUitely united, not only 
 in principle, but, apparently, in loyalty to one another. 
 She had a party, whose independence was bej^ond question 
 and which was pi'epared to treat with, or to attack in turn; 
 as the interests of Ireland decided, every English political 
 combination. Above all, Ireland had a leader in whom she 
 placed implicit confidence — a man of cool and far-seeing 
 mind, of iron will and of unpurchasable integrity, who could 
 neither be cajoled by Liberal blandishments nor terrified 
 by Tory threats, a man who had proved himself a hard 
 taskmaster for these English statesmen, the proudest and 
 most powerful of whom he had brought to their knees. 
 
 Under these circumstances, perhaps, Ireland could afford 
 to pursue a policy of trust, of patience, and of silence. I 
 say she can afford to pursue that policy no longer. Her 
 leader is gone, rudely torn in the prime of his manhood 
 from the service of his country. His place is empty, and 
 Ireland, in her dealing? with England in the near future, 
 will have to trust to men none of whom posses? any single 
 one of the qualities which made Parnell tlie buh^ark of the 
 
314 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 National cause and the terror of its enemies. The Irish 
 representation is divided. The majority of its members 
 have bartered their independence to an English party, and, 
 under these circumstances, I say it would be absolute mad- 
 ness for Irishmen to pursue this policy which, two years ago, 
 with a competent leader, and a united and independent 
 party, might have been both reasonable and safe. 
 
 But, ladies and gentlemen, we have stronger reasons even 
 than these for refusing to trust blindly to the good inten- 
 tions of an English party. In these days we live so rapidly 
 that we are apt sometimes to forget even the most recent 
 important events in our history. Allow me to remind you 
 that on the 28th Novembei-, 1890, Mr. Parnell issued to 
 the Irish people a manifesto, in which he gave to them an 
 account of a conversation of his with Mr. Gladstone at 
 Hawarden, and in which Mr. Gladstone plainly intimated 
 that upon some of the most vital features of the Home Rule 
 problem the hopes of Ireland would probably be dis- 
 appointed. Speaking of that interview, Mr. Parnell 
 said : — 
 
 "Upon the settlement of tlie Land Question it was held that this 
 was one of the questions which must be reserved from the control of 
 the Irish Legislature, but at the same time Mr. Gladstone intimated 
 that, •while he would renew his attempt to settle the matter by Impe- 
 rial legislation on the lines of the Land Purchase Bill of 1886, he 
 would not undertake to put any pressure upon his own side, or 
 insist upon their adopting his views. In other and shorter words, 
 the Irish Legislature was not to be given as solving the agrarian diffi- 
 culty, and the Imperial Parliament would not. With regard to the 
 control of the constabulary, it was stated by Mr. Gladstone that, 
 having regard to the necessity for conciliating English opinion, he 
 and his colleagues felt that it would be necessary to leave this force 
 and the appointment of its officers under the control of the Imperii^ 
 authority for an indefinite time, while the funds for its maintenance, 
 appointment, and equij)ment would be absolutely provided out of 
 Irish funds." 
 
The National Demand. 815 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that Mr. Gladstone 
 gave a general denial to the accuracy of that statement of 
 the effect of the conversation at Hawarden. But large 
 masses of the Irish people have never had any doubt in 
 this matter, in trusting the word of their own leader. And, 
 as I will show you — if you have patience to follow my argu- 
 ment — as I will show you, every act and every word of 
 Mr. Gladstone and his friends from that day to this 
 goes to corroborate Mr. Parnell's recollection of that 
 conversation. Now, it is manifest to you that if that con- 
 versation were correctly reported, we would be absolute 
 madmen to place the future of our cause blindly in Mr, 
 Gladstone's hands. 
 
 My Lord Mayor, it has been said by our political oppo- 
 nents that they disbelieve Mr. Parnell's warning. I say, 
 sir, their own acts belie them. So grave did they consider 
 the state of affairs disclosed by the report of the Hawarder, 
 conversation, that they actually in Committee Room 15 
 unanimously passed the following resolution, showmg that 
 they admitted the gravity of the situation, and that they 
 admitted the necessity for having this point made clear. 
 The first resolution they passed was as follows .• — 
 
 "That in view of the difference that has arisen between Mr. Glad- 
 stone and Mr. Parnell as to the accuracy of Mr. Parnell's recollection 
 of the suggestions offered at Hawarden in reference to the changes in 
 and departures from the Home Rule Bill of 18S6, on the subject of 
 the control of the constabulary and the settlement of the Land Ques- 
 tion, the following gentlemen — viz., Mr.M'Carthy, Mr. Parnell, Mr. 
 Sexton, Mr. Healy, Mr. Redmond, and Mr. Leamy, together with the 
 whips — be instructed to take steps to ascertain from Mr. Gladstone, 
 Mr. Morley, and Sir. Wm. Harcourt, for the information of the Party, 
 what their views are upon these two vital points." 
 
 And, ladies and gentlemen, when Mr. Gladstone took ex 
 ception, as he did, to the form of that resolution, the party 
 
316 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 the following day met, and again unanimously — the party 
 before it was divided, consisting of both of the two present 
 sections — iinanimously passed the following additional reso- 
 lution : — 
 
 *' Resolved — That the following members of the Party — namely, Mr. 
 Leamy, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Healj'-, and Mi-. Sexton, are hereby autho- 
 rised to request a conference with Mr. Gladstone for the purpose of 
 representing the views of the Party, and requesting an intimation of 
 the intentions of himself and his colleagues with respect to certain 
 detaUs connected with the following subjects : — First, the Settlement 
 of the Irish Land Question ; and secondly, the control of the Irish 
 Constabulary Forces, in the event of the establislmient of a a Irish 
 Legislature." 
 
 So that these very gentlemen who, to-day say that we, 
 forsooth, are gviilty of treachery to Ireland because we 
 ask for this infoi'mation, by two unanimously passed 
 resolutions, appointed a depu.tation of our party, consisting 
 of men f roin both wings of the party, to go to Mr. Gladstone 
 and to ask him for a declaration which would bind Mr. John 
 Morley, Sir William Harcourt, and the Liberal party. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, I was one of those who went 
 on that deputation to Mr. Gladstone. I sat for a considerable 
 time in his study, and Mr. Sexton and myself both put 
 before Mr. Gladstone the situation as to Ireland with all 
 the force and earnestness at our disposal. We told him 
 that if Mr. Parnell's recollection of the Hawarden interview 
 were wrong, as he, Mr. Gladstone, said^ then he, Mr. 
 Gladstone, was bound for the sake of Ireland to clear up 
 the difference of recollection by stating what reaUy occurred. 
 We pointed out to him that our country at that moment 
 was standing on the brink of an abyss, that unless some 
 way out of the difficulty was found we had before us in 
 Ireland a future of disunion, of internal discord, and that 
 
The National Demand. 317 
 
 the Liberal party had before them in England a future of 
 danger and of difficulty. And we exhausted all the words 
 of persuasion, and, I might say for myself, of absolute 
 entreaty in our endeavour to get him to say one word, he 
 knowing full well that, if that word were satisfactory, the 
 Irish crisis would have ended. But, ladies and gentlemen, 
 all our efforts failed. 
 
 Mr, Gladstone, for what reason I know not, unless it be 
 that Mr. Parnell's story of the Hawarden interview was 
 true. Mr. Gladstone remained absolutely silent. Well, 
 the gentlemen who in Irish politics are now opposed to us 
 on the Nationalist side did not even then profess to be 
 content, because so powerful did they find our arguments 
 and our demand to be that Mr. Gladstone is bound to speak 
 — so urgent did they recognise the necessity for speaking 
 to be that their first act after they seceded from Committee 
 Room 15, was to issue a manifesto to the Irish people in the 
 course of which they said : 
 
 " We shall ask for these specific particulars in due time. To insist 
 upon them at once would be to embarrass the friends of Ireland." 
 
 Well, now, I respectfully urge upon the intelligence of this 
 audience that " in due time " meant sometime before tha 
 dissolution of Parliament, because after the dissolution of 
 Parliament there would be no need to ask particulars 
 because Mr. Gladstone, of course, would then give them to 
 the world. Nov/, these gentlemen have pledged themselves 
 before the world to demand these particulars from Mr. 
 Gladstone in due time. 
 
 I respectfully urge upon them that when, according to 
 their own statements, we might have a dissolution any 
 week or any day, the due time has arrived, and that at 
 any rate it is rather audacious on their part, having made 
 
318 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 these declarations, to blame us if we, believing the due time 
 has arrived, do our best to get this information given to the 
 English electors before they go to the polls at this moment 
 tous General Election. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we believe for two reasons that Mr. 
 Gladstone's refusal under the circumstances I have detailed, 
 and in spite of the pressure that I poiiated out, makes it 
 imperative upon us to let the whole world know plainly 
 what we want and what we must get, if the settlement is to 
 be a satisfactory one. 
 
 Now the second reason which I have for saying that this 
 condition is necessary now is, as I have said, to be found in 
 certain speeches which have been made both in England 
 and Ireland, and although I know that reading these 
 extracts must necessarily try the patience of the audience, 
 stUl, as this is such an important matter, and, as my 
 argument shovdd be as complete as I can make it, I shall 
 ask you to bear with me, even if you think my remarks not 
 as entertaining as j'ou could wish them. 
 
 You will remember that shortly after the split took 
 place in the Irish party, shortly after Mr. Parnell had 
 spoken through the country and in Ireland, Sir WUliam 
 Harcourt made a speech which attracted attention all over 
 the world. In that speech he used those memorable 
 words : — 
 
 " While the Liberal Party were still in favour of Home Rule, 
 neither they nor, he believed, the people of England would ever grant 
 Mr. Pamell's Fenian Home Rule." 
 
 Now, in a few moments, I wUl make it clear what Mr. 
 Parnell's Fenian Home Rule is. I pass on to the next 
 extract which I desire to read. It is from a speech 
 delivered the other day, delivered at the Rossendale electioa 
 
The National Demand. 319 
 
 by one of the most important men in the Liberal party, a 
 man who in the future of the Liberal party is bound to 
 take the very highest rank — I mean Mr. Fowler, the 
 Member for Wolverhampton. What did he say ? 
 
 "The Irish Parliament," said he, " might do foolish things ; they 
 must work out their own salvation, but if they did wrong things the 
 supremacy of the Imperial Parliament would become 'an effective 
 force.' " 
 
 Now, it is perfectly clear from that what Mr. Fowler 
 means by Home Rule. He means some system of Local 
 Government in Ireland which would leave vested in the 
 Imperial Parliament a power of control, of interference, of 
 revision, of amendments, which at any moment could be 
 put in force to dwarf or maim or destroy our Irish legislation. 
 
 And Mr. Asquith, whose name you must be familiar 
 with as that of a man who is one of the coming Liberal 
 Parliamentary lawyers in England, said in Edinburgh : — 
 
 *' Parliament, speaking, of course, of the Imperial Parliament, was 
 not competent to part with its supremacy over any part of the nation- 
 If the House of Commons chose — though , certainly it would not do 
 60 — but if it did choose to legislate for Ireland as well as for England* 
 it would be perfectly competent for it to do so." 
 
 That is, legislate for Ireland as well as England after the 
 Irish Parliament had been granted to this country. So 
 that, from those extracts, I say that it has become perfectly 
 clear that there is amongst a section, at any rate, of Liberal 
 leaders and of the Liberal party some sort of idea that we 
 will be content in this country with a Parliament over 
 which the Imperial Parliament will retain the power of 
 interference and control on purely Irish matters. 
 
 Now, it is bad enough to have English politicians 
 speaking in this way, but the necessity of defining our 
 
320 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 position, which is made, as I submit, imperative by these 
 English speeches, is made still more imperative when we 
 find an Irish politician of the standing and position of Mr. 
 Michael Davitt declaring, as he declared at Bandon just at 
 the time when these English politicians were thus minimi- 
 suig Home Rule, that he and his friends would be satisfied 
 to accept anything that could be got from the Liberal 
 party. Here are his words : — 
 
 " But if I find that all wliich the Irish heart yearns for, all which 
 the Irish people aspire to ■win, cannot be got, if we, three millions of 
 Irish nationalists, cannot wring all we would wish from thirty- 
 millions of British people, I for one will be satisfied to take aU the 
 English Liberal Party and the British democracy offer to us." 
 
 We thus have important English Liberal politicians and 
 leaders minimising Home Rule in England, and we have 
 Mr. Michael Davitt saying at the same time in Ireland that 
 we ought to take anj'thing we can get from these Liberal 
 politicians. These speeches constitute my second reason for 
 saying that I believe it is absolvitely necessary for the Irish 
 people to make quite clear to the English electors before the 
 General Election what exactly it is that we mean when we 
 ppeak of Home Rule. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me deal shortly with 
 my third reason for saying that this definition is neces- 
 sary. I say that there has been an almost impercep- 
 tible, but to the keen eyes of politicians, a distinctly 
 marked change of front on the part of the Liberal party 
 going on for months with reference to the Home Rule ques' 
 tion. 
 
 Ah ! so long as we were united and independent, so long 
 as we had a leader whom we trusted and they feared, so 
 long the Liberal Party's policy towards Ireland and Home 
 Rule was summed up in the phrase of Mr. Gladstone : 
 
The isationaC Demand. 321 
 
 *' Ireland blocks the way ;" since the disunion, since the loss 
 of independence, since the death of our leader, we have 
 heard very little about Ireland blocking the way. T say 
 there has been a distinct change of front on this question 
 and the motto of the Liberal Party to-day may more accu- 
 rately be summed up by the phrase : " If the House of 
 Lords rejects Home Rule, hang it up." 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, so far back as the end of October 
 last year — and it is surely a remarkable thing that not one 
 of these speeches was delivered until the grave had closed 
 over the remains of our leader — Sir William Harcourt said 
 in a speech at Glasgow : — 
 
 " I know what the Tory plan is. They hope to wear us out by 
 dissolutions, forced on by the House of Lords. They talk of the right 
 of referendum on each separate measure. I think they will find 
 themselves mistaken. In my opinion if they are trying to play the 
 game they bhould have rope enough ; they should be allowed to do 
 their worst, on the whole scope and tenor of Liberal reforms and upon 
 all its measures, and then the time of referendum will have arrived." 
 
 What is the plain meaning of that? The plain meanino- 
 of that, which cannot be denied, is, that if the Home Rule 
 Bill is defeated in the House of Lords, instead of appealinof 
 to the constituencies, the Liberal party would go on with the 
 various items of their programme, and it would not be until 
 those Liberal reforms had been dealt with by the House of 
 Lords that the time for the dissolution and the referendum 
 would come. 
 
 Again, Sir George Trevelyan, in a speech at Rothbury, 
 in January this year, spoke as follows : — 
 
 " Questions such as the disestablishment of the Welsh Church, the 
 rrgistration for voters, local control of liquor traffic, one man one 
 Vote, district councils, and parish councils are ready for settlement, and 
 will be dealt with by the Liberal Ministers immediately they come 
 
 y 
 
322 Tlistorical and Political Addresses. 
 
 into power. It had been stated that the House of Lords would throw 
 these Bills out. All he had to say was, 'let them try.' " 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, I quoted that speech the 
 other night to Sir George Trevelyan himself in the House 
 of Commons, and although he interrupted me and made 
 some observations, he did not attempt to deny — although 
 I challenged him to do so — he did not attempt to deny that 
 what he meant by the speech was that the new Parliament, 
 when the Liberal party returned to power, should act upon 
 the principle of submitting all these measures to, at any 
 rate, the House of Commons after the rejection of the Home 
 Rule Bill by the House of Lords before going to the consti- 
 tuencies, or, in other words, that the policy of " Ireland 
 blocks the way " had been given up, and the policy of hang- 
 ing up the Home Rule Bill had been adopted in its place. 
 
 And, again, unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we have 
 these English politicians who speak in this way about Home 
 Rule in England patted on the back, and encouraged and 
 backed up by leading Irish politicians in Ireland. 
 
 On this very question of the danger of hanging up Home 
 Rule Mr. Sexton spoke in Belfast. He said on the 2nd 
 February in this year — 
 
 "No living man (said he) can teU what may be of interest to 
 Ireland in two or three years hence." 
 
 Well, I venture to suggest that neither in two or three 
 years hence, nor at any future time, will it be for the in- 
 terests of Ireland to have Home Rule hung up by the 
 Liberal Party. 
 
 " It wiU depend " — upon what do you think 1 — " upon 
 the Liberal majority in the House of Commons. It might 
 depend upon the temper of the country. It might depend 
 
The National Demand. 323 
 
 tipon " — and this was a question, remember, as to v/hether 
 Ireland was to be cheated of her hopes — " it might depend 
 upon the temper of the House of Commons — or Lords — it 
 might depend upon a European war and Imperial complica- 
 tions. " 
 
 So that we are in this position — that when these English 
 politicians speak of hanging up Home Rule, so far from a 
 protest coming from Irishmen, a voice of encouragement for 
 the Liberal party in that new policy comes from Mr. Sexton. 
 This danger of Home Rule being hung up, which is evident 
 from the speeches which I have read to you, constitutes my 
 third reason for saying that it is imperative upon us clearly 
 to enable the electors of England to know before the General 
 Election takes place what it is we mean by Home Rule. 
 Now, let me briefly deal with that question. What is the 
 national demand ? 
 
 The Pai'liament of 1782 was not a Parliament of the 
 Irish people. The mass of the Irish people were absolutely 
 excluded from the franchise. That Parliament in no sense 
 can be said to have represented the masses of the nation. 
 It represented simply the English Pale — or the English 
 colony as it has been called. Yet a free constitution was 
 won for that Parliament by Henry Grattan, and such was 
 the inflvience — such was the blessed influence of liberty upon 
 the minds and souls of those Protestant gentlemen who 
 assembled in that Parliament of 1782, that that Parliament 
 became nationalised, and the hopes and aspirations of the 
 .most extreme Nationalists in Ireland long turned towards 
 that Parliament with hope and with pride. All that was 
 wanted was that that Parliament should be allowed to de- 
 velop as it was developing under the influence of the breath 
 of liberty, and eventually that Parliament would have 
 satisfied the national demand of Ireland Remember 
 
324 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 this — remember that the development in that Parliament 
 was so rapid that in the year 1793, eleven years after 
 freedom had been given to it, that Protestant Parliament, 
 representing as it did none of the Catholic masses of the 
 people, commenced the work of Catholic Emancipation, 
 granted the franchise to large masses of the Catholic people, 
 opened the learned professions and the university to the 
 Catholics, and if that development had not been arrested, if 
 it had been allowed to go on, before a (generation more had 
 passed that Parliament, which began as the Parliament of 
 the Pale, would have blossomed into the Parliament of the 
 Irish nation, and its existence would have justified and 
 satisfied the national demand. Remember the United 
 Irish Society. When it was first established it was a 
 perfectly legal and constitutional organisation, which had 
 for its object simple Parliamentary reform and emancipation 
 of the Catholics. And it was not until the progress of the 
 development of that Parliament was arrested ; it was not 
 until Fitzwilliam was recalled in 1795, and the policy of 
 conciliation trampled under foot — it was not until then that 
 the United Irishmen Society became a revolutionary and 
 insurrectionary organisation. I say, therefore, that Grattan's 
 Parliament, if it had been allowed to develop as it was de- 
 veloping, would have satisfied the national aspiration 
 eventually, and that the rebellion, the insurrection of 1798, 
 was directly the result of the refusal of the policy of concilia- 
 tion and the stoppage of the process of development in that 
 Parliament. 
 
 Let me go a step further. Ever since 1800, ever since 
 the Union robbed Ireland of that Parliament, moderate 
 though its constitution was, the national aspiration has 
 taken the form of repeal of the Union. Aye, and I assert 
 without fear of contradiction, that the insurrectionary 
 
The National Demand. • 325 
 
 movement of 1848, and the insurrectionai^y movement of 
 1867, were both of them the direct result of the refusal to 
 grant the national demand for Repeal of the Union ? 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, when Isaac Butt founded the 
 Home Rule movement, he proposed to substitute for Repeal 
 a system of Federalism which many people at first sight 
 thought was something in the nature of a compromise of 
 the national claim. But a comparison of a Federal 
 Parliament with Grattan's Parliament showed that it was 
 nothing of the kind. Ladies and gentlemen, Grattan's 
 Parliament was in name an Independent Parliament. In 
 name it was co-ordinate in power with the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment, but in reality it was a dependent and a subservient 
 Parliament, and I will tell you why. It had no power of 
 carrying out its own decrees, because the Executive Govern- 
 ment of the country depended for its existence — the 
 Executive Government which had to carry out the decrees 
 of that Parliament depended for its existence not upon the 
 Irish Parliament at all, but upon a majority of the English 
 Parliament, 
 
 Therefore, I say that Grattan's Parliament, though it 
 was in name an Independent Parliament, in reality was a 
 dependent Parliament, 
 
 The Federal Parliament which Isaac Butt proposed was 
 a Parliament which, in name, was dependent, but in reality 
 was independent. I am explaining in words to you what I 
 mean. That Federal Parliament would be dependent ia 
 this sense, that it would not have been a co-ordinate 
 Parliament with the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial 
 Parliament which created it would have the power, in 
 theory at any rate, to take it away, just as it had the 
 power to give it. But while that was so in theory, that 
 Federal Parliament, in practice and in reality, woidd have 
 
826 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 been independent, because it would have had absolutely 
 supreme power, free from any inteiierence or control of the 
 English Parliament, over exclusively Irish matters, 
 
 Now, in these days when Mr. Butt and his proposals are 
 regarded as moderate compared to ours by many badly 
 informed people, it may be interesting for me to read two 
 or three sentences to show yon what Butt demanded was 
 absolute supremacy over Ireland in the management of 
 Irish affairs. In 1873, in this very hall, Mr. Butt thus 
 defined Home Rule. He said : — 
 
 " The Crowu it is not proposed to affect in its prerogatives at all, 
 the only change would be that in exclusively Irish matters it would 
 be guided by the Irish Parliament and the Irish Ministry. In other 
 affairs it would continue as it is at present to be guided by the advice 
 of the Imperial Parliament. As to the Imperial Parliament, it would 
 continue to have precisely the same supreme powers that it now 
 possesses over all Imperial affairs just as completely as if no Irish 
 Parliament existed. As to the Irish Parliament, it would have 
 supreme powers over the internal affairs of Ireland just as much as if 
 no Imperial Parliament existed. Its jurisdiction would include every 
 exclusiTely Irish interest. In respect of all exclusively Irish interests 
 this Irish Parliament would rank and rule as the Parliament of an 
 independent nation." 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, that in my opinion contains 
 the essence of the national demand of Ireland at this 
 moment. It contains every single one of the demands 
 which Mr. Parnell made in what Sir William Hai'court 
 says the Liberal party will never give us, na,mely, in Mr. 
 Parnell's scheme of "Fenian Home Rule." 
 
 On the 25th of June last year Mr. Parnell spoke thus at 
 Waterford : — 
 
 "The Liberal Party," said he, "and Mr. G-ladstone know what 
 Ireland wants, there can be eo mistake about it, that we want a 
 Parliament with full power to manage the affairs of Ireland without 
 trenching on any Imperial prerogative, or injuring any Imperial or 
 
The National Demand. 327 
 
 English interest, but a Parliament -we must have that will be supreme 
 with regard to Irish affairs. We wiU have no English veto. An 
 Enghsh veto, whether upon the appointment of your leader or on the 
 laws of your Parliament, would break down that Parliament before it 
 had been two years in existence. The Irish question is plain and 
 simple. It is now known to all men that what we want is that, when 
 our Parliament has been restored to us, tbe elected representatives of 
 the people shall have power to make laws for Irelanrl, and that there 
 shall be no English veto upon those laws except the constitutional 
 veto of the Crown, exercised in the same way as it is exercised by the 
 Crown in the Imperial Parliament. Then, as regards the civil power, 
 there shall be no Imperial police, there shall be no military police, but 
 the future police of Ireland shall be under the control of the Executive 
 of the Irish Parliament, and shall be a civil not a military force. 
 Now there has been great difficulty and great trouble for the last 
 hundred years over the land question, and one great argument in 
 favour of Home Rule has been that the Imperial Parliament has never 
 been able to understand or settle the land question. But what would 
 you think of offering us a Parliament which reserved to the Imperial 
 Parliament the solution of the very question which it had always 
 shown itself unable to settle ? That would be a mockery, a delusion 
 and a snare, and we claim if this question is unsettled when Home 
 Rule is given to us, and when our Parliament is restored to us, that 
 the land question, as well as every other question, should be left to 
 the settlement of the Irish Parl'anent." 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, this is the last extract that I wUl 
 trouble you with, for that speech of Mr. Pamell was reduced 
 into definite form in the Constitution which was adopted by 
 the great National Convention held in July in the Leinster 
 Hall. This Constitution was, and I am glad to be reminded 
 of it, settled, every word of it, by Mr. Parnell's own hand. 
 Here is his -definition of it : — 
 
 " The restitution to the Irish people of the right to manage their 
 own affairs in a Parliament elected by the people of Ireland. This 
 Parliament shall have full power over all the affairs of Ireland, inclu- 
 ding the laws relating to the ownership and occupation of land, and 
 all laivs enacted by it shall be subject only to the veto of the Crown 
 or the representative of the Crown in Ireland. The Irish Executive 
 shall be dependent upon this Parliament, and shall have control over 
 
828 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 tlie Constabiilary as well as the appointment of all judges and magis- 
 trates, and the statutory power of the Lord Lieutenant to raise, 
 equip, maintain, and control the Constabulary, shall be repealed." 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, these extracts plainly point 
 to what we mean by the national demand, and it is not 
 necessary for me to point out to you how essentially they 
 differ from what seems to have been in the minds of Mr. 
 Fowler, Sir Wm. Harcourt, and other English politicians 
 whose words I have quoted. I do not propose to labour that 
 definition of Home Rule. The question of the land, the 
 question of the police, the question of the judiciary, are all 
 contained in that one vital provision, namely, that the Irish 
 Parliament shall be supreme in the management of Irish 
 affairs. 
 
 Let me say one word to make perfectly plain what 1 
 mean by that supremacy. I admit that the Imperial 
 Parliament will remain supreme in Imperial affairs; more 
 than that, I admit that in the strict theory of the Constitu- 
 tion the Imperial Parliament would remain supreme also in 
 reference to this particular, that the Irish Parliament having 
 been created by it, it would retain the power, in theory at 
 any rate, to take that Parliament away, just as it had the 
 power to give it. 
 
 Therefore, I say that, so far as the supremacy of the Im- 
 perial Parliament is concerned, in theory it would remain 
 supreme because we would not interfere, or want to interfere 
 in Imperial matters beyond the interference of our Members 
 in the Imperial Parliament, and it would, of course, not 
 abrogate — it would have no power to abrogate — any of the 
 powers which it possesses at the present moment. You 
 may remember that, when the Union was being passed, 
 the most powerful arguments used against it was that the 
 Irish Parliament was not competent, that it had not the 
 
The National Demand- 329 
 
 power to desti'oy any of its own attributes or powers. That 
 may fairly be claimed by the Imperial Pai'liament. What 
 we say is that, while an Irish Parliament exists in Ireland, 
 it shall be absolutely supreme in the management of 
 every Irish affair, for the system whereby the Imperial 
 Parliament would bring up all its acts for revision or dis- 
 cussion would be disastrous and dishonourable. 
 
 It would be the re-introduction in another form of 
 Poj'ning's Act, which for many weary generations pre- 
 vented the old Irish Parliament from exercising any free- 
 dom of thought or discussion. Therefore we say, and this 
 is our ultimatum, this is our irreducible minimum on this 
 question — the Irish Parliament must be supreme — abso- 
 lutely supreme — free from interference or control in the 
 management of the affairs of Ireland, so long as that Irish 
 Pai'Uainent exists. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, these are the main and vital 
 features of the Home Rule problem. On the question of 
 finance, on questions of detail, no doubt there will be ample 
 room for accommodation, for arrangement, and for compro- 
 mise. On the vital prmciple of the supremacy of the Irish 
 Parliament in Irish affairs there can be no compromise 
 without disaster and dishonour, and I am clearly of opinion 
 that it is a duty which we owe to our country and our- 
 selves, a duty which we owe alike to the memory of the 
 dead and the hopes of the living, to let these English 
 electors know clearly, before this momentous General Elec- 
 tion takes place, that no man and no set of men who will speak 
 for Ireland will dare to palter for one instant with the 
 sacred principle that it is the inalienable and God-given 
 right of this country to rule herself in her own affairs, 
 free from interference or control by the people of any 
 other nation upon earth. 
 
ooO Historical and Political Addresses, 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have finished, I have 
 fulfilled as well as I could the task which I set before 
 myself at the commencement. In conclusion, I desire to 
 say that notwithstanding the disasters and dishonours of 
 the year that has passed, I still believe that we are advanc- 
 ing on the road to a final victory for our cause. When that 
 hour of victory comes, the thoughts of countless thousands 
 all over the world will turn to that silent grave in Glas- 
 nevin, and our people, whatever their present divisions may 
 be, will then recognise and acknowledge, with tears of 
 mingled gratitude and remorse, how much Ireland owes to 
 the matchless brain and the gallant heart of the man who 
 lifted her up from the dust and led her to the very 
 threshold of liberty. 
 
SPEECH IN THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC, 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 15th JUNE, 1892. 
 
 J-UDGE LYNN IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen : — It is with mixed 
 feelings that I stand here to-night to address this magnificent 
 assembly of Irishmen and Irishwomen of New York. The 
 pride and the pleasure which it must be to an Irish politi- 
 cian to stand amongst the Irishmen of America is in my 
 case damped by the consciousness, which I cannot overcome, 
 of the change which has come over the fortunes and prospects 
 of Ireland since last I stood on an American platform. 
 
 Fellow-countrymen, when I was last here, Ireland was ad- 
 vancing mid the applause of the nations of the world calmly, 
 confidently, and securely towards the achievement of her 
 rights. The ear of the civilized world at last had opened to 
 her story. The anti-Irish prejudice which so long enslaved 
 and degraded her people had been conquered and destroyed. 
 The jarring factions which for so long a time made the very 
 name of Ireland a by-word with the nations had disappeared, 
 and by the strength, the unity, the calmness, and the 
 dignity of our national movement we had made our national 
 demands respected and admitted by the world. 
 
 There was not an Irishman in any part, I believe, of the 
 
332 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 habitable world who did not in some shape or form feel the 
 blessed influence of the movement of the last ten years in 
 Ireland. The entire Irish race was by that movement 
 elevated, and the future of our country seemed to have been 
 secured. All that was the work of one man. All that was 
 the work of one masterly, cool, and far-seeing brain, of one 
 dauntless and unpurchasable heart. Parnell taught Irish- 
 men to vmite. Parnell taught Irishmen self-respect and 
 self-reliance, 
 
 Parnell taught the doctrine that, judged by every test 
 which goes to make up a nation, we Irishmen were the 
 equals of those Englishmen who sought to be our masters. 
 He fought, and even when he had but a band of men less 
 than a score by his side, he defeated one after the other 
 each of the great English political parties, and finally he 
 brought one of these great English parties to admit the 
 justice of our claim. This was the position when last I 
 stood on an American platform. What is the position to- 
 day 1 The national unity has been destroyed, the national 
 party is distracted, the national hopes are jeopardized, the 
 national leader is dead ; the man who made Ireland respected, 
 the man who made Ireland united, respected, and feared is 
 gone, rudely torn in the pride of his manhood from the 
 service of his country. His place to-day is empty, and the 
 distracted Irish national party looks in vain around for any 
 man fit to take that place. 
 
 Ireland at this moment, maddened by sorrow and remorse, 
 torn by passion and distracted by warring sections, is in 
 danger of losing once more the respect of the nations of 
 the world and the fruition of her hopes. Small wonder, 
 then, ladies and gentlemen, if my feelings in rising to speak 
 here to-night are of a mixed character. Small wonder 
 if my pride and pleasure at your greeting are mingled 
 
Speech in New Yorh. 333 
 
 with feelings of deep humiliation and pain. I have, how- 
 ever, this one consolation ; it is just within the bounds of 
 possibility that the opportunity afforded to me by this 
 meeting to-night may be so utilized as to hasten in some 
 small degree the day when the national unity will be once 
 more restored to our country. 
 
 In all I have to say to you, ladies and gentlemen, this 
 will be my guiding motive. I pi^opose to divide my address 
 into two portions, first, I intend to deal with this question 
 of national iinity, and while I have no desire to go back 
 over the heart-breaking and humiliating incidents of the 
 last eighteen months in Ireland, at the same time I feel 
 bound in justice to myself and to my absent colleagues to 
 vindicate them and myself from the accusation which has 
 been made against us in this counti*y, of having been the 
 men responsible for breaking the national unity which 
 existed in the year 1890. I propose then to show you that 
 we were not the men responsible originally for breakiiio- 
 that union, and that we are not the men responsible for 
 continviing the disunion ever since. And I propose to 
 explain to you the fair and reasonable basis upon which 
 we, the followers of Mr. Parnell, pi'opose to bi'ing that dis- 
 union to an end. 
 
 And then, ladies and gentlemen, in the second portion of 
 my address I intend very briefly to emphasize the necessity 
 which I believe exists for the continuance in the English 
 Parliament of a party of Irish politicians absolutely un- 
 pledged to, and absolutely independent of, every English 
 political party. And I propose shortly to tell you in a few 
 sentences what it is that we mean by the phrase " Home 
 Rule for Ireland." 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, I propose to deal with these 
 two portions of my subject sepai'ately ; and I am afraid that 
 
334 Historical and Folitical Addresses. 
 
 it will be necessary for me to go into some details, and 
 perhaps to weary some of you. But I desire to give chapter 
 and verse for eveiy statement that I make. I desire that 
 my statements shall go forth with authority behind them, 
 and that I may be able to prove my propositions beyond the 
 possibility of doubt, and if, in the process of doing so, I 
 weary your patience to some extent, I will ask you to re- 
 member how serious a matter this is, and of what grave 
 concern it is to Ireland that all the facts about the present 
 situation should be understood here in this land of America. 
 
 The followei's of Mr. Parnell have been accused of having 
 been the men responsible for breaking the national unity. 
 I assert here to-night, and I wUl prove my words, that it 
 was our political opponents in Ireland, and not Mr. Parnell's 
 followers, who originally broke the national unity which 
 existed. 
 
 Now, let me shortly prove that statement. In November, 
 1890, Ireland was united, her people at home and abroad 
 were united under the leadership of Mr. Parnell. Suddenly 
 that union, on a particular hour of a particular day, 
 was broken. Who broke it ? Is has been said that it 
 was broken by the lamentable proceedings in the Divorce 
 Court in England, I say that statement as a matter of 
 historical fact is notoriously untrue. During two whole 
 weeks after these proceedings in the London Divorce Court, 
 Ireland remained united; the proceedings in that court 
 were discussed in public and in private in every Irish circle ; 
 and at the end of that fortnight's discussion I assert here, as 
 a matter of historical fact, that the whole Irish people at 
 home, so far as they had spoken, had declared with one 
 voice that in their opinion the continuance of Mr. Parnell's 
 leadership was necessary for the welfare of Ireland. This 
 public opinion was not a mere chance expression. Great 
 
Speech in New Yorl: 335 
 
 conventions of the people, great meetings of the delegates 
 representing the clergy and the laity were held in Ireland 
 during that fortnight in half a dozen Irish counties, in the 
 counties of Louth, of Meath, of Galway, of King's, of 
 Carlow, and in other places. At some of these conventions 
 as many as thirty and forty clergymen were present ; and at 
 all of those conventions resolutions were passed declaring 
 that Parnell should be retained. 
 
 Then in the largest hall in the City of Dublin, the 
 Leinster Hall, in as vast an assembly as that which I am 
 addressing here to-night, an assembly with the leading men 
 of Ireland on the platform, with very nearly half the national 
 Parliamentary party upon the stage, this matter was dis- 
 cussed by Mr. McCarthy and by Mr. Healy, by all the 
 leading men, and a cablegram was read from the Irish dele- 
 gates in America, from Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Brien and others, 
 to the following effect : — 
 
 "We stand firmly by tlie leadership of the man who has brought 
 the Irish people through unparalleled difficulties and dangers, from 
 servitude and despair to the very threshold of emancipation, with a 
 genius, courage, and success unequalled in our history. We do so in 
 the profound conviction that his qualities as a leader are essential to 
 the safety of the Irish cause." 
 
 At that meeting Mr. Justin McCarthy proposed the prin- 
 cipal resolution, viz. : — 
 
 " That this meeting, interpreting the sentiment of the Irish people 
 that no side issues shall be permitted to obstruct the progress of the 
 great cause of Home Rule for Ireland, declares that in aU political 
 matters Mr. Parnell possesses the confidence of the Irish nation, and 
 rejoices at the determination of the Irish Parliamentary Party to stand 
 by their leader." 
 
 In support of the resolution he said : — 
 
 •' I want you to consider what is the position, what is the duty of 
 
336 Historical and fohticat Addresses. 
 
 the Irish Party at the present moment. I am not thinking especially 
 or alone of Mr. Parnell. I am thinking of tlie Irish cause and the 
 Irish people, I ara thinking of what the Irish Party ought to do. I 
 am thinking of what they owe to you, the Irish people, what they 
 owe to your pa-t, what they owe to your future, what they owe to the 
 sause we all have at heart, and how we shall best further the great 
 purpose of that cause in the future ; and I therefore ask you whether, 
 having found through those past years the leader of consummate skill, 
 of absolute devotion, a man who can lead us as nobody was ever able 
 to lead any Irish cause, a man who has raised the Irish cause beyond 
 the level — I speak in a practical sense— to which it was raised by 
 Grattan and O'Connell ; I ask you are we going to change that man, 
 to say that we will set up some wholly inferior man because some of 
 the Tories and some of tiie Liberal Secessionist newspapers say that, 
 man has gone wrong ? I am speaking as a practical politician. I 
 don't care about sentiment. I want to win our great cause. I am 
 concerned for the cause of Ireland and the cause of the pe iple of Ire- 
 land, for the tenant farmers, for the peasant, for our own great superb 
 traditions, and for our Irish Home Rule. . . . Then I ask you 
 are we, as rational human beings, are we going to give up that great 
 leader, to lose the force of his capacity, his energy, his genius, his 
 perseverance, his resource ? Are we going, for any personal cause 
 whatever, to lose, to throw away the power of that great man in lead- 
 in£f our Parliamentary battle ? No, most certainly not. His duty — a 
 duty from which he cannot possibly escape — is to lead us in that great 
 battle, and our duty — a duty from which we cannot possibly escape — 
 is to maintain him as our leader in that great battle." 
 
 Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P., seconded the resolution, and in 
 the course of a vigorous speech said : — 
 
 " For Ireland and for Irishmen, Mr. Parnell is less a man than an 
 institution. We have under the shadow of his name secured for Ire- 
 land a power and an authority in the councils of Great Britain and the 
 world such as we never possessed before ; and when I see a demand 
 made for retirement and resignation I ask them (our English friends) 
 to remember the futility thereof. I am no man's man but Ireland'3 
 and if I stand here to-night to second this resolution, as I gladly do, 
 I do 80, not for the sake of Parnell as an individual, but for the sake 
 of Ireland as a nation. We are not sentimental poUtitians. We have 
 no room for sentiment. I think if it existed in our souls the ten years 
 that we have gone through would have pretty well driven it out. But 
 
Sjjcech in New York. 387 
 
 1 say this, that when we have had a prolonged experience, and when 
 we have seen victory aftsr victory achieved by our leader, while I sub- 
 Ecribe to the Napoleonic doctrine that no man is indispensable, I say, 
 yet it would be criminal on our part, it would be criminal — aye, it 
 would be absurd and foolish in the highest degree, were we at a mo- 
 ment like this, because of a temporary outcry over a case that in 
 London would be forgotten to-morrow, if there were a repetition of 
 the Whitechapel murders, or some more scandals from the C4old Coast 
 connected with Mr. Stanley's voyages, I say we would be foolish and 
 criminal if we, the seafoaed politicians who have seen and who have 
 been able to watch the vagai'ies and tempests of political passion, if we 
 upon an occasion of this kind, at the very first blast of opposition, sur- 
 rendered the great chief who has led us so far forward. . . . And 
 if the Irish people for whom he has done so much, for whom he has 
 braved so ra'ach and suffered so much, if they were so frivolous and 
 light-headed as to permit themselves at the first sound of this Avretched 
 and unfortunate case to be dragged away from the support they have 
 hitherto accorded Mr. Parnell, all I can say is that this Irish nation 
 would be my natiou no more. . . . For my part I decline to take 
 the cork out of the soda water bottle to see the ' fiz. ' I am satisfied 
 with the National Party, and by the National Party and the National 
 Leader I shall abide. Let me, however, say this : that while we owe 
 a duly to Mr. Parnell, Mr. Parnell owes a duty to us. We have stood 
 by Mr. Parnell. Mr. Parnell must stand by us. . . . I will at a 
 time of crisis and stress and struggle recommend to you and those out- 
 side the weather-beaten monition, ' You are requehted not to speak to 
 the man at the wheel.' " 
 
 All this time, remember, it was not as if there were a 
 divided nation, for, during that fortnight, no single voice of 
 layman or clergj'man was raised in Ireland to the contrary, 
 and at the end of the fortnight the Irish party assembled in 
 London, and by their unanunous vote re-elected Mr. Parnell 
 as their leader. It is therefore not true to say that the 
 national unity was broken by the Divorce Court proceedings. 
 
 What broke it ? The very day upon which Mr. Parnell 
 was re-elected, whUe the vows of devotion and loyalty 
 to him were still warm upon the lips of his colleagues^ 
 •within two hours after his unanimous re-election, at the 
 woi'd of command from the captain of another army, at the 
 
338 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 word of command from the leader of another political party^ 
 Mr. Parnell was attacked by a number of his own followers, 
 and then and there and thus the national unitjj^ was 
 broken. 
 
 Gentlemen, whoever else is responsible for breaking that 
 unity, we, at any rate, who, when we told our leader and 
 our friend that it was his duty to stand firm, meant what 
 we said, and afterwards stood by what we said — we, at 
 any rate, can never in the pages of history be charged with 
 the responsibility of having broken the national unity. 
 
 Now, I pass to the next point, and having shown that 
 we Avere not responsible for originally breaking the unity, 
 I proceed to show that we have not been responsible for 
 the continuance of disunion ever since ; and I assert that 
 repeatedly, during the eighteen months that have passed, 
 we have made eftbrt after effort to restore the imity of the 
 Irish people, and that every effort of ours Avas thwarted and 
 rejected by the very men whose friends in America to-day 
 say that Ave are the men responsible for disunion in our 
 country. 
 
 Now, let me prove that statement. Many of us felt, 
 ladies and gentlemen, that while it Avas impossible at once, 
 after the great political earthquake Avhich had taken place 
 in Ireland, to restore exactly the same surface to the poli- 
 tical world in a moment, at the same time we belicA^ed that 
 there Avere certain questions upon Avhich both sections could, 
 and both sections ought, at once to vinite ; and we believed 
 that if we Avere bx'ought together upon one side issue and 
 then upon another side issue, that eventually the chasm 
 Avould be bridged over and unity restored. I take an 
 example. I myself held a very strong view that it was the 
 duty of Irishmen of all sections to unite in an effort to 
 obtain the release of a number of our countj'ymen who, 
 
Speech in Neiv York. 339 
 
 however foolish and regrettable their methods may have 
 been, still were Irishmen suffering for the same old cause 
 for which our fathers fought and died. 
 
 And, ladies and gentlemen, we started an amnesty move- 
 ment in Ireland ; and my colleagues and I appealed to the 
 leaders of the anti-Parnellites in the country to sink their 
 differences at any rate upon this broad and sacred platform 
 of amnesty, and come in and join hands with us in our 
 efforts. How Avas our attempt at union met 1 I hold here 
 in my hand the written answer sent by Mr. John Dillon. 
 In that answer he says that — 
 
 " Thougli I am strongly in favour of Amnesty, I cannot be present 
 at your meetings, because" 
 
 (listen to the words of this apostle of reunion and peace) 
 
 " because (he said) I cannot consent to stand upon the same platform 
 ■with the Parliamentary supporters of Mr. John Redmond, who, in 
 my opinion, are in my deliberate judgment the most dangerous 
 enemies of the Irish cause." 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, there was our first effort at 
 peace ; there was our first effort at union, and there was the 
 result. Let me state our second eff'ort. 
 
 There was another cause in Ireland to which all 
 sections were equally pledged. There was a large body 
 of the evicted tenants in Ireland who left their homes 
 on the promise of support given to them by a united 
 party. Whoever else was responsible for the Irish 
 crisis they were not, and w^e felt that it was the 
 duty of all sections to unite in an effort to support these 
 tenants and their families. 
 
 How was our effort met? First of all, our opponents, in 
 what some of you will probably think was a very summary 
 
340 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 fashion, walked into the office of the organisation, of these 
 tenants, and walked away with the books and papers and 
 accounts, and gave instructions to the officials to refuse any 
 information about these tenants to any supporter of Mr. 
 Parnell. Well, we were not daunted even by that repulse. 
 The tenants in Tipperary came to me, came to Dublin to see 
 me, and they asked me to urge upon the other side to have 
 a joint delegation from both sides to go down and give 
 encouragement and assistance to their friends, and I con . 
 sented to go, and I said I would go with any of our oppo- 
 nents, and a meeting was ai'ranged ; but at the last moment 
 the leaders of our opponents forbade any of their followers 
 to attend the meeting, and the result was that the Tipperary 
 tenants were deprived of the united advice and assistance of 
 both sections. 
 
 And then, not content with having made these two 
 unsuccessful efforts, we made a third. Our opponents 
 started a fund, which they called the " National Fund," and 
 they asked subscriptions to it for the evicted tenants, but 
 it came to our knowledge that the fund was for a double 
 purpose — for the tenants, it is trae, but also to be used in 
 part as a political campaign fund against us, and we 
 appealed again and again to our opponents to take that 
 political aspect away from this fund, and to enable us to 
 join with them in its collection. But they refused, and I 
 have here in my hand extracts from no less than three 
 speeches made on different occasions by myself, in which I 
 appealed with all the force at my command to our oppo- 
 nents in God's name, and for the sake of the starving wives 
 and children of these tenants, to join hands with us, and to 
 make a united appeal. 
 
 I will just read for you an extract from the last of those 
 speeches. I said : — 
 
speech in New Yorh 341 
 
 " No money is coming from abroad for the tenantp, and I am sorry 
 to say that in my opinion none will until there is a united appeal made 
 by both sections of the party. For my part, no bitterness, no personal 
 feeling will be allowed to stand between me and any section of men 
 who will co-operate with me for the aid of these tenants. It is not yet 
 too late. I, to-day, again repeat my appeal to Mr. Dillon. Let him have 
 his National Fund for political purposes ; let him keep, aye, every 
 penny of it ; but let him start a fund purely for the evicted tenants 5 
 let him pledge himself before the world that it will be used solely for 
 those tenants ; let both sides to the controversy unite in support of 
 that fund, and I believe the fund will be a success in Ireland, and, 
 more than that, I believe a united effort of that sort would bring 
 funds from abroad, from America and Australia." 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, there was the third effort 
 that w^e made to bridge over this chasm, to try and find in 
 our efforts for union some piece of common ground upon 
 which both sections should stand; but each one of these 
 appeals was rejected in turn, and every effort that we made 
 to restore union was repulsed with asperity, indeed, I might 
 almost say with insult, by our opponents. 
 
 Now, I claim to have proved to you not only that we are 
 not responsible for breaking the union originalh', but that 
 we are not responsible for its continuance, but, on the 
 contrary, that we have I'epeatedly made efforts at peace and 
 that all our effoi'ts have been rejected. But many of you 
 may be inclined to say to me, this is all ancient history. 
 Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have gone into it for the 
 reason that I mentioned at the commencement, because I 
 and my friends have been villified and misrepresented in 
 this matter, and I felt it my duty to vindicate my colleagues 
 and myself from the accusation made against us. However, 
 I desire now to come to the present. 
 
 Is there now, now at the last hour, no possibility of 
 bringing the National forces into one body again in 
 Ireland ? Ladies and gentlemen, we are upon the eve of, 
 
342 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 perhaps, the most momentous General Election ever held this 
 century in Great Britain. The fortunes of Ireland will be 
 hanging in the balance, in every polling booth in England, 
 Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and we know that the 
 spectacle of a divided Ireland must necessarily have an 
 injurious effect upon the cause of Ireland in these British 
 elections, and, consequently, we desire, and from the bottom 
 of my heart I desire, that now at the eleventh hour some 
 means may be found to prevent the scandal of conflicts 
 between Nationalists for Irish seats. Now, what are the 
 chances of that, and what do we propose ? 
 
 Forgive me, I beg of you, if I have the appearance by 
 reading extracts and going into details of desiring to weary 
 your patience. But this is an all important matter. I am 
 here in a responsible capacity, and I must be guarded, I must 
 be careful and precise in what I say. 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, the first proposal for anything in 
 the nature of a union for the General Election was made in 
 a public speech about two months ago by a leading member 
 of our opponents' party, namely, Mr. T. P. O'Connor. He 
 made the speech that I hold in my hand, in which he said 
 that an Irish party ought to be representative of all sections 
 and shades of Nationalists, and he went on to say that 
 Home Rule would not be worth having if its achievement 
 were regarded by a section of Irishmen as the triumph of a 
 party and not the triumph of a nation. 
 
 And he went on to make a proposal for peace. He said — 
 these are his words : — 
 
 " I then am for a policy of conciliation, of kindness " — 
 
 And I beg you will mark the woi'ds — 
 
 " For a policy of fair and proportionate representation for tliose of 
 our countrymen wLo differ from ua over the election of Mr. Parnell.'*' 
 
Speech in New York. 343 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the moment that speech was 
 made, I at once answered it by a speech in Dublin in 
 which, speaking for my colleagues and myself, I said if that 
 be the sentiment of your party we reciprocate it. If that 
 be your proposal, we accept it. 
 
 During the elections that have been held in Ireland since 
 this trouble arose two-fifths of the entire votes cast were 
 cast for the Pai'nellite candidates. Those elections were 
 held in places — except in one instance — in places notoriously 
 hostile to our party. They were held at a time when 
 religious and moral considei-ations were clouding the political 
 judgment of the people. And yet, in unfavourable places, 
 and at an unfavourable time, we polled two-fifths of the 
 entire vote cast. Now, that proportion would give to us on 
 a scheme of pi'oportionate representation a lai-ger number of 
 members than we possess at present. But we did not desire 
 to press that claim ; we did not ask for the full proportionate 
 representation to which we were entitled. We would have 
 been entitled to some thirty-eight seats on that principle ; 
 we only hold twenty-nine ; but we said we are content to 
 accept the principle of your proposal, and if you will agree 
 to leave our twenty-nine seats unattacked, we will leave the 
 remainder of the seats which you hold unattacked ; we will 
 both go back to the next Parliament in the same position 
 in which we now stand, and then when the Home Rule Bill 
 of the Liberal party is produced, we can all unite either in 
 support of it, if it be a good one, or in rejection of it, if it be 
 a bad one. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, remember what followed. 
 Immediately a speech was made in Dublin by Mr. Healy. 
 I have his remarks here in my hand. He at once denounced 
 the proposal of Mr. O'Connor, and he denounced Mr, 
 O'Connor for making it. He said :-— 
 
344 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 " So far as I am concerned I desire at the very earliest opportunity, 
 so far as my voice, vote, and opinion are concerned, to say that my 
 voice, my vote, and opinion "will be irrevocably cast against any such 
 policy as that." 
 
 And he went on to say that : — 
 
 "In my judgment nothing more fatal could be put forward than 
 any attempt to patch up a hollow and hypocritical peace of any sort 
 whatever." 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, I say here to-night that Mr. 
 Healy and his friends are the only people of the Irish race 
 in any part of the world who are to-day standing between 
 Ireland and peace. His efforts to kill Mr. O'Connor's 
 proposal were successful. I hold a speech here in my hand 
 from which I must quote, but I do so, believe me, with pain 
 and humiliation, because it pains and humiliates me to find 
 the position which, in contradiction to his own better 
 judgment, Mr. William O'Brien was forced to take upon this 
 matter. 
 
 Speaking immediately after Mr. Healy's declaration, Mr. 
 O'Brien said that Mr. O'Connor's proposal had been made — 
 ziow listen to his words : — 
 
 " With the full approval of the chairman of the Irish Party, and 
 of seven out of the nine members of the committee of the Irish Party, 
 it was abandoned in consequence of the hostility of one of our 
 colleagues — Mr. Healy. " 
 
 Mr. O'Brien further said : — 
 
 ' ' We agree to drop hostilities on our part if our opponents would 
 drop hostilities upon their part," and he goes ou to say that he is 
 '' convinced that such a settlement as that would have been received 
 with joy in Ireland," and he says "we have the best reason to know 
 that it would have been received with joy and approval and enthusiasm 
 by our most powerful friends in the United States of America." 
 
Speech in New Yorh. 845 
 
 But what an unconscious sarcasm there was in his own 
 words. He saj-s : — 
 
 " For the sake of rational harmony, finding that the idea received 
 opposition from such an influential colleague as Mr. Healy, we were 
 oVliged to abandon the idea." 
 
 But he goes on to say : — 
 
 " All I would respectfully submit to my countrymen is this, that 
 on a matter of this sort, a matter of judgment and of policy, that 
 with every deference to Mr. Healy's great authority in the country 
 where his judgment goes in one direction, and the judgment of Mr. 
 McCarthy in the opposite direction, and the judgment of Mr. Sexton, 
 Mr. Dillon, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. David Sheehy, and Mr. William 
 Abraham and myself all go in the opposite direction, that at all events 
 we are entitled to cla'm, and our countrymen will believe, that we 
 did not make any hasty proposal.' ' 
 
 Kow, ladies and gentlemen, think for one moment what 
 this means. Here you sometimes hear clap-trap talked in 
 connection with this question about the majority ruling. 
 Here is a Parliamentary Committee supposed to govern on 
 the part of our opponents. Here you have seven, in- 
 cluding Messrs. McCarthy, Sexton, Dillon, O'Brien, and 
 T. P. O'Connor, all in favour of this proposal, and you 
 have one man, Mr. Heal}', opposing it ; and yet the very 
 first men to talk about the virtue of the majority ruling 
 they allow a minority of one to rule them as he likes, 
 and " for the sake of national harmony," to please Mr. 
 Healy, national disunion must be continued. 
 
 Our position to-day is perfectly plain. We desire \mion — 
 we desire union upon the lines which Mr. T. P. O'Connor 
 laid down in that speech, and which Mr, O'Brien admits 
 that he and Messrs. Dillon and Sexton and McCarthy 
 approved of. 
 
 Before leaving Ireland I made that proposal again. I 
 said, give us the representation as it is and we will have 
 peace in Ireland, and what is the answer I got ? They 
 
346 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 have now squared Mr. Healy ; they have squared him to 
 this extent : He v/ill not agree to have peace upon fair 
 terms all around; but, if you please, he says he will be 
 graciously pleased to allow ten, or twelve at a stretch, of 
 Mr. Parnell's followers to be returned if they will agree 
 that seventy-six of the seats shall be given to their 
 opponents. In other words, while they are not to be asked 
 to sacrifice anything, we are to be asked to take twenty of 
 our colleagues whose only political crime is that they stood 
 by the pledges which they gave to their leader in the face 
 of the world — that we are to take twenty of our colleagues, 
 drive them out of public life, and offer them as a propitiatory 
 sacrifice to Mr. Healj^'s desire for vengeance. 
 
 Our position is clear. We do not ask for any victims. 
 We do not ask the other side to turn oxit of public life any 
 of their members. We do not ask, we do not even make it 
 a condition of peace, that that man shall be driven out of 
 public life who publicly declared that his object was " to 
 drive Parnell into the grave or a lunatic asylum." We do 
 not ask the sacrifice of anyone. We say let them all go 
 back; but we demand that some measure of fair play shall 
 be extended to us. We demand that, if they go back, we 
 shoiild go back. 
 
 We are willing for peace, and Ave are anxious for it ; but 
 we will not permit ourselves to be driven out of public life 
 by Mr. Healy. 
 
 The position, therefore, is this : Peace now at this eleventh 
 hour, peace, even yet, may be obtained if the real views 
 of Messi's. Dillon and O'Brien and the others are permitted 
 to have sway. Peace may yet be restored if Mr. Healy is 
 not permitted to rule the destinies of his party. If a 
 policy of fair play all round is adopted, we will gladly 
 ground our arms; but if a policy of vengeance is adopted 
 
S2)eech in Neiv York. 347 
 
 towards our party, then we say that we are conscious of 
 having done no wrong as Irish Nationalists in our lives 
 that we are conscious of having done our duty as men and 
 that if there is not to be peace we will fight it out. And I 
 confidently appeal to you here to-night, if we are not per- 
 mitted to have peace, if this fight is forced upon us, then I 
 confidently appeal to you to-night to stand behind us and 
 not permit us to be driven from public life. 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, allow me now very briefly to re- 
 capitulate the heads of the first portion of my address. I 
 claim to have proved to you that Mr. Parnell's followers 
 were not responsible for breaking the unity of the Irish 
 race. Secondly, I claim to have proved to you that durino- 
 the last eighteen months we made several efforts to restore 
 peace, and that all these efforts were rejected and thwarted 
 by our opponents. Thirdly, I claim to have proved that 
 we are to-day willing, anxious for peace and unity, upon 
 fair and honourable terms, but that we are not prepared to 
 permit ourselves to be driven out of Irish public life. And 
 fourthly, I claim to have shown to you that the real senti- 
 ment of Messrs. Dillon, O'Brien, Sexton, M'Carthy, T. P. 
 O'Connor, are all in favour of stopping hostilities, and 
 that the only men standing between Ireland and peace 
 are Mr. Healy a.nd his friends. 
 
 Allow me now very briefly to turn to the second portion 
 of my speech. Ladies and gentlemen, we believe that, if a 
 tmce could be accomplished in Ireland to-day, the Home 
 Rule Bill of Mr. Gladstone would afford an admirable basis 
 for "a fusion of all sections of our race in the near future. 
 It is the interest of every Irishman, of every Nationalist 
 Irishman, that Mr. Gladstone should be returned to power 
 and as soon as possible. The accusation against me and 
 my friends — that we desire to keep Mr. Gladstone out of 
 
S48 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 power — is so childish and absurd that I wonder it has 
 imposed upon anybody. It is manifestly the interest of 
 every Nationalist that a chance should be afforded to the 
 Liberal party of redeeming, if they are willing to do so, the 
 pledges which they have given to the Irish people. Our 
 position, ladies and gentlemen, on this Home Rule question 
 is perfectly plain. 
 
 Now, possibly, in what I am going to say some of you may 
 differ from me ; but I would like to ai'gue this matter calmly 
 for a moment with you. We do not believe in the wisdom 
 of accepting a half measure of Home Rule. 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, the English people who are going 
 to vote for Home Rule for Ireland, a great majority of them, 
 regard this Home Rule merely in the light of an experiment. 
 They have not, most of them, admitted the right which we 
 set up, the inalienable and God-given right that we claim, 
 of every nation to rule itself. They regard it merely as an 
 ■experiment. They say, we admit that we have governed 
 Ireland badly and unsuccessfully, and we admit yoa have had 
 wrongs to complain of, and we admit most thoroughly that you 
 have made yourselves a nuisance and danger to our Parlia- 
 ment, and for these good and weighty reasons we are inclined 
 to try the experiment of seeing whether you would govern 
 yourselves any better. Now, I believe, that Ireland's whole 
 right to self-government will be judged by the English 
 people by the result of that experiment. If the experiment 
 be a success, then the safety of our Parliament is assured ; if 
 the experiment be a faikire, the Parliament which fails will 
 be taken back again from us by the superior force of 
 England, and then good-bye for a century to any chance of 
 obtaining self-government for our people. 
 
 This is purely a matter of argument. I believe if we 
 accepted a Parliament which was bound hand and foot by 
 
S-peech in New York. 349 
 
 restrictions, a Parliament which would not have the power 
 of ruling our country in piirely Irish affairs free from the 
 meddlesome and ignorant interference of English politicians, 
 I believe that Parliament would be a failure. I believe it 
 would be taken from us again, and, therefore, I say I believe 
 it would be the height of unwisdom for Ireland to accept as 
 a settlement of her claims anything less than a full, 
 honest, and free Parliament. 
 
 On this matter there is a divergence of opinion in Ireland. 
 In a speech made — a famous speech as it has become — 
 made in the town of Bandon recently by Mr. Michael Davitt, 
 he declared — I have his words here — he declared that if 
 three millions of Nationalists in Ireland were not able to 
 get from thirty millions of Britishers all that they wanted, 
 he said, 
 
 •' I for one will be satisfied to accept all that the Liberal party may 
 offer us." 
 
 Well, now^ there is a complete, a distinct difference of 
 opinion and policy between us in that matter, and for the 
 reasons that I have explained to you. But do not imagine, 
 ladies and gentlemen, that we are making any extravagant 
 demand when we ask for a free Parliament. We are con- 
 ducting a constitutional movement, as you know, within the 
 lines of the Constitution ; therefore, v.'e are not asking for 
 any violation of constitutional limits. What we are asking 
 is, first of all, that there shall be no veto on the laws passed 
 by that Irish Parliament in purely Irish matters except the 
 veto of the Crown, similar to the veto of the Crown as it 
 exists in relation to the legislatures of Canada and Australia. 
 
 Now, the veto is in an entirely different position in your 
 American Constitution to what it is in Great Britain. The 
 way the veto stands in Great Britain is this, that in strict 
 
S50 Historical and Political Addrcsr.es. 
 
 theory the Sovereign has the right to veto a law, but that 
 veto has not been exercised in that way for nearly two 
 hundred ye^rs, and there has grown up a usage in the 
 British Constitution, which has become a law of the Consti- 
 tution like all our laws, as you know there is no written 
 Constitution in G reat Britain, The Constitution is made up 
 of a number of unwritten laws, and one of the unwritten 
 laws of the Constitution of to-day is that that veto of the 
 Crown must be exercised in accordance with the advice of 
 the Ministers of the day. 
 
 Now, we say that the only veto of purely Irish laws that 
 we will admit as governing our Irish Parliament is the veto 
 of the Crown, exercised in accordance with the advice of the 
 Irish JNIinisters and the Irish Cabinet, responsible, of course, 
 to a majority of the Irish legislature. It is true that there 
 will be another check, and we do not object to it, one similar 
 to what exists in your own Constitution. We, of course, 
 should get a Parliament with powers only within certain 
 limits, and there must be some tribimal to decide as to 
 whether laws passed by that Parliament are tiltra vires — 
 that is, outside the limits of the powers given to it; and we 
 are content that the question of nltra vires should be 
 decided by some tribunal like the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, which, as I miderstand the Constitution, 
 decides upon the constitutionality of the Acts passed by 
 your State legislatures. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, that is not a wide proposal, that is a 
 modest pi"oposal ; but less than that — I say here to-night — 
 less than that the Nationalists of Ireland vi^ill never accept 
 as a settlement of their claims. 
 
 Now, we claim in addition, that the present police force 
 in Ireland should be disbanded. 
 
 Just consider for a moment that in your great and free 
 
SpeecJi in New YorJc. 851 
 
 country, with your sixty-five millions of people, you have 
 a standing army of about 25,000 men, I think. We, in 
 our country, with a population of less than five millions, 
 have a standing army in the shape of an armed police 
 force of more than one-half of the entire standing army of 
 America. 
 
 We say that that force must be disbanded. It is a 
 badge of conquest ; it js a standing menace, an insult to 
 the nation. It must be disbanded, and a civil police, 
 such as your civil police here, must be created, and that 
 civil police must be placed under the control of the Irish 
 legislature. 
 
 We claim that the Irish land question, which in one 
 shape or another has been the cause of almost every man 
 and woman in this hall, or their fathers before them, 
 leaving the shores of their country — that land question 
 which has driven the Irish race all over the world, and 
 which has meant starvation, and ruin, and degradation, and 
 crime for our people^ that land question which the English 
 Parliament has tried again and again to settle, and has 
 always failed to settle — we demand that that land question 
 shall be placed under the control of the Irish people and 
 of their Parliament. 
 
 We claim that the appointment of the judges, that the 
 appointment of the magistrates who are to administer the 
 law and make it respected, what it has never been 
 imder English rule in Ireland — that they shall owe their 
 appointment to the native authorities, and not to the 
 Ministers of England. 
 
 Now, these are our demands, and when we say we shall 
 insist on a full measure of Home Rule, we do not mean 
 any more than that ; but I tell you again, less than that we 
 will never accept. 
 
352 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 And, fellow-coxintrjmen, it is because we believe that, to 
 achieve that kind of a Parliament, an independent Irish 
 party is necessary in the English Parliament, that my 
 friends and I, come weal, come woe, are determined to stand 
 by the prmciple of independence in Irish politics, 
 
 Fellow-countrj-men, we are willing to be in a friendly 
 alliance vrith any English party that will concede our 
 rights ; but we refuse to merge our forces in any English 
 party, no matter how friendly it may appear. We are not 
 prepared to barter away our independence to obtain any 
 pledges, or to obtain any promises from any English states- 
 man. We believe that nothing will eventually be won for 
 Ireland in this matter by any political party which is not 
 in a position to turn around at a moment's notice and to 
 strike down any English party, no matter how friendly it 
 may have been, if it becomes the interests of Ireland to 
 do so. 
 
 I have been for eleven years in the English Parliament. 
 When I went in there I joined a party of about a score of 
 men. We had the open hostility of every English party — 
 Whigs, Tories, Radicals, Republicans, Conservatives, who, 
 differing on every point of policy, were always ready to 
 unite against us ; but if they were ready to unite against 
 us, we put our backs to the wall, and we fought each of them 
 in turn, and in the end we drove from power by our votes, 
 first the Tory party, and then the Liberal party — we did it 
 by independence. Our power was not in our numbers — 
 twenty against six hundred. Our power lay in our absolute 
 disregard of any interests save the interests of Ireland; our 
 power lay in the fact that the English parties never knew 
 upon what side we would vote. We were independents, 
 and our votes always hung in the balance ; and I say that 
 our power as twenty men was greater far than would be 
 
Speech in New Yorh. 353 
 
 the power of eighty-six united Nationalists who were pre- 
 pared on the purely Irish question of the Irish leadership 
 to obey the orders of an English statesman. 
 
 Fellow-countrymen, I have now come to the end of what 
 I have to say to you. I hope that you will agree with me 
 when I say that I have spoken temperately, if firmly ; that 
 I have endeavoured to make my meaning plain, and our 
 position clear; that we desire peace, but that we will not 
 permit ourselves to be offered up as a sacrifice to Mr. 
 Healy's desire for vengeance. 
 
 Fellow-countrymen, I take it that this great meeting is in 
 favour of union. But I ask you now, and I demand an 
 answer from you, are j'ou in favour of those men whose 
 only crime is that they stood by Mr. Parnell being driven 
 out of public life ? 
 
 I hold in my hand a cable dispatch which I have received 
 to-day from my friend and colleague who has been negotia- 
 ting on the lines I have sketched out to you for peace ; I 
 mean Mr. Harrington. Here is his cable : — 
 
 "Dublin, June 15th. Every proposal of ours for peace lias now 
 been rejected, and the Whigs are determined to expel from public 
 life every man who stood by Parnell." 
 
 I ask you, are you in favour of tliat 1 (Cries of '' No, 
 no.") Then I call upon you, I demand from you, if you are 
 in earnest, if you have not come here to hoodwink and to 
 humbug me — I demand from you, if you are in earnest, and 
 if this fight is forced upon us, to assist vis to resist this 
 attempt on the part of Mr. Healy to drive us out of 
 Parliament. 
 
 Fellow-countrymen, sons and daughters of Ireland, my 
 last words to you to-night will be sursum corda, lift up your 
 heart. The road to freedom has ever been a long and 
 
 2 A 
 
354 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 rough one in the history of every nation upon earth. Ireland 
 has sufifered too much ; Ireland has encountered too many 
 defeats and disappointments during the long and dreary 
 ages that have passed for her to be disheartened now, 
 because a few obstacles have suddenly arisen in her path 
 just as she thought that she stood on the threshold of 
 victory. Your great American poet has sung : — • 
 
 "•Let us be patient. These severe afflictions do not 
 from the ground arise, 
 Oft-times Celestial benedictions assume this dark 
 disguise." 
 
 Let us have faith in the destiny of our land. Let us 
 learn from the misfortunes, and the disappointments, and 
 the heart-burnings of to-day, the lessons of fortitude, of 
 constancy, and of toleration of one another. The clouds 
 that hang over our cause to-day may seem to many of you 
 dark and impenetrable, but what are they compared with 
 the long and starless nights that brooded over Ireland when 
 our fathers and our fathers' fathers never for one instant 
 lost faith in the ultimate triumph of our cause. The 
 differences of to-day will pass away. Aye, the men of 
 to-day will disappear, but the cause of Ireland will remain. 
 Its justice has come to be admitted by the public opinion of 
 the civilized world, and its triumph is as inevitable as the 
 rising of to-morrow's sun. 
 
A3INESTY. 
 
 public meeting in xewcastle-on-tyne, 
 12th novemeee, 1893. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen — I esteem it a great 
 pleasure to have the opportunity of addressing this large 
 assembly of the public of Newcastle. The opportunity 
 has often been afforded to me of speaking to an assembly 
 of Irishmen on this question of Amnesty, and although I 
 know that the greater part of this meeting is made up of 
 Irishmen, still I specially value the opportunity aftbrded to 
 me to-day, because it enables me to speak and argue on this 
 question, not to Irishmen only, but, as I hope, through the 
 medium of a fair and friendly Press, to address an argument 
 for Amnesty to the large body of Englishmen outside. It 
 would be easy for me to ai"ouse your enthusiasm by dealing 
 with this Amnesty question upon sentimental lines, but I 
 desire to utilise the opportunity which is given to me 
 to-night to place, as far as I am able to do so, before the 
 people of this great city the whole of our case in favour of 
 Amnesty for these prisoners, and I, therefore, desire not to 
 address any argument to Irishmen who, after all, cannot 
 have any difference of opinion on this question, nor to 
 attempt to arouse your enthusiasm by appeals to your 
 emotions, but rather, if you wUl bear with me in patience 
 and silence, to endeavour to address to the EngHsh public 
 
356 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 outside a calm, cool, and reasonable argument in favour of 
 the position which we take up. 
 
 I claim a fair hearing upon this matter from all English- 
 men of every party. I claim a fair hearing from that 
 English party which is pledged to concession to the National 
 sentiment of Ireland. I claim from them not merely a fair 
 but a sympathetic hearing for our appeal. 
 
 Now, first of all, I desire to make it plain, though I 
 scarcely think that in any gathering of Irishmen it is 
 necessary for me to do so, that we who are arguing in 
 favour of the release of the present prisoners do not in the 
 remotest degree sympathise with dynamite as a political 
 awent. AVe believe that the use of methods of that kind 
 
 o 
 
 was wrong in itself, and was stupid. It was wrong, and 
 not calculated to advance any cause for which it was used. 
 But this dynamite conspiracy, as it is called, is to-day at an 
 end. I do not for a moment deny the right of England, 
 when face to face with such a conspiracy, to grapple with 
 it, and to crush it. In this case she has done so. That 
 dynamite conspiracy is dead and gone. It has no existence 
 in the politics of to-day, and the English people ought to 
 remember that after all the end of punishment is preven- 
 tion. The end of punishment is not to wreak vengeance 
 upon the men we punish, but to prevent the recurrence of 
 offences, and we say that when it is known by the people 
 of England that this dynamite conspiracy is at an end, it is 
 cruel ; it is cowardly ; it is unworthy of a great nation, 
 simply for the gratification of a feeling of vindictiveness 
 against men who undoubtedly were guilty of offences that- 
 they were right in crushing, to insist upon prolonging their 
 punishment. That is in the nature of a preliminary 
 remark. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, Ave base our claim for 
 
Amnesty. 357 
 
 Amnesty upon three perfectly distinct and broad ^rounds 
 I will deal with each of them separately, and I maintain 
 that If I establish any one of the three I shall have made out 
 a complete case in favour of the immediate release of these 
 men. The first ground I go on is this. These prisoners are 
 political offenders. If I establish the fact to your satisfac- 
 tion that these are political prisoners, then I say it will be 
 unjust for that great English party which is pledged to do 
 justice to Ireland to refuse to release these men. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, are these men political 
 prisoners? What is a political prisoner? Let us for a 
 moment examine what is a political prisoner. Is a man 
 who takes arms against a Government boldly, and, in the 
 light of day, wages war against the Government— is he a 
 political prisoner? The rebel has in all nations been 
 regarded as a political prisoner. But I remember well 
 when, as the first act of my political life, I took part in an 
 Amnesty movement>-I remember we were claiming from 
 England the release of Michael Davitt and his associates I 
 remember we were told then, just as we are told now about 
 the present prisoners, that they were not political offenders. 
 What is a political offender? Is a Member of Parliament 
 who makes a speech distasteful to the Government and is 
 put into prison— is he a political oflFender? I remember 
 when Mr. Balfour did me the honour of sending me to 
 prison for a public speech which he did not approve^of, that 
 he said I was not a political offender, and I was treated in 
 prison exactly the same as a pickpocket or an ordinary 
 criminal. What is a political offender? After all, there 
 is such a thing in the world as a political offender. But who 
 is to draw the distinction? I say that England has never 
 found the slightest difficulty in defining what a political 
 oaender is, excepting when she has been dealing with Ireland. 
 
358 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 It is the boast of Englishmen that their country is the 
 great sanctuary of the world. Political offenders from every 
 part of the world are able to come to the shores of England, 
 and to find refuge and safety here. The ordinary criminal 
 from Russia, from Germany, or from France finds no foot- 
 hold here in England, but the political ofifender finds refuge 
 and safety from his enemies. How is it that England has 
 never found any difficulty in deciding what a political 
 oS'ender is when she is dealing with other nations ; but in her 
 dealings with Ireland she has never been able to make the 
 admission that there is such a thing as a political prisoner 
 at all. 
 
 You remember how Mazzini was received Avith open arms 
 in England. You remember how even in the case of Orsini 
 — who had been guilty of an attempt to take human life by 
 an explosion — you remember how even in his case the 
 London Times declared that he v/as: — 
 
 " A conspirator against a despotic ruler who himself had seized 
 the throne by craft and violence, and against whom craft and 
 violence, if not justifiable, were at least not to be classed with the 
 guilt of a common murderer." 
 
 And I have here on this question of political prisoners 
 an extract from a case recently tried in the English courts, 
 which, after all, ought to be of enormous weight in this 
 matter, because when we find conflicting opinions as to what 
 is and what is not a political offender, it is a very good test 
 indeed to find what foreign nations regard as a political 
 offender and what England regards as a political offender, 
 in her dealings, not with Ireland, but with foreign nations. 
 
 Quite recently a man named Castioni was arrested in 
 England. His case is reported in the Times law reports for 
 1890, vol. 7. He had been guilty of shooting a man at 
 Ticino. The man was shot dead. The prisoner was 
 
Amnesty. 35 c) 
 
 arrested iu England and was about to be handed over to 
 Switzerland to be tried, but he applied to the Court of 
 Queen's Bench in London, for a v/rit of habeas corpus, on the 
 ground that he was a political offender, and that England 
 should not give him up to his Government. I have^here 
 the report of the case taken from the law reports of 1890. 
 
 According to the evidence Castioni took deliberate aim, 
 pointing his pistol at Senator Rossi, and shot him dead, and^ 
 seeing him fall, said with satisfaction '' He is done." 
 
 Here was a case, then, of what would seem to have been 
 very little removed from murder. The case arose out of a 
 sort of revolt in Switzerland against the Government of the 
 day. The English Court of Queen's Bench held it was a 
 political offence, and they refused to give Castioni up to the 
 Swiss Government, and the Court of Queen's Bench, in that 
 case, approved and adopted the definitions of a political 
 prisoner, given, in the first place, by Mr. John Stuart 
 Mill, and in the second place by Sir James Fitz-James 
 Stephen. 
 
 Mr. John Stuart Mill had defined a political offence to 
 mean '* an offence committed in the furtherence of civil war, 
 insurrection, or political commotion," and Sir James Fitz- 
 James Stephen's definition, specifically upheld the other day 
 in this case by the Queen's Bench was 
 
 " A political offence was any offence incidental to or formincr part 
 of political disturbances." ° 
 
 ^ Now, in the face of these facts, in the face of that de- 
 cision, in the face of these definitions accepted by high 
 authority, I ask is it possible for any fair-minded man to 
 deny that John Daly and his comrades are suftering for 
 political oftences? What are the offences for which Daly 
 ■aird his comrades are now in prison ? 
 
S60 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 There is here in England a most Avide-spread misappre- 
 hension on this point. It is believed in Ireland, and by 
 many of our best friends in England, that these acts were 
 committed, not from any selfish, sordid, or degraded motive, 
 but committed to advance the cause of popular freedom or 
 of national right. Then I say no matter how stupid, no 
 matter hoAv culpable, no matter — if you like — how 'criminal 
 was the act committed, the offence becomes a political 
 offence as distinguished from an ordinary crime, and, judged 
 by these testvS, how can any intelligent Englishman main- 
 tain, as Mr. Asqtiith maintained the other day, that these 
 Ii'ish prisoners are not political offenders, but are ordinary 
 criminals ? 
 
 Gentlemen, the essence of all criminality lies, after all, 
 in intention. No doubt every man who commits an offence 
 against the law renders himself liable to pay the penalty 
 attached to the offence, but the man who breaks that law, 
 not from any criminal intent, not from any selfish, sordid, 
 unworthy, or depraved motive, but in order to advance the 
 cause of popular freedom or national right, no matter how 
 culpable, dangerous, or stupid his methods may be, is, and 
 must be, a political offender as distinguished from an ordin- 
 ary criminal. Judged by these tests, no one can deny to 
 the convicts in Portland the title of political prisoners. I 
 am not arguing that political prisoners should not be 
 punished. To do so would be absurd, and, of course, the 
 measure of ^^punishment must depend upon the culpability 
 and danger of their conduct. 
 
 John Daly and others, if guilty of the offences laid to 
 their charge, no doubt deserved severe punishment, and 
 severe punishment they have received through long years of 
 convict life, but that they are political prisoners, in my view, 
 camaot be denied. They were engaged upon a political 
 
Amnestxj. 861 
 
 enterprise, carrying on the political war against England, 
 by stupid means no doubt, if they were rightly convicted, 
 but still none the less animated by political as distinguished 
 from ordinary criminal motives, and it is to my mind 
 ridiculous to regard them in the same light, no matter 
 what their guilt, as the regulation British or Irish convict who 
 is sentenced for atrocious crime to penal servitude for life. 
 
 Let us see what the offences were for which these men 
 were convicted. Upon this matter there is wide-spread 
 misapprehension. The general impression is they were 
 tried and convicted of dynamite offences. That is not so. 
 Not a single one of these men was ever convicted of any- 
 thing of the kind. These men were not one of them tried 
 imder the Dynamite Act They were tried all of them 
 under the Treason Felony Act, which was passed in 1848 
 for the special benefit of John Mitchel. Under the Explo- 
 sive Substances Act of 1883, if these men had been tried 
 and convicted not one of them could have got a sentence of 
 penal servitude for life. The longest sentence would have 
 been fourteen years, and in the most extreme case twenty 
 years. They were not any of them tried under this Act. 
 They were tried, in point of fact, for high treason. We have 
 heard the explanation given by an Englishman of what 
 this Treason Felony Act is, and this, in my opinion, ought 
 to be conclusive on the question as to whether they are 
 political offenders or not. 
 
 In his history of the criminal law. Sir James Stephen, 
 who is accepted as a great authority on these matters by 
 everybody, divides offences of a political character into three 
 classes. He says the first and most obvious is an offence 
 consisting in 
 
 "An attack on the political order of things established in the 
 country where it is comautted— high treason, riots for political pur- 
 
362 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 poses, and crimes like the offences dealt with by the Treason Felony- 
 Act of 1848." 
 
 Therefore, you have testimony that the offences dealt with 
 by the Treason Felony Act of 1848 are in their nature and 
 essence political offences. It is true that in the case of 
 John Daly, and in some other cases, there were counts in 
 the indictment which charged them with attempting to 
 carry out their treasonable business by means of the use of 
 dynamite, but I say here — as I said in the House of Com- 
 mons, when I was not contradicted by any responsible 
 Minister — I say here to-day that the conviction of Daly and 
 the others did not in the remotest degree depend upon that 
 particular count of the indictment ; that that count was 
 thrown in to give, as it were, a lurid light to the case, but 
 what they were really tried for was the old charge of 
 Fenianism ; that in John Daly's case he was convicted on 
 the evidence of an informer, who swore that he had been 
 engaged in enrolling Fenians in Sligo in 1868. These men 
 were tried upon this old stale charge of Fenianism ten years 
 after every Fenian had been amnestied by the English 
 Government. They were convicted on this old charge of 
 Fenianism, and then, having been convicted of Fenianism, 
 they were sentenced for a different crime. They were sen- 
 tenced to penal servitude for life for suspected connection 
 ■with djTiamite. 
 
 Kow I think I have said sufficient to show you that on 
 this broad ground we have a conclusive case to show that 
 these prisoners are political prisoners. Sir Heniy James 
 the English Attorney-General, who prosecuted them, thus 
 described their offence : — 
 
 " The prisoners were indicted under the statute passed in 1848, aad 
 the charge was known in legal language as that of treason-felony. 
 It differed in some respects slightly from a charge of high treason. 
 
Amnesty. 363 
 
 and the prisoners substantially were charged that they conspired 
 together to levy vrar and to raise an insurrection and rebellion 
 against the Queen as sovereign of this realm." 
 
 The judge who tried the case described the offence as 
 " levying war upon the Queen," and I contend— it is an 
 absurdity to contend — that a case thus defined was not a 
 political one. 
 
 I know that Mr. Asquith has stated in my hearing in the 
 House of Commons, and recently outside the House of 
 Commons, that these men are not political prisoners. He 
 has declared that they are ordinary criminals, and ordinary 
 criminals of the worst type, and he has publicly pledged 
 himself that so long as he is in command of the Home 
 Office he will not permit their sentence to be shortened by 
 a day. I am glad to know that that is not the opinion of 
 all Mr. Asquith's colleagues. 
 
 My friend Mr. Leamy has alluded to Mr. Morle3% Well, 
 I answer Mr. Asquith by quoting Mr. Morley. Mr. 
 Asquith says they are not political prisoners, that they are 
 ordinary criminals, and of the Avorst type. Mr. Morley 
 said at the last election in Newcastle that — 
 
 «' When we have succeeded in our efforts to bring the old system 
 of Irish Government completely to an end, then it will be time to 
 consider whether the British Government would not be well advised, 
 as incidental to that momentous settlement of national accounts, to 
 show the same spirit towards these prisoners as was shown, for 
 example, by the Government of the French Republic towards the 
 exiled Communards. Such, at least, is my judgment." 
 
 What is the meaning of that ? Does it mean that Mr. 
 Morley thinks that because Home Rule is carried that 
 ordinary prisoners of the worst type are to be released from 
 jail ? No, it means that Mr. Morley recognises that these 
 prisonei-s are political oftenders. 
 
364 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 In Dublin, in February, 1888, Mr. Morley was even 
 more distinct. He said : — 
 
 "I want to ask a question. The French amnestied the Com- 
 munards who were guilty of most atrocious crimes against their 
 Country. The Americans amnestied Sessionist rebels who were 
 guilty of an atrocious crime against the Government. Are the only 
 people in the world for whom there is to be no amnesty, no act of 
 oblivion, to be Irishmen, whose only fault has been that they have 
 used their talents for the benefit of their countrymen, and done the 
 best they could to raise up the miserable and oppressed and down- 
 trodden people of this country ? Gentlemen, it is not so ; that is no 
 lon"er, in spite of what eminent men may say, that is no longer the 
 mind or intention of the people of Great Britain. We are here 
 to-night — Lord Ripon and I are here to assure you that at least one 
 great party is anxious for an amnesty, for an act of oblivion on your 
 side and ours both." 
 
 I repeat, therefore, as against the declaration of Mr. 
 Asquith the declaration of Mr. Morley. For my part, I 
 am not discouraged in the remotest degree by the declaration 
 of Mr. Asquith. Mr. Asquith, remember, is a very young 
 Parliamentary hand. The old Parliamentary hand in 
 speaking upon this question made no declaration of never- 
 ending hostility to our appeal, and if Mr. Asquith had read 
 ario'ht the history of England for the last fifteen years he 
 would have known that there is notliing so dangerous to 
 the reputation of an English statesman, and especially of 
 an English Liberal statesman, as to say "Never" to a 
 demand which is made by the united voice of the people 
 of Ireland. 
 
 I now proceed. I claim to have shown you that these 
 are political prisoners. I have shown it by the experience 
 of other countries, by the decision of your law courts, by 
 -the declaration of some of your greatest men, and by the 
 declaration finally of a member of the Cabinet. I pass 
 
Amnesty. 365 
 
 from that point with this statement, that if those men are 
 political prisoners, then I, for my part, cannot understand 
 the attitude of those Liberal statesmen who say they are 
 anxious to conciliate national sentiment in Ireland, and to 
 make a lasting treaty between the democracies of the two 
 countries, and who, in the same breath, declare they will 
 not release persons whom they themselves admit to have 
 been the victims of the old accursed system which they 
 hope to-day is doomed. 
 
 The second ground on which we appeal to Englishmen in 
 favour of those men is, that their convictions were obtained 
 under such circumstances of public excitement, of panic, and 
 of passion in England, that they ought to be scanned and 
 reviewed now with tlie greatest care. It is not necessary 
 for my argument to make any accusations against English 
 judges, English Crown prosecutors, or English juries. All I 
 claim is that they are all human, like the rest of us, and 
 that the circumstance of panic which existed at the time o£ 
 the trial of those men were such as to bias the minds and 
 warp the judgments of the sternest and wisest of them all. 
 
 Remember the circumstances which surrounded the trial 
 of John Daly, of James Egan, and the others. 
 
 I was reading the report of that trial again the other day 
 and I read how the streets outside were filled with military, 
 how barricades were erected outside the entrances of the 
 covirt, how the public were excluded, how every inch of 
 space in the court was occupied by policemen armed to 
 the teeth, and how the universal feeling was that a state 
 almost of siege had arisen. The first incident in the trial is 
 a remarkable proof of the state of panic which existed. The 
 counsel for the prisoners, I think at the very commence- 
 ment of the trial, made an appeal to the judge. He 
 said : — 
 
366 Historical and Political Addresses, 
 
 " My clients are innocent men in the sight of the law till they are 
 convicted ; but, the Press of Birmingham has convicted them before- 
 hand." 
 
 And he brought to the attention of the judge articles 
 which had been published that very morning, headed " Trial 
 of the Irish Djnamitards." 
 
 Is it possible to conceive that under such conditions a 
 perfectly fair and impartial trial could be given by juries of 
 Englishmen to those poor hunted Irish prisoners ? I do not 
 say that these circumstances point to the conviction being 
 wrong, but I do say they make an unanswerable case in 
 favour of such a reconsideration of the whole question as we 
 have demanded, and as Mr. Asqviith has refused. But it is 
 not merely that those trials were held under such circum- 
 stances. There is more than that. We know now that 
 those men were convicted upon evidence which time has 
 shown to have been tainted and false. There is scarcely 
 one of those cases in which evidence was not produced 
 which, judged calmly to-day, must appear of a tainted and 
 suspicious character. 
 
 Take the case of the trial of Daly and Egan. In that 
 case the proof against Daly seemed strong. Daly was found 
 with explosives in his possession, and he was convicted and 
 sent to jail. Some three or four years afterwards when he 
 had been suft'ering in silence during that time,- we were 
 startled by a declaration made, not by an Irishman, not by 
 a sympathiser with Daly, but by a high English official — 
 by the head constable of the police of Birmingham. 
 That declaration stands to-day uncontradicted and un- 
 disputed. 
 
 It was contained in the following letter addressed to the 
 Home Secretary by Alderman Manton, a respected member 
 of the Corporation of Birm.ingham : — 
 
Amnesty. 367 
 
 « HoUybank, Edgbaston, Oct. C, 1887. 
 
 "Ho:^TOUEED Sir, — It is with deep regret that I feel compelled to 
 address you. Three "weeks since, at the request of several members of 
 the Watch Committee, Mr. Farndale, Chief of the Birmingham Police, 
 applied to you, asking the favour of an interview for the purpose of 
 laying before you the circumstances which led to the arrest and con- 
 viction of the convicts Daly and Egan. The request was made in the 
 hope of obtaining their release, or an order for an investigation of the 
 circumstances connected with their arrest and trial. I am informed 
 by a brother magistrate that the interview sought has taken place with 
 the following result, viz. : — ' That if the additional evidence favourable 
 to Egan can be produced you will be prepared to give it favourable 
 consideration, but with regard to Daly nothing will indvice you to in- 
 terfere with the verdict. ' 
 
 "Sir, I will take the liberty of stating some of the circumstances 
 connected with the arrest, as they were stated to me twelve months 
 since. Without any j)reliminary remark Mr. Farndale spoke as fol- 
 lows : — ' Mr. Alderman Manton, you ivill be surprised when I i ell yoic 
 that ike e x}ilo sir es found on Daly icere " jjlaiitcd^' on him by the Police.' 
 I said, ' Can it be possible ? ' Mr. Farndale repHed, ' It is really so.' 
 I said, ' Are rou absolutely certain?' Mr. F. said, ' I am,' adding, 
 ' And I promise you that I will never engage in another such' business as 
 long as I live.'' I felt appalled by the revelation, and after a few days' 
 calm reflection, in the presence of a gentleman, Mr. F. engaged to 
 visit the Home Secretary, but thought it best to go alone. Mr. F. 
 said it was not exactly the police who 'planted' the explosives on 
 Daly, but a companion and confederate of Daly, who was in the em- 
 ployment of the Irish police Mr. F. added that the explosives were 
 procvu-ed in America, and delivered to the confederate of Daly ; also 
 that the Irish police authorities not only supplied cash for the pur- 
 chase of explosives, but contributed to the support of the confederate) 
 and through him to the support of Daly for a considerable time. la 
 fact it was a Government manufactured case got up by the Irish police. 
 Mr. F. ,has stated it as his opinion that Daly had never been associated 
 with Dynamitards, and that he would have thrown the explosives out 
 of the railway carriage on the first opportunity. Nor was Mr. F. alone 
 in his opinion. Another police cfiicer of high rank said he believed 
 Daly would have thrown the explosives out of the window in the first 
 tunnel he came to. Mr. F. has stated that but for finding the explo- 
 siA'es there was no ground for the arrest of either Daly or Egan. 
 With regard to Egan there were great doubts at the time in relation 
 to the finding of the canister in the garden . Neither the canister nor 
 its contents were worth hiding or finding. Not a few were surprised 
 
368 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 at his committal for trial, and had you, Sir, been counsel for the de- 
 fence of Egan, I should have heard you say in your own impressive 
 style that thei-e were no grounds whatever to justify a committal. 
 Sir, I have been passing through a most painful ordeal for twelve 
 months, I have earnestly striven by the best means I could think of 
 to obtain some measure of redress for the wrongs inflicted as a result 
 of a vile conspiracy. I verily believe that justice imperatively demands 
 a thorough investigation of the whole case ; nor need I conceal from 
 you, Sir, that the dread of the same men or other members of the 
 Irish police force may have or may still 'be perpetrating similar atro- 
 cities on others, and imperilling the lives of my fellow subjects, has 
 hr.d very considerable influence in promoting my action. Neither 
 time, experience, nor observation has weakened my resolve. Sir, I 
 earnestly plead for your help. The knowledge of this letter is confined 
 to myself. I pray God that He may be pleased so to order events that, 
 as far as possible, the wrong may be redressed, and my soul, which 
 has been terribly oppressed for the long period of twelve months, be 
 relieved of a burden. — I remain, honoured Sir, yours most respectfully, 
 
 •' Henry Manton." 
 
 You may object to me that this letter is stale. It is stale 
 in this sense, that it has been repeated again and again, 
 but it remains still upon record. It has never been dis- 
 proved, and I say that so long as it remains on record, 
 to put it at the very lowest, the gravest suspicion attaches 
 to the conviction of John Daly. When I brought that 
 statement before the House of Commons, the late Govern- 
 ment were in power, and Mr. Matthews answered me by 
 saying that he had held a private investigation and satisfied 
 himself that that English official (the head of the police, 
 Mr. Farndale) had made a mistake. But I asked him : — 
 
 "Has Mr, Farndale admitted that he made a mistake, or 
 is he still of the same opinion ? " 
 
 Mr. Matthews said across the floor of the House of 
 Commons to me that Mr. Farndale still held the same 
 opinion. 
 
 Therefore, I declare here to-day that that statement of 
 Mr. Farndale stands still upon record, and I demand from 
 
Amnesty. 869 
 
 Mr. Asquith that he shall not permit the scandal to con- 
 tinue of a gentleman remaining in the high position of the 
 Chief of Police in the City of Birmingham who has made 
 that awfnl, that appalling charge against the police without 
 that charge being investigated or disproved. Either that 
 charge is true or false. Mr. Farndale still stands by it. 
 If the charge is false, no punishment could be too great for 
 a man who would invent a cruel calumny against the police 
 such as that. 
 
 On the other hand, if the charge is true, John Daly is the 
 victim of as foul a plot as ever disgraced the annals of 
 England. But it was not merely that one instance which 
 could be cited to discredit the verdict which sent John Daly 
 to prison. John Daly and James Egan were convicted on 
 the same evidence and by the same verdict. When I told, 
 E,ome two or three years ago, this story of the conviction of 
 Egan for the first time to the House of Commons I at once 
 drew from a number of English Members the statement 
 that I had instilled a grave doubt into their minds as 
 to the justice of Egan's conviction. 
 
 The Government to-day, and Mr. Asquith himself, have 
 admitted that the evidence which sent Egan to gaol was 
 wrong and tainted evidence. He has admitted that the 
 verdict which sent Egan to gaol was a wrong verdict, 
 and he has released him, but the same evidence and the 
 same verdict convicted John Daly, and<^he tells us to-day that 
 John Daly is to remain in gaol every day of his natural life. 
 Fellow-countrymen, I am glad to know that the matter 
 requires no arguing with you. But I do trust that English 
 sympathisers outside will consider this question in the light 
 of what I have said, and in connection with Mr. Egan will 
 consider this also, that Mr. Asquith has admitted that he 
 released him because he had a grave doubt as to whether ha 
 
 2 B 
 
370 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 ought ever to have been convicted. And yet what has he 
 done 1 If there was an honest doubt in Egan's case, accord- 
 ing to the spirit and genius of British law, Egan was 
 entitled to an acquittal. Egan was convicted. The doubt is 
 now admitted, and he is released, and released not as a free 
 man — no, but he is given a ticket-of-leave, which makes it 
 necessary for him, as if he were a released criminal, to go 
 and repoxii himself to the police. That is, perhaps, a small 
 matter, but I appeal to generous men to say that Mr. Asquith, 
 in the case of James Egan, ought not to have halted half way. 
 If he made up his mind that his conviction was wrong, he 
 ought to have done a manly and generous thing, and have 
 given him a free pardon, and not given him simply his 
 liberty on a ticket-of-leave. 
 
 Have I shown that this second ground for release is weH 
 founded — namely, that the prisoners in question for whom 
 I plead were tried under such circumstances of panic and 
 terror that one must look with suspicion on the result of the 
 trials, and that, consquently, the convictions at least ought 
 to be reconsidered now ? 
 
 I pass now to the third ground on which we demand 
 Amnesty. We say, even if these men were not political 
 offenders, even if Mr. Asquith is right, and that they are 
 common criminals, and even if they were properly convicted, 
 and that there was no shadow of doubt or suspicion resting 
 on their cases, still we say — and this is our third and 
 unanswerable ground — that they have been sufficiently 
 punished. 
 
 Remember, they were sentenced, every one of them, to 
 penal servitude for life. They have been in gaol, almost all 
 of them, for ten years. Those ten years have been a life- 
 time of sorrow and misery. I have sat with these men 
 alone in their cells — men who went in there scarcely having 
 
Amnesty. 371 
 
 reached the age of manhood — some of them, like Wilson, 
 who went in there before they were twenty years of af^e. 
 What have those ten years meant for them ? 
 
 It has meant a perfect life of miseiy and of torture. It 
 nas changed these young men into old and decrepit men. 
 For my part, when I have talked to them in Portland 
 prison for the hour together, I have often and often felt my 
 heart bum at the thought that anything should be allowed 
 amongst Irishmen to stand between them and an unanimous 
 demand for their release. 
 
 However, I do not desire, as I said at the commencement, 
 to make appeals to your emotions or sentiments. Let me 
 keep, if I can, to reason and argument. Have they 
 been punished enough ? Have ten years of penal servitude 
 been enough punishment for the crime for which they were 
 tried and convicted ? 
 
 Our views on this matter might be received with some 
 suspicion. Let me test that question, not by what we 
 think, but, by what in calm moments, Englishmen think. 
 You will remember that some two or three years ago there 
 was a trial in Walsall of a number of men who were 
 charged — not in a roundabout way and under the Treason 
 Felony Act, but directly under the Dynamite Act — of 
 having dynamite in their possession, and of intending to use 
 it for the destruction of human life. These men were found 
 with a number of explosives in their possession almost 
 exactly similar to those found in the possession of Daly, 
 At the time when they were tried all Europe was ringing 
 with the occurrence of dynamite explosions in Paris and 
 elsewhere. But here in England there was no panic in the 
 matter whatever. There was a perfect calmness of public 
 opinion, and these men were brought to trial and tried 
 without any accompaniment of excitement or panic such as 
 
372 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 prevailed during the trials of the Irish prisoners. Strange 
 to say, they were tried by precisely the same judge who had 
 sentenced Daly and Egan, Mr. Justice Hawkins. Some of 
 these men were Englishmen ; others of them were foreigners. 
 In addition, too, to the explosives, there were found upon 
 them a number of most incriminating documents, explain- 
 ing, amongst other things, how what they called " the 
 execution " could be carried out by dynamite. 
 
 Amongst other documents was one explaining with 
 minute details how a bomb might be exploded in a crowded 
 theatre, as actually happened a few weeks later in Barcelona, 
 with such appalling loss of human life. 
 
 Mark the difference. When they were convicted, one of 
 them stood up in the dock and boldly admitted his guilt, 
 and said that for his part he was an Anarchist, and believed 
 that he was justified in using explosives even at the risk of 
 taking human life to forward his cause. 
 
 Very well. They were convicted by the same judge who 
 convicted Daly under circumstances which left no doubt 
 whatever as to their guilt, convicted after their own declar- 
 ations that they glorified in their act, and the judge said — 
 I have the Times report of his speech by me — 
 
 " He could not magnify the enormity of their crimes, and said that 
 an example must be mide of them, and that he would have to punish 
 them for there having been found in their possession a number of 
 bombs to be used for the destruction of human life. He regretted 
 that it became now his duty to pass so severe a sentence upon them." 
 
 And he then proceeded to sentence them to ten, seven, 
 and five years' penal servitude. 
 
 That was the English case. That was the case of the 
 trial of Englismen at a time when there was no panic 
 and excitement in England for an ofieiace more clearly 
 proved than was the case of Daly or Egan, for an offence 
 
Amnesty. 37 o 
 
 which they repudiated, and which the English prisoners 
 admitted, and the Irishmen were sentenced to penal servi- 
 tude for life, while the Englishmen got off with seven years. 
 
 If the Irish prisoners had received the full sentence, the 
 fullest sentence that. had been given to one of these English 
 prisonei's — that is ten years — they would have all, every 
 man of them, been at liberty to day. 
 
 Now, I ask in the face of that case, have these men been 
 punished long enough 1 
 
 What is the answer to the Walsall case ? I made this 
 statement which you have just listened to in the House of 
 Commons, and Mr. Asquith, in his speech, in answering me, 
 gave the " go by " to the Walsall case, and never alluded 
 to it. He was wise, because I say here to-day there is no 
 answer to it. I appeal to fair-minded Englishmen. They 
 may think these men were not political offenders. They 
 may differ with us in that. They may think these men 
 got the fairest trial possible, and that no suspicions sur- 
 roiuided their convictions. But how can they defend for 
 the same offence a sentence of life for an Irishman and a 
 sentence of five years for an Englishman? They cannot 
 defend it, and I therefore say upon these three grounds we 
 have a conclusive case to submit to English public opinion. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, I am most grateful to you 
 for having listened with such patience to what, after all, 
 must have been a dry, because a detailed, statement of the 
 case which we make on behalf of these prisoners. To sum 
 up in a word, we say those are political prisoners, and 
 ought to be released by the p^rty whose policy was based 
 upon a "union of hearts." 
 
 We say in the second place, that whether they are 
 political prisoners or not, a grievous suspicion attaches to 
 their trials and their convictions, and on that grovmd re- 
 
374 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 consideration of their cases ought to take place. And 
 tinally we say that whether they are political prisoners or 
 not, and whether their trials were fair trials or not, judged 
 by the test of the Walsall case, they have been punished 
 sufficiently long, 
 
 Ireland to-day asks the English people for the release of 
 these prisoners. Ireland says, and no one can honestly 
 deny it, that the ofifences laid at their door sprang from the 
 old vicious system which at least one English party to-day 
 admits to have been cruel, unjust, and wrong. 
 
 A better day we are told, and I hope is, dawning for the 
 people of Ireland — a day of friendship between the people 
 of the two democracies. Ireland to-day asks as a pledge of 
 that coming day the release of these prisoners. We ask 
 their release with moderation and calmness. We base our 
 appeal upon sound and unanswerable facts and reasons. 
 We appeal to-day from Mr. Asquith to those whose servant 
 Mr. Asquith is. We appeal to the people to do justice to 
 Ireland in this matter. We appeal to them to release these 
 men in the name of justice, of humanity, and of mercy. 
 
 Neither England nor the Government of the day need 
 fear the effects of this act of clemency. Mercj- never yet 
 v,-eakened the hand nor lessened the prestige of those who 
 bestowed it. 
 
 " No ceremony that to great ones 'longs. 
 Not the king's crown nor the deputed sword, 
 The marshal's truncheon nor the judge's robe. 
 Becomes them with one-half so good a grace 
 As mercy does." 
 
THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 
 
 SPEECH IN HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAECH 30th, 1897. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, — I rise for the purpose of seconding the 
 motion which has been made by the hon. and learned 
 gentleman, and the House will see at a glance that the 
 mere fact of my doing so is an indication that upon the 
 main issues at stake in this matter there is practical un- 
 animity amongst aU Irishmen. Possibly when the division 
 takes place all Irish members may not vote for the resolu- 
 tion, and I must express my keen personal regret that it 
 was not framed in such a way as to secure an absolutely 
 unanimous vote. But the fact remains that Ireland's case 
 for redress of this grievance isi put forward on behalf of 
 no class or party, but from the whole people, united as 
 they have never been in any great public issue for over 
 one hundred years. 
 
 Now what may be said in a few words to be the main 
 issues involved in thisi controversy? Ireland's complaint 
 is that she is unequally taxed, having regard to her com- 
 parative capacity to bear taxation, that the Union placed 
 upon her a burden she was unable to bear, that it brought 
 her to ruin and bankruptcy, that the provisions of the 
 Treaty which were specially framed for her protection 
 have been violated or neglected, and that since the year 
 
S76 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 1853 she has, while her population has diminished and 
 her wealth steadily decreased, been overcharged to the 
 extent of between two and three millions a year. Upon 
 these main facts (however differences may appear in 
 variciis aspects of the question) — I think the House will 
 find from the debate that there is a practical unanimity 
 amongst most of the Irish members. 
 
 Now, the first thing that occurs to me to observe is 
 this : Does it not seem almost incredible that facts of 
 this gravity should have failed until the present time to 
 engage the serious attention of Parliament? If that has 
 been so, the fault does not rest upon Ireland. 
 
 The protests made against the injustice of the Act of 
 Union at the time have never ceased to be made by Irish 
 members in this House ever since. In the early forties 
 Mr. Staunton, who was at that time member, I think, for 
 Carlow raised this question. O'Ccnnell raised this ques- 
 tion. Mr. O'Neill Daimt, a man whose writings upon Irish 
 economic matters are weU known, I am sure, to many 
 members of this House, raised this question in a most 
 valuable way. General Dunne and The 0' Conor Don raised 
 it again in this House. Later on Sir Joseph Neale 
 M'Kenna and Mr. Mitchel Henry raised it, but during all 
 this time Ireland failed to gain the ear of the House, or 
 to induce this Parliament to deal with this question in a 
 serious spirit. The great incalculable good which, in my 
 opinion, has been done to Ireland by the labours of the 
 recent Royal Commission is that it is now no longer 
 possible to ignore these facts. 
 
 Sir, the constitution of that Commission makes it im- 
 possible for Parliament to disregard its findings. It was 
 a body appointed by Great Britain, containing a British 
 majority, numbering amongst its members some of the 
 
Financial Relations. ^11 
 
 greatest financial authorities of the day, men whose lives 
 have been devoted to the service of the British Tl-easury. 
 It had the case against Ireland's claim put forward 
 before it with the greatest skill, by the most competent 
 witnesses. No one has ventured to impugn its impartiality 
 or capacity as a tribunal, and under these circumstances 
 its findings must receive the serious attention of this House, 
 and I think Ireland is to be congratulated that at last 
 this great question has come to such a stage that it must 
 be seriously treated by the British Pai'liament. 
 
 Now, sir, the work of the Commission may roughly be 
 divided into two parts — 
 
 1st. Their investigation into the history of the financial 
 relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and 
 
 2nd. Their investigation into the relative taxable 
 capacities: of Great Britain and Ireland. 
 
 To-day, sir, the hon. and learned gentleman has dealt 
 so exhaustively with the historical portion of this case, 
 that it would be an unwise proceeding on my part if I 
 dilated at any length upon it. Let me point out this, that 
 in the investigations of the Royal Commission, they dis- 
 covered no new facts. They simply reported facts that 
 have been known to every generation of Irishmen, and 
 which, indeed, have been burned into the memories and 
 hearts of the Irish people. But the great and incalculable 
 good they did, by their investigation into the historical 
 portion cf this case, was that in the result they have 
 succeeded by then* reports in bringing some knowledge of 
 these facts to the minds of the people of Great Britain, 
 who, after all, are the masters of this Parliament. 
 
 Now, I think I may assert, without any appearance of 
 disrespect to the House, but to emphasise the point I have 
 in my mind, that until this Commission sat and these 
 
378 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 reports appeared, I do not believe that three per cent, of 
 the British members of this House were acquainted with 
 these historical facts dealing with the financial relations 
 between the countries. Let me briefly recall what those 
 facts are — 
 
 1. Before the Union Ireland was under no legal obliga- 
 tion to contribute towards any expenditure, either civil 
 or military, outside her own shores; 
 
 2. When the Constitution of 1782 was established, and 
 for a decade afterwards, the taxation of Ireland was not 
 more than one million, and her debt was under two 
 millions. At the time of the Union her taxation had 
 increased to two and-a-half millions, and her debt to 
 twenty-eight millions. The increase of her debt was due to 
 voluntary aid given to Great Britain in the French war, and 
 to the expenses of suppressing the insurrection of 1798, 
 an insurrection which, most Irishmen believe, was fostered 
 and provoked deliberately as a part of British policy in 
 Ireland. 
 
 In 1800 the Treaty of Union came into existence. Under 
 its provisions Ireland Avas for a fixed number of years to 
 contribute in the proportion of two to fifteen to the general 
 revenue ; but it was provided, that at any time that the 
 debts of the two countries came into the same proportions 
 as the contributions the Exchequers might be amalgamated, 
 and a system of indiscriminate taxation, as it was called, 
 established. The Treaty provided that under no circum- 
 stances was Ireland to be taxed to more than her fair pro- 
 portion, having regard to her taxable capacity, and even 
 after the amalgamation of the Exchequers this principle 
 was to be carried out, and Ireland was to have the benefit 
 of exemptions and abatements as her circumstances 
 demanded. 
 
Financial Relations. 379 
 
 It is now admitted that that proportion was unjust and 
 ruinous. At the time it was vehemently protested 
 against in the Irish Parliament. Lord Castlereagh, how- 
 ever, and the Irish Government of the day, maintained 
 that under its operation Ireland would gain, and, in fact, 
 that Great Britain was dealing in a most generous manner 
 with Ireland. But we have it to-day on the authority of 
 every British Treasury official, who has spoken on this 
 matter, from Mr. Smith in 1816 and Mr. Chisholm in 1865 
 down to Sir E. Hamilton in his recent evidence, that this 
 proportion was exorbitant and ruinous, and as a matter 
 of fact, events proved it so, because it led to the absolute 
 ruin and bankruptcy of Irish finance. 
 
 Seventeen years afterwards, in the year 1817, 
 what was the stale of things existing in Ireland? 
 The taxation had increased fourfold, and the Irish 
 debt had quadrupled, while in the same period 
 the British debt had not doubled. Ireland, though 
 her taxation quadrupled, was never able to pay her pro- 
 portion of two to fifteen, so her debt increased until it 
 bore to the British debt the proportion fixed by the Act 
 of Union as the occasion when the two Exchequers should 
 be amalgamated. 
 
 In 1817 the Exchequers were amalgamated, and ever 
 since that date Ireland has been, in regard to financial 
 matters as well as legislative, an integi-al part of the 
 United Kingdom, so far as the theory of the Act of Union 
 is concerned. But Article 7 of the Treaty specially 
 provided that Ireland should be in a position to claim 
 what was called " special exemptions and abatements," 
 even after the amalgamation of the Exchequers and the 
 imposition of indiscriminate taxation, so that she should 
 never be called upon to pay more than her fair proportion. 
 
380 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 according to her relative taxable capacity, Tlie report of 
 The O'Conor Don, and those members of the Commission 
 who agreed with him, summarised in a few words the 
 historical position of Ireland up to this point. They said : 
 
 (1.) "That Ireland and Great Britain entered into legislative 
 partnership on the clear understanding that they were still, for 
 purposes of taxation, to be regarded as separate and distinct 
 financial units. 
 
 (2.) "That Ireland was to contribute to the Imperial expenditure 
 in proportion to her resources, so far as the same could be ascertained, 
 and that even after the imposition of indiscriminate taxation, if 
 circumstances permitted its adoption, she might claim special 
 exemptions and abatements. 
 
 (3.) " That the Imperial expenditure to which these respective 
 contributions were to be made included not only the whole Civil 
 expenditure of Ireland, but even special grants for Irish purposes 
 which were to remain in operation for twenty years." 
 
 That this was our position under the Union before and 
 after 1817, and down to this moment is not, I think, 
 denied by anyone. We take our stand to-day on that 
 provision of the Treaty. We say Ireland' si claim, under 
 the 7th Article, to special consideration in matters of 
 taxation as a distinct portion of the United Kingdom has 
 never become extinct, and that from a legal point of view 
 it is impossible to regard Ireland as being no more than a 
 group of English counties. We assert a legal and con- 
 stitutional claim to be taxed only in proportion to our 
 taxable capacity as a distinct country. 
 
 That this is the legal effect of the 7th Article cannot 
 be questioned. It is equally clear that such was the inten- 
 tion of the framers of the Union. In eveiy speech of 
 Pitt and of Castlereagh it was asserted again and again 
 that under no circumstances was Ireland ever to pay more 
 than according to her relative ability. Lord Castlereagh 
 said : — 
 
Financial Relations- 381 
 
 " As to the future, it is expected that the two countries should 
 move forward together and unite with regard to their expenses in 
 the measure of their relative abilities. The great point, therefore, 
 to be ascertained is the best criterion which can be formed of the 
 relative means of the two countries in order to fix the relative 
 proportions of their contributions." 
 
 Having stated the principle of the financial arrangements 
 which he proposed, he explained that Parliament was to 
 have the power to revise the proportionate contributions of 
 fifteen to two at the end of twenty years in case they might, 
 
 " under different circumstances, prove to be both partial and 
 disadvantageous. By there being a provision for revision, Ireland 
 has the utmost possible security that she cannot be taxed beyond the 
 measure of her comparative ability, and that the ratio of her contribu- 
 tions must ever correspond with her relative wealth and prosperity." 
 
 Now, this so far being admitted — and I desire in the 
 brief remarks with which I shall occupy the House at this 
 hour of the evening to deal with the broad issues at stake 
 — it being admitted so far that Ireland has a legal and 
 constitutional right under the Act of Union to be taxed 
 only in proportion to her relative taxable capacity, then 
 I say the real question which the Commission has to decide, 
 and which Parliament will have to decide, is — does Ireland 
 pay more than her fair proportion according to her 
 resources 1 
 
 In 1853, Mr. Gladstone, who is the author of a great 
 deal of the financial injustice which has been done to 
 Ireland, extended the income tax to Ireland, and inaugu- 
 rated that policy which was called in the Union Act " indis- 
 criminate taxation," and which he called " identity of 
 imposts," with the result that he raised the taxation oi 
 Ireland no less than two and-a-half millions between 
 1853-60. 
 
382 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 The condition of Ireland at the time that this addition 
 was made to her taxation was pitiable. She was exhausted 
 after one of the most awful famines in history, her 
 population was diminished by millions, the young and 
 strong — the wealth producers — were fleeing from her shores. 
 Free trade, which was no doubt advantageous to England, 
 depending so largely as it did upon manufacturing 
 industry and commerce, entailed a distinct loss upon 
 Ireland, dependent entirely upon agriculture. 
 
 As was well said by Mr. Childers in his report — 
 
 "Just as Ireland suffered in the last century, from the protective 
 and exclusive commercial policy of Great Britain, so she has been at 
 a disadvantage in this century from the adoption of a policy of free 
 trade." 
 
 It was at such a time and under such circumstances that 
 Mr. Gladstone imposed two and a-half millions extra 
 taxation, and inaugurated a scheme under which taxation 
 per head in Ireland increased from 13s. lid. to £1 .'js. 
 4d., while in the same period in England, though England 
 was increasing every day in prosperity, the taxation per 
 head was only increased 3s. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's proposals were, of course, resisted by 
 Irish members, and, of course, unsuccessfully. He 
 promised that the income tax should be only temporary. It 
 was enacted only for seven years. It has remained ever 
 since. 
 
 He announced, as a compensiation to Ireland, that he 
 would relieve her of all liability for the consolidated 
 annuities. The capital debt of these loans was four 
 millions, the aimual charge for interest and repayment 
 about £250,000. But the first year's income tax was 
 £460,000, so that in exchange for a terminable charge of 
 
Financial Relations. 383 
 
 £250,000 and a capital liability of £4,000,000, Ireland was 
 saddled with a permanent income tax, which in the very- 
 first year yielded half a million, and under the operation 
 of which up to to-day Ireland has paid twenty-three and 
 a half millions of money. 
 
 In his speech proposing this arrangement, Mr. 
 Gladstone used these words : — 
 
 " If we look to the time when Parliament will be in a position to 
 part with the income tax, Ireland will enjoy, for a long term of 
 years, a much larger remission of consolidated annuities than it will 
 have to bear of additional burdens in the shape of spirit duty." 
 
 These words seem almost comical to-day, they are so 
 absolutely the reverse of what has occuired. Mr. Gladstone 
 laid down the principle that the Imperial taxes to be 
 levied on Ireland were to be made as quickly as possible 
 identical with those levied in England — in a word, that 
 the indiscriminate taxation spoken of in the Union should 
 be established. The fatal fallacy which underlay the 
 whole policy of 1853 was that identical taxation on ai'ticles 
 consumed in Great Britain and Ireland in different pro- 
 portions meant equality of taxation. The fallacy of this 
 reasoning I need not delay the House by exposing. What 
 has happened is the greatest proof of its absurdity. 
 
 Immediately a system was set on foot by which taxation 
 was reduced on those articles mostly cons\mied in England, 
 and taxation Avas increased upon those articles mostly 
 consumed in Ireland, with the result, that the taxation 
 of Ireland was raised by two and a-half millions, and from 
 that day to this the taxation per head of the population 
 in England has diminished, while in Ireland, it has in- 
 creased ; though, of course, the population and wealth of 
 England have grown in enormous proportions as in Ireland 
 they have declined. 
 
884 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Between 1851 and 1885 the taxation per head in 
 England was reduced 6s. 2d., and in Ireland increased by 
 19s., and taking the whole period from the Union to to-day 
 we have these extraordinary figures — the taxation per head 
 of the population in Great Britain in 1800 was £4 13s. 4d., 
 it is now £2 Os. lOd. ; in Ireland, at the time of the Union, 
 the taxation per head of the population was lis. 6d., it is 
 now £1 8s. lOd., so that in the course of a centuiy, when 
 England has increased beyond the dreams of man in wealth 
 and prosperity, her taxation per head has diminished by 
 one half, and during a century which has meant for Ireland 
 the loss of her population, and a steady decrease in her 
 prosperity, her taxation per head has more than doubled. 
 I have here an. interesting table, prepared some years ago 
 by Sir Joseph M'Kenna., which exemplifies how taxation in 
 Ireland falls on the poor classes. He shows that for the 
 3^ear ISBl-S, for every £1 paid for income tax in England 
 she paid £4 12s. 8d. in miscellaneous taxes. For every 
 £1 paid for income tax in Scotland she paid £6 10s. in 
 miscellaneous taxes, and for every £1 paid for income tax 
 in Ireland she paid £12 lis. Now I think it may be taken 
 for granted that the taxation imposed in 1853 by Mr. 
 Gladstone was unjust and excessive. Indeed I know of 
 no one who controverts that statement. As far as I know 
 every member of the Royal Commission agrees with it. 
 
 Perhaps the one hon. member who sits opposite, and 
 who signed a report alone different from that of any of 
 his colleagues, would not think I am justified in saying 
 that of him, but at an rate in his report he does not 
 attempt to controvert the statement that the taxation of 
 1853 was unjust and excessive. 
 I take it as established therefore — 
 1st. That Ireland is entitled legally and constitutionally 
 
Financial Relations. 385 
 
 under the Act of Union to be taxed in proportion only to 
 her resoiirces; 
 
 2nd. That this provision has been violated and that 
 excessive and altosrether unjustifiable burdens have been 
 placed upon Ireland. 
 
 Now, let m© for one moment deal with the question — 
 What is the taxable capacity of Ireland as compared with 
 Great Britain? 
 
 TO' answer that question with mathematical acciiracy 
 would, of course, be impossible. The report of the chair 
 man of the Commission stated that nothing but a general 
 approximation to truth can be looked for. Various 
 principles and tests have been suggested to us. That the 
 application of any one of these principles or tests would 
 prove to demonstration the conclusion to which it was 
 appointed we do not for a moment maintain, but if we 
 find a general concurrence of opinion amongst the witnesses, 
 and if the various tests on being applied aU point in one 
 direction, we cannot be far wrong in coming to the conclu- 
 sion that the result arrived at by different men by 
 different methods must be the correct one. 
 
 Speaking generally, every witness admitted that the 
 resources of Ireland bear to the resources of Great Britain a 
 much smaller proportion than their respective contributions 
 to revenue. Sir E. Hamilton, on behalf of the Treasury, 
 admits this, and no witness denied it. A step further than 
 that we could, and ought to go, because it is not sufficient 
 to ascertain the relative resoiu-ces. It is universally ad- 
 mitted that the pressure of the taxation on small incomes 
 is much heavier in proportion than upon large ones. 
 
 John Stuart MUls' familiar illustration holds goods iu 
 
 the case of nations as well as individuals. It is not 
 
 the same thing to take £2 from the man who has £40 
 
 2 c 
 
386 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 and to take £i from the man who has £80, or £40 from 
 the man who has £800'. Sir Edward Hamilton also 
 admitted the same principle. He said the amount of a 
 man's income is not necessarily a test of his capacity to 
 bear taxation. Perhaps a better test of the amount which 
 the taxpayer can afford to pay for being governed, pro- 
 tected, and educated is that residue remaining after the 
 bare necessities of life have been met. 
 
 Now the tests and standards adopted by the Commission 
 to determine the relative resources of the twO' countries 
 were aa follows: — Population, comparative imports and 
 exports, consumption of certain duty-paid articles, relative 
 assessments to death duties, relative assessments to income 
 tax, and the value of commodities of primary use 
 annually consimied. Some of these tests may be rejected 
 as inapplicable and worthless. Opinions may differ as to 
 the trustworthiness of one or other of them, but as sub- 
 stantially the same result followed from the application 
 of all these different tests it is not too much to assert that 
 the result must be substantially sound and correct. That 
 result is to show that the relative annual wealth of Irenland 
 is somewhere between one-eighteenth and one-twentieth 
 that of the United Kingdom. 
 
 As I pointed out, the comparative resources taken alone 
 do not afford a proper test, because taxation presses more 
 heavily on the poor than upon the rich. Mr. Childers 
 said: — 
 
 " It is, however, we think, true that the capacity to bear taxation, 
 whether as between rich classes and poor classes, or as between rich 
 countries and poor countries, is not to be measured by relative annual 
 wealth alone. The capacity of a rich country for bearing taxation 
 relatively to that of a poor one exceeds, no doubt, the ratio given by 
 their respective annual wealth." 
 
Financial Relations. 387 
 
 The hoin. and learned gentleman who moved this motion 
 read for the House a most significant passage from the 
 great speech of Mr. Pitt — a quotation which not only is 
 very apt, but, I think, most powerful. It is worth repeat- 
 ing. He said that — 
 
 " The smallest burthen on a poor country was to be considered 
 when compared with that of a rich one by no means in proportion 
 with their several abilities, for, if one country exceeded another in 
 wealth, population, and established commerce in a proportion of two 
 to one, he was nearly convinced that that country would be able to 
 bear near ten times the burthens that the other would be equal to." 
 
 In finally reporting, therefore, as everyone of the Com- 
 missioners did, that Ireland's, relative tais capacity is not 
 more than one-twentieth of Great Britain, I think they 
 took a most moderate view. 
 
 My own view is that the estimate of the Commissioners 
 was altogether too low. I am convinced that the relative 
 taxable capacity of Ireland to Great Britain is very much 
 less than one-twentieth. However, it is a great gain for 
 Ireland that this Commission practically unanimously 
 decided that one to twenty was the proportion, because, 
 when that is reduced to figvu-es, she is found to have 
 been contributing between two and a-half millions and three 
 millions per annum more than her fair share. That 
 substantially, and in a few words, is our case. 
 
 What answer is to be made to if? So far as I know 
 there has been no attempt to dispute the unanimous finding 
 of the Commission as to the proportionof one-twentieth. The 
 real answer urged is that; Ireland received more than her 
 share of Imperial expenditure, or, in other words, that it 
 costs more to govern Ireland in proportion than it does 
 to govern other portions of the kingdom. 
 
 First let me say a word on this answer from the Irish 
 
388 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 Nationalist point of vie-n^. The government of Ireland is, 
 no doubt, expensive. She is probably the poorest country 
 in Europe, and her government isi probably the most ex- 
 pensive. Why is that? The Government of any country 
 carried on against the will of the governed will always be 
 wasteful, extravagant, and at the same time bad. If 
 Ireland were self-governed, do you imagine for one instant 
 that the cost of the civil administration of the country 
 would be as it is to-day, double per head of the population 
 in Ireland to what it is in England 1 Do you imagine that 
 Ireland would find it necessary to spend one and a-half 
 millions a year on maintaining an armed police force about 
 one-half the size of the regular army of tlie United States ; 
 or to pay a Lord Lieutenant a salary of £20,000 a year, 
 just double what the President of the United States 
 receives 1 
 
 Allow me to look at this question from a wider point of 
 view. If Ireland is really part of the United Kingdom, 
 what possible distinction can you make between Imperial 
 and local expenditure 1 I say you can make none. Under 
 the Treaty of Union it is clearly laid down that all expendi- 
 ture, including civil government in Ireland as well as the 
 army ax»d navy, shall be common or Imperial. The 
 principle is laid down in the Act of Union that the ex- 
 penditure should be regarded as common or Imperial 
 expenditure. I might read quotation after quotation from 
 men of the highest authority to show that that is the 
 proper interpretation. Sir Robert Giffen, one of the most 
 eminent witnesses examined before that Commission, 
 emphatically laid it down that the expenditiu*e should be 
 regarded as Imperial taxation, and so long as you insist 
 upon keeping Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, so 
 long will it be impossible for you to regard money spent 
 
Financial Relations. 389 
 
 on Ireland as other than money spent for the general 
 interest of the Empire. 
 
 In the face of these facts, I ask what does the Unionist 
 Governnaent of this Unionist Parliament propose to del 
 As I understand they propo>se to shelve this question for 
 an indefinite time. The proposal of a new Commission *is, 
 in my opinion, a dishonest evasion of this question — a 
 most cowardly evasion of their responsibility by the 
 Government. li is a dilatory motion and its one object is 
 delay. They wish to manufacture an excuse for refusing 
 justice to Ireland. This matter concerns Unionists as well 
 as Nationalists. We take our stand upon the Treaty of 
 Union. That Union was forced upon Ireland by violence 
 and corruption. Ireland from that day to this has never 
 ceased to protest against it. You have persisted in main- 
 taining it. It now appears that under the Union Ireland 
 has been robbed and pauperised, her population has been 
 reduced by one half, and her people have remained, all 
 through the century-, restless and disaffected under your 
 rule. 
 
 To-day Ireland appeals to one article in the Treaty of 
 Union to protect her against further spoliation. Here 
 you have now disclosed a gross wrong done in open 
 violatiocQ of the expressed terms of the Union. Here you 
 have exposed to the world the shameful fact that for forty 
 years and more Ireland — poor depopulated Ireland — 
 with her resom'ces undeveloped, and with her few remain- 
 ing industries languishing, and with the shadow of famine 
 ever hanging over the land — for forty years and more she 
 has been paying three millions a year more than her fair 
 proportion of taxation. 
 
 This is a matter, in my opinion, more even for Unionists 
 than for Nationalists. Refuse justice to Ireland, appoint 
 
390 Historical and Political Addresses. 
 
 your new Commission, take care that years will be spent 
 before it can come to a decision. If you like, pack it so 
 that some verdict may be found in opposition to the 
 verdict of the recent Commission, and, meantime, go on 
 year after year increasing in each succeeding Budget 
 tK load of taxation upon Ireland. Do all this if you will, 
 but I, at any rate, as a. Nationalist, will have this con- 
 solation — by your action you will have torn to shreds the 
 last rag of argument in favour of the maintenance of the 
 Union, and you will have hastened the day when Ireland 
 will find in a national government of her own not only 
 political freedom, but her best safeguard against further 
 sipoliation. 
 
 SEALY, BE.YEES AND WALKER, PRINTERS, DUBLIN. 
 
m ^ 
 
 6 \990 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hT'W '■■ ' 
 
 I99u 
 
 
 
 OCT 8 
 
 !995 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 
 
 
-Q— ""-"I ^.n, ^1,1111,11, HI 1,1,1 III 1,1 
 
 o b)U31 01 21 01 P4 2 
 
 
 :^^'W;<^ 
 
 v^/f'^^^^i^Aa^k^iK^^k^: 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 uu 
 
 JUL I (i^85 
 DEC 11 
 
 ftl 
 
 BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS 
 CHESTNUT HILL. MASS. 
 
 Books may be kept for two weeks and may be 
 renewed for the same period, unless reserved. 
 
 Two cents a day is charged for each book kept 
 overtime. 
 
 If you cannot find what you want, ask the 
 Librarian who will be glad to help you. 
 
 The borrower is responsible for books drawn 
 on his card and for all fines accruing on the same.