*************************************************************************

Filling a Gap

Influence of Racist Theory

So-called ‘Independence’ struggles

Lack of Protestant Interest

Catholic Progress

Historian’s task

*************************************************************************

Filling a Gap

In this work an attempt is made to fill a major gap in the writing of Irish history. It is my intention to try to cover the major events that occurred in the period 1800 to 1850 which affected any large section of the population regardless of their religion or political allegiance. It is true that certain aspects of history no longer command the interest they once did, for example the struggle against Napoleon. But that struggle was very important to Irishmen living at the time, and a large part of their endeavours was directed towards achieving his overthrow. 

It is not surprising that this part of Irish history did not attract the attention of Irish historians. Most of these were writing from a nationalist point of view, and were really only interested in the struggle for repeal of the Act of Union. Even when they treated other matters, they were largely concerned with the activities of Daniel O’Connell, a great nationalist hero. They were not at all interested in the activities of Irishmen who favoured the Union, even if they were men like Wellington and Castlereagh who were among the greatest in their generation. The land question became closely interwoven with the nationalist endeavours, as landowners in general supported the Union. So no attempt was made to chronicle the activities of those regarded as the enemy. [Top] 

Influence of Racist Theory

The writing of history by the nationalists was strongly influenced by their ideology and assumptions. They, in accordance with prevailing fashion, assumed that various ‘races’ existed, that the Irish were of the ‘Celtic race’ and the English of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ race, that the Celts had a natural right to own and rule the land of Ireland, and that the Anglo-Saxons were foreign aggressors who had invaded and ‘occupied’ Ireland. Such ideology and assumptions, since their abuse by Hitler before and during the Second World War, are no longer acceptable either to historians or to the general public. The fact that nationalist support was drawn largely from the lower classes that looked to independence as a means of improving themselves economically at the expense of the upper classes resulted in nationalist propaganda being heavily loaded against those classes. It was in their interest to depict their own followers in the most favourable colours, and their opponents in the blackest of colours. This could be done in various ways. One could select for recounting only those episodes that showed their supporters in a good light and their opponents in a bad light. Suppressing relevant facts could often do this. For example if an historian records that a particular landlord evicted tenants while the Famine was at its height, the landlord is depicted in an unfavourable light while the tenants are depicted in a favourable light. There might be much more to the story; reasons could be given why the evictions took place. But a propagandist knows not to elaborate. At times too even the most careful historian slips in adjectives, not supported by evidence, to paint a particular picture. Words like ‘the cruel and treacherous English’ find favour with their supporters, even if no evidence is advanced to show that the English were more cruel and treacherous than the Irish. Another is to attribute bad motives to their opponents and good motives to their supporters, or to interpret what was said or done by the opponents in the least favourable way. Fair enough, if sufficient evidence is adduced: but the nationalist writer is usually not interested in fairness. It does not assist your cause if what your opponents did was in fact beneficial to Ireland. History thus can easily become propaganda. [Top] 

So-called ‘Independence’ struggles.

It has been well observed that most ‘independence’ movements or struggles have the nature of civil wars. One group benefits from the existing status; another group would benefit if the status were changed. The group in power tends to favour its own friends; the group seeking power does so in order to benefits its own friends. This cannot be admitted, so the political struggle for power and wealth must be dressed up in idealistic terms with much use of words like ‘liberty’, ‘patriotism’, ‘democracy’, ‘self-determination’, and so on. But it is the duty of the genuine historian to strip away pretences and reveal real motives. [Top] 

Lack of Protestant Interest

Rather surprisingly even Protestant historians had little interest in writing about this period, even though Protestants had much to be proud of. This is partly because the theory of a perpetual Protestant ‘ascendancy’ in a land where the majority of the people were Catholics could scarcely be defended. Nor, for political reasons, did it seem that the ownership of estates in land could be defended in Ireland even though the same system was both beneficial and unquestioned in England. Nor, as Home Rule grew closer, and was finally achieved, did Protestants wish to dwell on the great evil of agrarian crime whose perpetrators were almost invariably Catholics. The fact that the Orange Order, though in itself a relatively harmless body, associated itself with ‘ascendancy’ made it difficult for anyone to defend it. Yet the close control over it by the gentry steered it away from the evil acts of those Protestants in the previous century that took the law into their own hands. But, in fact, Irish Protestants had much to be proud of in this period. They developed the economy, they purged the institutions, they promoted the advance of Catholics, they established the rule of law, they widened democracy, they promoted the welfare of the unfortunate, they invigorated their own religion, they promoted tolerance and strove to wipe out religious bigotry. Not all of them, perhaps not a majority of them, but still very many of them. If bigotry and intolerance were more rife at the end of the fifty years than at the beginning, at least many Protestants strove that it should be otherwise. Had Ireland been an independent country, it would probably have ranked ahead of such countries as Sweden, Denmark, Bavaria, Naples, or the United States. After 1850, the great failure of Ireland was that it could not keep its rank ahead of comparable countries like Sweden and Denmark. [Top] 

Catholic Progress

It was also a period when the Catholics made great strides. One may doubt the wisdom of some of them in continuing the struggle for seats in Parliament, when almost anything else would fairly easily have been conceded to them, things like access to the offices of sheriff and mayor. Or the wisdom of O’Connell and his successors in pursuing Home Rule in order to establish a Catholic-dominated Parliament when the only possible effect of their campaign was to alienate Protestant support. But apart from that, the conditions of the Catholics improved immensely in the first half of the century. This was especially true in the towns and cities. Catholics were free to engage in trade, even when excluded from corporations of merchants. Many of them became very rich. When new churches were being built there was no shortage of money for the purpose. The number of schools, colleges, religious houses, orphanages, hospitals, and other works of mercy increased rapidly. Though there were limits to this. Outside the towns it would never have been feasible for the Catholics, of their own efforts, to fund a Catholic school system. Neither would it have been possible to fund a university in addition. Yet several bishops considered that this was a distinct possibility, given good will. What Catholics have least to be proud of is the open and unashamed attempt of Archbishop MacHale and Cardinal Cullen to establish their own theocratic rule in a separate state. Liberty, liberalism, and democracy meant for them their right to speak for the majority in declaring God’s law. 

There were two major problems in this period, which despite the best of efforts, nobody could find a solution for. One was the proneness of the very poorest classes to marry young and have large families, while at the same time neglecting all opportunities to provide for the future. The other was the endemic problem of what was called agrarian crime. In particular, where those engaged in such activities directed their struggle against tithes, and received popular support from many who should have known better, a rift opened in Irish society which was never to be healed. [Top]

Historian’s task

The genuine historian must also question the assumptions of his predecessors. One first task must be to establish if Ireland was in fact ‘oppressed’, or whether there were real grievances to be put right. And if there were such, were the methods adopted of a nature that could be approved of. For example, were the landlords oppressive, and was systematic terrorism and murder by secret, self-appointed societies a commendable way of dealing with them? Was a struggle for outright independence justified if it could only lead to a perpetually divided society? Or would a lesser degree of independence, with for example a federal constitution, have been better for Ireland in the long run? It has not been my intention to give definitive solutions to such questions, but only to state the questions fairly. 

All history-writing involves a selection and evaluation of source material. As this material, in writing modern history, is almost limitless in extent, the researcher must have some principles to guide his selection. The first principle I adopted was to search for material on the political activities of all the significant groups resident in Ireland regardless of their religion or politics. The second principle I adopted was to assume that no one group was uniquely good or evil, but that good and evil people were equally distributed in all groups. The third principle I adopted was to assume that Ireland was a normal western country, and that they did more or less what other people in neighbouring countries did, and that political, religious, cultural, and other movements were more or less the same. This was not a conclusion, but an assumption on which to base the search for materials. The fourth principle was to search for material in a wide variety of sources, preferably original sources. No source is free from bias, so by studying a variety of sources the different biases can be identified. This is particularly true of newspaper sources. The evil results too of relying exclusively on previously published nationalist sources are only too visible in certain well-known works. The fifth principle was to look only for facts that could be substantiated by contemporary evidence. The sixth principle was to divide the half-century into smaller periods in which the current activities could be identified and recounted. The periods chosen were the durations of the various prime ministerships in Britain, which corresponded to presidencies in the United States. Normally each Prime Minister chose new officers in Ireland and these usually had different approaches to tackling different issues. By this means too, periods of history in Ireland are not treated in isolation, but tied into the wider history of the United Kingdom and Europe.