Many years ago I read a review of a recent book on
modern Irish history which was very highly recommended, and which according to
the reviewer the results of the latest scholarship on the subject was to be
found. The book cost£20, and having that sum I went into a bookshop to buy it.
I took up a copy and looked first at the Table of Contents. To my astonishment
I found that the main chapter headings had not changed in over a hundred years.
It was a re-hash of the familiar nationalist version of Irish history. I did
not buy the book nor have I opened a copy of it from that day to this.
Propaganda versions of histories of countries are very
common; in fact they are the norm. But often the collapse of the regime causes
the propaganda of that regime to be discarded. Nobody nowadays accepts the
Bolshevik version of Russian history or the Nazi version of German history. But
Irish Nationalists tried to describe the history of modern Ireland as a
struggle against foreign oppression just as Hitler tried to describe the
history of Germany in the twentieth century as Germany’ s struggle for freedom
against a conspiracy of Jews and foreign capitalists. Neither was quoting
directly from the other, but both drew on ideas common in Europe at that time. It comes as a shock to any Irishman
reading Mein Kampf for the
first time how familiar Hitler’s arguments were. The words of Adolf Hitler are very pertinent,
‘It is the struggle for the soul of the
child, and to the child its first appeal is addressed: “German boy, do not
forget that you are a German”, and “Little girl, remember that you are to
become a German mother”. Anyone who knows the soul of youth will be able to
understand that it is they who lend ear most joyfully to such a battle cry.
They carry on this struggle in hundreds of forms, in their own way and with
their own weapons. They refuse to sing un-German songs. The more anyone tries
to alienate them from German heroic grandeur, the wilder becomes their
enthusiasm…their ears are amazingly sensitive to un-German teachers…’ (Hitler, Mein Kampf ,11).
Describing his history teacher who made history
Hitler’s favourite subject at school he writes:
‘Even today I think back with gentle
emotion on this grey-haired man, who, by the fire of his narratives sometimes made
us forget the present; who as if by enchantment, carried us into past times,
and out of the millennial veils of mist moulded dry historical memories into
living reality. On such occasions we often sat there, often aflame with
enthusiasm, and sometimes even moved to tears’…This teacher made history my
favourite subject…For who could have studied German history under such a
teacher without becoming an enemy of the state which, through its ruling house,
exerted so disastrous an influence on the destinies of the nation (op.cit. 13-14).
Many Irish people who were educated in the
late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries will recognise the type of
teacher, and indeed this type of book.
Consequently, it is my aim in this book
to provide a balanced account of the aims and actions of all the participants
in the Irish political scene. In particular I wish to avoid the enormous
distortions in standard works who over-emphasize actions by nationalists
whether of the constitutional or the violent kind. F.S. L. Lyons’ book Ireland since the Famine is a notorious
example of this distortion, even though what he writes, as far as it goes, is
factually correct. (See for
example pages 315 to 468 devoted to the affairs of Sinn Fein/IRB/IRA from 1913 to 1921 to the virtual exclusion of
everything else.) Obviously a
better balance must be sought. During the period in question the outstanding
event was the First World War. Ten times, or perhaps twenty times, the number
of Irishmen fought in the British, American, or colonial armed forces than ever
marched with the IRA. The efforts of the whole country were devoted to
defeating Germany. The role of Sinn Fein/IRB/IRA was just that of the third dog which seizes the
bone over which two other dogs were fighting.
It is also necessary to examine the allegations about
conditions in Ireland which were said to have justified a
prolonged political campaign and an armed struggle. First there was the
allegation of an oppressive ‘British rule’ in Ireland. There was no oppression of Ireland, and it can scarcely be said that there
was any kind of British rule, let alone mis-rule in Ireland. Though the United Kingdom had no written constitution in practice it
had a federal structure. England (with Wales) formed the largest unit, while
Scotland and Ireland largely kept their own laws, had their own administration,
their own system of justice and police manned almost entirely by Scotsmen or
Irishmen in their respective countries. Though there was only one parliament
debates on purely Irish or Scottish affairs were normally attended by Members
of Parliament from those countries. The position of Ireland with regard to the United Kingdom was roughly the same as that of Texas or California with regard to the United States. Some people in Ireland, or Texas or California might like to be independent republics
with their own army and navy and their own foreign policy, but they could
hardly complain that they were so oppressed that blood must be shed to free
them. The term mis-rule is one of political rhetoric
not a description of fact. So American Democrats could describe Republicans of
being guilty of ‘mis-rule’ and vice versa. But no
historian would take them seriously.
It was also alleged that there was an oppressive
landlord caste grinding down the poor Irish farmers. But economic historians
nowadays reject that view. I made a curious discovery one time that
‘landlordism’ existed only in Catholic parts of Ireland but had never been heard off in the
Protestant parts, though the landlords were the same. The tenant farmers from
northern and southern Ireland who formed the backbone of the Tenant
Right Movement were not impoverished peasants but had substantial holdings.
Their chief grievances were that either they were not given leases, or were not
given a guarantee that their lease would be renewed. It was considerably
later when Michael Davitt enlisted the small-holder
and the agrarian terrorists drwn
from their ranks into his own political struggle.
It was also maintained that a powerful Protestant
state was oppressing an impoverished Catholic peasantry and was also trying to
take away their religion. These complaints were made by Catholic priests and
bishops who backed the political opponents of the established political
families. As much weight should be accorded to them as could be accorded to
complaints against a Republican government by a Catholic priest or bishop in America whose brother happened to be a Democrat
politician. The chief grievance of the Catholic clergy in fact was that the
Government would not hand over to them taxpayers’ money for the support of
Catholic schools. The policy of the Government of the United Kingdom with regard to education was the same as
that of the United States. No public money was to be paid to
religious or denominational schools. The Catholic clergy argued that if Ireland had its own government the Catholic
members of that Government would simply hand over the money without question to
the Catholic priests. This in fact was never done, even after independence.
It was alleged that Ireland was a very poor country, and made poor by
centuries of British mis-rule. In fact, by 1850 Ireland was one of the most advanced countries in
the world, not quite as rich as England, but then nobody else was. Ireland shared in the great industrial development
of Victorian Britain. By the end of the century, other countries like the United States and Germany were beginning to rival the United Kingdom. More importantly, for large parts of Ireland, Denmark with the Nordic countries and Switzerland were developing at a fast pace. There were
millions of poor people in Ireland, but there were also millions in the other
countries. Ireland was a relatively rich and developed
country. If, by 1970 the Irish Republic was the most backward country in the European Economic Community the causes for that must be looked for
elsewhere.
It should be noted that the Catholic hierarchy from
1848 to 1921 denied that the conditions for a just war existed, namely
intolerable oppression which could only be removed by the shedding of blood. There
were no grievances so great as to warrant the shedding of blood and the
wholesale destruction of other people’s property. There were always
parliamentary means for removing any real grievances. There never was the
likelihood that any armed struggle would succeed.
The question then arises, if there was no real
oppression and no real grievances, why were there unceasing political campaigns
accompanied by terrorist attacks to secure ‘freedom’? I suggest that the answer
may be found in the connection between Catholic politicians in Ireland and the Catholic Democrat politicians of
Tammany Hall. These were often close relatives, and indeed blood-brothers. The
Catholic politicians in Ireland could and did control the local political
rackets, but the opportunities for profiteering would be so much greater if
they controlled an Irish parliament as well. It should be noted that for
various reasons most of the taxes in Ireland were paid by Protestants, so there was a
lot to be said for being able to tax your opponents for your own benefit.
It is obvious that politicians and clergy could not
simply state that their chief aims were to control the rackets, and to benefit
their relatives and supporters. No, it was necessary that a mythology of
nationalism should be constructed. In Ireland, as elsewhere this was composed of two
principle elements, the first being the unremitting struggle for centuries
against foreign oppression, and the other was the necessary freedom of a
separate race. The point about the mythology was not that it was true but that
it was believed and that it inspired. The great masterpiece of such mythology
is of course Mein Kampf.
The question too arises whether in fact Ireland was better off as part of the United Kingdom. The answer would seem to be yes. Under an
independent parliament power and the possibilities of patronage and corruption
would be transferred from one set of Irishmen to another. Some would gain while
the others lost. But would Ireland as a country on the one hand, and the
Irish people in general including those who emigrated, benefit overall. The
answer would seem to be no. Ireland was to small a unit in the modern world to
benefit from tariff barriers in the way that Bismarck’s Germany and the United States did which had almost all the resources for
a modern industrial society within their own borders. In fact, after being
tried for fifty years after independence tariff barriers had to be abandoned.
The arguments for Repeal had already been examined and
dismissed. Frederick Conway, the editor of the Dublin Evening Post, listed the arguments in favour of the repeal
of the Act of Union and refuted them all.
The first argument was to say that if the Union benefited England Ireland must lose. This was not the
case for both could gain.
The next was that absentee landlords benefited England rather than Ireland. He pointed out that there was no
connection between absent landlords and poor management of the land, nor that
the simple transfer of rents to England injured Ireland. The rents had to be used for the purchase
of goods for use in Ireland. Ireland exported those goods for whose production
she had natural advantages and imported other goods.
The next fallacy
was the Protectionist fallacy, namely that Ireland itself should produce all it needed. He
pointed out that Ireland could grow grapes under glass, but would
be better advised growing more suitable crops for export, and importing the
grapes
It was alleged
that in famine conditions Irish lives were sacrificed for the profit of British
corn merchants. But it was the rise in price caused by local shortages that
brought supplies of foreign corn to Ireland.
The argument
that Ireland loses from her connection with England depended on the absentee and protectionist
arguments and ignored the fact that Britain and all her colonies were open to Irish
exports. Nor did she (in 1847) bear her full share of taxes. (A later argument, after taxation was
equalised, exercised the nationalists to prove that equal taxation meant
over-taxation.)
If there were
full employment in Ireland there would be peace and prosperity. (This
is a variant of the Protectionist fallacy.) But the practices of trade unions
and combinations of operatives trying to keep or raise their income is a fruitful
source of strife. (Trade unions and combinations seek to restrict access to
their trade; this both increases unemployment and reduces output.)
The next was the
labour fallacy. Labour is cheaper in Ireland than in England, but English manufacturers persist in
erecting their factories in England. The reason was that English labourers
were more skilled and were therefore paid more.
The next fallacy
was that the English were only upholding the Union because they feared that the Catholics would oppress
the Protestants. The real reason was that they upheld the Union because most Irishmen favoured it.
The next was the
‘Nationalist’ fallacy, which held that Ireland had a different language, literature,
culture and religion from that of England, but in reality the differences were not
great. The next was the fallacy of the
benefit of a national Parliament. But such a Parliament would be likely to base
its legislation on the fallacies just outlined and would only do harm. (Conway was proved right in this.)
The next was the
fallacy that Ireland with an independent Parliament would be
sufficiently linked in the crown. But it would be impossible to have two equal
and independent Parliaments linked only in the crown. When it had been
attempted in ‘Grattan’s Parliament’ the crown took
great care by means of bribery to control both.
The Industrial
Resources fallacy which tried to prove that Ireland had in itself all it needed to be a great
manufacturing nation. The reality is that Ireland had not.
The next fallacy
was that of ‘Ireland for the Irish’. But in fact there were
more Irishmen working in England than there were Englishmen working in Ireland. And this did not include the British
colonies.
The next one was
the non-exportation fallacy which would prohibit the exportation of Irish
produce. This would result in a no-importation policy, which would result in
poorer goods at higher prices.
The last fallacy
he named was that acts of Parliament were a substitute for hard work, a point
the Sir Horace Plunkett later ceaselessly inculcated (Dublin Evening Post Oct 1847). (Sir Horace recounted the story of
the peasant who said there was no need to plant the crops, because next year Ireland would have her own Parliament)
It is not my purpose in this Foreword to analyse all
the arguments in detail but just to set out the reasons for a new look at the
traditional account of the Irish history of the period. So it is assumed that Ireland was reasonably well-governed, and that
there were always remedies available from Parliament..
A case could be made, and indeed was made even by Protestants, that a separate
Irish Parliament would be beneficial for dealing with specifically Irish
problems, but the reasons for this were never strong. It is obvious that the
mind must be cleared of ideas derived from nationalist propaganda that Ireland was a poor oppressed colony of Britain in which the impoverished Catholic
peasantry were ever on the brink of rebellion against foreign rule and only
kept subdued by coercion Acts and a corrupt judiciary. Such a picture is a
total fantasy.
The plan of this book is simple and follows that of my
earlier book Ireland 1800-1850. The principle events of the day
as described in the newspapers are recounted. The chapters are based on the
various ministries, but as many of these were very short at times several were
grouped together. There were between 1850 and 1922 24 ministries under 13 different Prime Ministers. Gladstone was Prime Minister 4 times, Derby and Salisbury 3 times, and Russell, Palmerston and
Disraeli twice each, with Aberdeen, Rosebery,
Balfour, Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George, and Bonar Law serving
single terms. Asquith served for eight years, and Lloyd George for six years.
Disraeli’s first ministry, and Gladstone’s third ministry, lasted only a few months
each, but nevertheless there was a complete change in the cabinet and in the
Irish Government. In the Irish Government, the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief
Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General
changed with every change of ministry.
Immediately following the listing of the principal
officers I describe the principal pieces of legislation the particular ministry
brought in, or other episodes concerning the Government at large, for example,
a visit of the queen, or the effects of a particular war in which the whole
kingdom was involved. In the second part of each section I describe the
activities of individual or groups which affected the whole of Ireland. Certain topics have to be grouped together
for convenience sake, like describing shipbuilding and the linen industry in Belfast, and these have to be placed in one
section or another as appropriate. Some activities, like teaching developed
continuously over the whole period, and have to be returned to more than once. Political
activities are treated likewise, but not given priority over other activities
like industrial or cultural ones. This, I hope, will eliminate the great
imbalances and distortions of perspective that were formerly to be found in
Irish history books.
When the Government is referred to it is always the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Since 1171, the King of England had
recognised rights of oversight over the petty chiefs in Ireland. Adherents of some political creeds tried
to refer to it as the British Government with the implication that it was not
the legitimate Government of Ireland but a foreign government oppressing the
people of Ireland. (The term British Government, though technically inaccurate for
describing the Government of the United Kingdom, is commonly used. But
I have avoided it because of its misuse by political propagandists.) The term Irish Government refers to the
separate Irish Executive and judiciary. The central Government in London did exercise some powers directly in Ireland as it was entitled to do. These largely
concerned the budget, the armed forces, the Revenue Offices, and the Post
Office. In the annual budget money had to be set aside for services like the
police and primary education which in Ireland were charges on the Exchequer,
but in England on local authorities. There was no logical or consistent
division of powers, and it would seem that the Lord Lieutenant retained some
residual powers over the militia, for example. By the second half of the
nineteenth century, the Chief Secretary had secured some oversight over every
department and Board in the Irish Government, though there was no statutory
authority for this.
I have tried to describe Irish political movements in
the context of similar movements abroad. The militancy of the Irish
nationalists and of the Land League is best understood in the context of the
struggles of their blood brothers in Tammany Hall to control the political
patronage and corruption. Nevertheless, all influences from Continental Europe
at the time of Communist International cannot be entirely ruled out. In the
twentieth century, the terrorist campaigns for independence were no different
from similar contemporary campaigns across Europe. There was little direct influence either way but Ireland and Europe shared the same Zeitgeist.
The IRA, the Cheka in Russia, and the Gestapo in Germany must be weighed in the same balance. This
form of exposition may not be the most exciting, but it covers the ground in a
systematic and factual manner, and is better than the kind of history that was
taught to young Hitler.
[TOP]