Ireland Under Coercion (2nd ed.) (2 of 2) (1888) by William Henry Hurlbert

W >> William Henry Hurlbert >> Ireland Under Coercion (2nd ed.) (2 of 2) (1888)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

One thing at least is clear.

The two antagonistic principles which confront each other in Ireland
to-day are the principles of the Agrarian Revolution represented by Mr.
Davitt, and the principle of Authority, represented in the domain of
politics by the British Government, and in the domain of morals by the
Vatican. With one or the other of these principles the victory must
rest. If the Irish people of all classes who live in Ireland could be
polled to-day, it is likely enough that a decisive majority of them
would declare for the principle of Authority in the State and in the
Church, could that over-riding issue be made perfectly plain and
intelligible to them. But how is that possible? In what country of the
world, and in what age of the world, has it ever been possible to get
such an issue made perfectly plain and intelligible to any people?

In the domain of morals the principle of Authority, so far as concerns
Catholic Ireland, rests with a power which is not likely to waver or
give way. The Papal Decree has gone forth. Those who profess to accept
it will be compelled to obey it. Those who reject it, whatever their
place in the hierarchy of the Church may be, must sooner or later find
themselves where Dr. M'Glynn of New York now is. Catholic Ireland can
only continue to be Catholic on the condition of obedience, not formal
but real, not in matters indifferent, but in matters vital and
important, to the Head of the Catholic Church.

In the domain of politics the principle of Authority rests with an
Administration which is at the mercy of the intelligence or the
ignorance, the constancy or the fickleness, the weakness or the
strength, of constituencies in Great Britain, not necessarily familiar
with the facts of the situation in Ireland, not necessarily enlightened
as to the real interests either of Great Britain or of Ireland, nor even
necessarily awake, with Cardinal Manning, to the truth that upon the
future of Ireland hangs the future of the British Empire.

With two, three, four, or five years of a steady and cool administration
of the laws in Ireland, by an executive officer such as Mr. Balfour
seems to me to have shown himself to be--with a judicious abstinence of
the British Legislature from feverish and fussy legislation about
Ireland, with a prudent and persistent development of the material
resources of Ireland, and with a genuine co-operation of the people who
own land in Ireland with the people who wish to own land in Ireland, for
the readjustment of land-ownership, the principle of Authority in the
domain of politics may doubtless win in the conflict with the principle
of the Agrarian revolution.

But how many contingencies are here involved! Meanwhile the influences
which imperil in Ireland the principle of Authority, in the domains
alike of politics and of morals, are at work incessantly, to undermine
and deteriorate the character of the Irish people, to take the vigour
and the manhood out of them, to unfit them day by day, not only for good
citizenship in the British Empire or the United States, but for good
citizenship in any possible Ireland under any possible form of
government. To arrest these influences before they bring on in Ireland a
social crash, the effects of which must be felt far beyond the
boundaries of that country, is a matter of primary importance,
doubtless, to the British people. It is a matter, too, of hardly less
than primary importance to the people of my own country. Unfortunately
it does not rest with us to devise or to apply an efficient check to
these influences.

That rests with the people of Great Britain, so long as they insist that
Ireland shall remain an integral portion of the British dominions. I do
not see how they can acquit themselves of this responsibility, or escape
the consequences of evading it, solely by devising the most ingenious
machinery of local administration for Ireland, or the most liberal
schemes for fostering the material interests of the Irish people. Such
things, of course, must in due time be attended to. But the first duty
of a government is to govern; and I believe that Earl Grey has summed up
the situation in Ireland more concisely and more courageously than any
other British statesman in his outspoken declaration, that "in order to
avert the wreck of the nation, it is absolutely necessary that some
means or other should be found for securing to Ireland during the
present crisis a wiser and more stable administration of its affairs
than can be looked for under its existing institutions."

I have heard and read a good deal in the past of the "Three F's" thought
a panacea for Irish discontent. Three other F's seem to me quite as
important to the future of Irish content and public order. These are,
Fair Dealing towards Landlords as well as Tenants; Finality of Agrarian
Legislation at Westminster; and last and most essential of all, Fixity
of Executive Tenure.

The words I have just quoted of Earl Grey, show it to be the conviction
of the oldest living leader of English Liberalism that this last is the
vital point, the key of the situation. Let me bracket with his words,
and leave to the consideration of my readers, the following pregnant
passage from a letter written to me by an Irish correspondent who is as
devoted to Irish independence as is Earl Grey to imperial unity:--

"If the present Nationalist movement succeeds, it will have the effect
of putting the worst elements of the Irish nation in power, and keeping
them there irremoveably. We are to have an Executive at the mercy of a
House of Representatives, and the result will be a government, or series
of governments, as weak and vicious as those of France, with this
difference, that here all purifying changes such as seem imminent in
France will be absolutely prevented by the irresistible power of
England. The true model for us would be a constitution like yours in the
United States, with an Executive responsible to the nation at large, and
irremoveable for a term of years. But this we shall never get from
England. Shall we make use of Home Rule to take it for ourselves?

"Many earnest and active Irish Unionists now say that if any bill
resembling Mr. Gladstone's passes, they will make separation, their
definite policy. If Home Rule comes without the landlords having been
bought out on reasonable terms, a class will be created in Ireland full
of bitter and most just hatred of England--a class which may very likely
one day play the part here which the persecuted Irish Presbyterians who
fled from the tyranny of the English Church in Ireland played in your
own Revolution beyond the Atlantic."

APPENDIX.

NOTE F.

THE "MOONLIGHTERS" AND "HOME RULE."

(Vol. ii. p. 38.)

On Monday, the 1st of February 1886, the _Irish Times_ published the
following story from Tralee, near the scene of the "boycotting,"
temporal and spiritual, of the unfortunate daughters of Mr. Jeremiah
Curtin, murdered in his own house by "moonlighters":--

"TRALEE, _Sunday_.

"It was stated that the bishop had ordered Mass to be celebrated
for them--the Curtins--but this did not take place. At the village
of Firies a number of people had assembled. They stopped loitering
about the place in the forenoon, waiting for a meeting of the
National League, which was subsequently held. A threatening notice
was discovered posted up on the door of a house formerly used as a
forge. It ran as follows:--

"'NOTICE.--If we are honoured by the presence of the bloodthirsty
perjurers at Mass on any of the forthcoming Sundays, take good care
you'll stand up very politely and walk out. Don't be under the
impression that all the Moonlighters are dead, and that this notice
is a child's play, as Shawn Nelleen titled the last one. I'll be
sure to keep my word, as you will see before long, so have no
welcome for the Curtins, and, above all, let no one work for them
in any way. As you respect the Captain, and as you value your own
life, abide by this notice.'--Signed, 'A MOONLIGHTER.'

"The above notice was written on tea paper in large legible style,
and evidently by an intelligent person. Groups were perusing it
during the day. A force of police marched through the village and
back, but did not observe this document, as it is still posted on
the door of the house."

The "bloodthirsty perjurers" here mentioned were the daughters who had
dared to demand and to promote the punishment of the assassins of their
father! For this crime these daughters were to be excommunicated by the
people of Firies, and denied the consolations of religion in their deep
sorrow, even in defiance of the order of the Catholic bishop.

As the advent of Mr. Gladstone to power in alliance with Mr. Parnell was
then imminent, Mr. Sheehan, M.P., wrote a letter to the parish priest of
Firies, the Rev. Mr. O'Connor, begging him in substance to put the
brakes--for a time--upon the wheels of the local rack, lest the outcries
of the young women subjected to this moral torture should interfere with
the success of the new alliance. This, in plain English, is the only
possible meaning of the letter which I here reprint from a leaflet
issued by an Irish society:--

"The Rev. Father O'Connor, P.P., has received the following letter
from Mr. Sheehau, M.P., in reference to this matter, under date

"'House of Commons, _January 26th._

"'REV. DEAR SIR,--At this important juncture in our history, I am
sorry to see reports of the Firies display. Nothing that has taken
place yet in the South of Ireland has done so much harm to the
National cause. If they persist they will ruin us. To-morrow
evening will be most important in Parliamentary history. Our party
expect the defeat of the Government and resumption of power by Mr.
Gladstone. If we succeed in this, which we are confident of, the
future of our country will be great, and, although an appeal to the
constituencies must be made, the Irish party in those few days have
made an impression in future that no Government can withstand. The
Salisbury Government want to appeal to the country on the integrity
of the empire, and, of course, for the last few days have tried all
means to lead to this by raking up the Curtin case and all judicial
cases, which _must be avoided for a short time_, as our stoppage to
the Eviction Act will cover all this.--Yours faithfully, J.D.
SHEEHAN.'"

This letter was read, the leaflet informs us, by the Rev. Mr. O'Connor,
at the National Schools and other places.

NOTE G.

THE PONSONBY PROPERTY.

(Vol. ii. pp. 59-66.)

The account which the Rev. Canon Keller gave me of "The Struggle for
Life on the Ponsonby Estate," in a tract bearing that title, and
authorised by him to be published by the National League, is so
circumstantial and elaborate that, after reading it carefully, I took
unusual pains to obtain some reply to it from the representatives of the
landlord implicated. These finally led to a visit from Mr. Ponsonby
himself, who was so kind as to call upon me in London on the 15th of
May, with papers and documents. I give in the following colloquy the
results of this interview, putting together with the allegations of
Canon Keller the answers of Mr. Ponsonby, and leave the matter in this
form to the judgment of my readers.

_Q_. Canon Keller, I see, describes you, Mr. Ponsonby, as "a retired
navy officer, and an absentee Irish landlord." He says your estate is
now "universally known as the famous Ponsonby Estate," and that it is
occupied "by from 300 to 400 tenants, holding farms varying in extent
from an acre and a half to over two hundred acres." Are these statements
correct?

_A_. I am a retired navy officer certainly, and perhaps I may be called
an "absentee Irish landlord." I lived on my property for some time, and
I have always attended to it. I succeeded to the estate in 1868, and
almost my first act was to borrow L2000 of the Board of Works for
drainage purposes--the tenants agreeing to pay half the interest. As a
matter of fact some never paid at all, and I afterwards wiped out the
claims against them. There are about 300 tenants on the property, and
the average holdings are of about 36 acres, at an average rental of L30
a holding. There are, however, not a few large farms.

_Q_. Canon Keller says that "in the memory of living witnesses, and far
beyond it, the Ponsonby tenants have been notoriously rack-rented and
oppressed"; and that they have been committed to the "tender mercies of
agents, seeing little or nothing of their landlord, and experiencing no
practical sympathy from that quarter." How is this?

_A_. I wish to believe Canon Keller truthful when he knows the truth. He
certainly does not know the truth here. He is a newcomer at Youghal,
having come there in November 1885, and hardly so much of an authority
about "the memory of living witnesses and far beyond it" as the tenants
on the estate, who, when I went there first with my wife, presented to
me, May 25, 1868, an address of welcome, referring in very different
terms to the history of the estate and of my family connection with it.
Here is the original address, and a copy of it--the latter being quite
at your service.

This original address is very handsomely engrossed, and is signed by
fifty tenants. Among the names I observed those of Martin Loughlin,
Peter McDonough, Michael Gould, William Forrest, and John Heaphey, all
of whom are cited by Canon Keller in his tract as conspicuous victims of
the oppression and rack-renting which he says have prevailed upon the
Ponsonby estates time out of mind. It was rather surprising, therefore,
to find them joining with more than forty other tenants to sign an
address, of which I here print the text:--

To C.W. TALBOT PONSONBY, Esq.

Honoured Sir,--The Tenantry of your Estates near Youghal have heard
with extreme pleasure of the arrival of yourself and lady in the
neighbourhood, and have deputed us to address you on their behalf.

Through us they bid you and Mrs. Ponsonby welcome, and respectfully
congratulate you on your accession to the Estates.

The name of Ponsonby is traditionally revered in this part of the
country, being associated in the recollections and impressions of
the people with all that is exalted, honourable, and generous. It
has been matter of regret that the heads of the family have not
(probably from uncontrollable causes) visited these Estates for
many years, but the tenantry have never wavered in their sentiments
of respect towards them.

We will not disguise from you the conviction generally entertained
that the improvement of landed property, and the condition of its
occupiers, is best promoted under the personal observation and
supervision of the proprietor, and your tenantry on that account
hail with satisfaction the promise your presence affords of future
intercourse between you and them.

Again, on the part of your Tenants and all connected with your
Estates, tendering you and your lady a most hearty welcome, and
sincerely wishing you and her a long and happy career--We subscribe
ourselves, Honoured Sir, Respectfully yours,

YOUGHAL, _May_ 1868.

_Q_. Did Canon Keller ever see this address, may I ask, Mr. Ponsonby?

_A_. I believe not; and I may as well say at once that I suppose he has
taken for gospel all the stories which any of the tenants under the
terrorism which has been established on the place think it best to pour
into his listening ear. As I have said, he is quite a new man at
Youghal, and when he first came there he was a quiet and not at all
revolutionary priest. You saw him, and saw how good his manners are, and
that he is a well-educated man. But on Sunday, November 7, 1886, a great
meeting was held at Youghal. It was a queer meeting for a Sunday, being
openly a political meeting, with banners and bands, to hear speeches
from Mr. Lane, M.P., Mr. Flynn, M.P., and others. The Rev. Mr. Keller
presided, and a priest from America, Father Hayes of Georgetown, Iowa,
in the United States, was present. It was ostensibly a Home Rule
meeting, but the burden of the speeches was agrarian. Mr. Lane, M.P.,
made a bitter personal attack on another Nationalist member, Sir Joseph
M'Kenna of Killeagh, calling him a "heartless and inhuman landlord;" and
my property was also attended to by Mr. Lane, who advised my tenants
openly not to accept my offer of 20 per cent. reduction, but to demand
40 per cent. Father Hayes in his speech bade "every man stand to his
guns," and wound up by declaring that if England and the landlords
behaved in America as they behaved in Ireland, the Americans "would pelt
them not only with dynamite, but with the lightnings of Heaven and the
fires of hell, till every British bull-dog, whelp, and cur would be
pulverised and made top-dressing for the soil." Canon Keller afterwards
expressed disapproval of this speech of Hayes, and this coming to the
knowledge of Hayes in America, Hayes denounced Keller for not daring to
do this at the time in his presence. Since then Canon Keller has been
much more violent in tone.

_Q_. I don't want to carry you through a long examination, Mr. Ponsonby,
but I see typical cases here, about which I should like to ask a
question or two. Here, is Callaghan Flavin, for instance, described by
Canon Keller as one of eight tenants who "had to retreat before the
crowbar brigade," and who "deserved a better fate." Canon Keller says he
is assured by a competent judge that Flavin's improvements, "full value
for L341, 10s.," are now "the landlord's property." What are the facts
about Mr. Flavin?

_A_. Mr. Flavin's farm was held by his cousin, Ellen Flavin of Gilmore,
who, on the 7th of February 1872, surrendered it to the landlord on
receiving from me a sum of L172, 10s. 6d. I obtained a charging order
under section 27 of the Land Act, entitling me to an annuity of L8, 12s.
6d. for thirty-five years from July 3, 1872. It was let to Callaghan
Flavin in preference to other applicants, July 3, 1872; and in 1873, at
his request, I obtained a loan from the Board of Works for the thorough
draining of a portion of the farm. Thirteen acres were drained at a cost
of L84, 6s. 3d., for which the tenant promised to pay 5 per cent.
interest, which I eventually forgave him. There was no house on the
farm. He took it without one, and I did not want one there. He built a
house himself without consulting my agent, and then wanted me to make
him an allowance for it. I told him he had thirty-one years to enjoy it
in, and must be content with that. About the same time he took another
farm of mine at a rent of L35. Since I came into my property in 1868 I
have laid out upon it in drainage, buildings, and planting--here are the
accounts, which you may look at--over L15,000, including about L8000 of
loans from the Board of Works. In the drainage the tenants got work for
which they were paid. I gave them slates for the buildings, with timber
and stone from the estate, and they supplied the labour. There is no
case in which the outlays for improvements came from the tenants--not a
single one. I repeat it, Canon Keller's tract is a tissue of fictions.

What nonsense it is to talk about the "traditional rack-renting" of a
property held by the Ponsonbys for two hundred years, the tenants on
which could welcome me when I came into it with the language of the
address you have here seen!

I never evicted tenants for less than three years' arrears, till what
Canon Keller calls the "crowbar brigade," by which he means the officers
of the law, had to be put into action to meet the "Plan of Campaign" in
May last. I did not proceed against the tenants because they could not
pay. I selected the tenants who could pay, and who were led, or, I
believe in most cases, "coerced," into refusing to pay by agitators with
Mr. Lane, M.P., to inspire them, and Canon Keller, P.P., to glorify them
in a tract.

_Q_. What were your personal relations with the tenants when you were at
Inchiquin?

_A_. Always most friendly; and even the other day when I was there,
while none of them would speak to me when they were all together, those
I met individually touched their hats, and were as civil as ever. I
believe they would all be thankful to have things as they were, and I
have never refused to meet and treat with them on fair individual terms.

In November 1885 my offer of an abatement of 15 per cent. being refused,
a few tenants, I believe, clubbed their rents, and for the sake of peace
I then offered 20 per cent., which they accepted and paid. In October
1886 I hoped to prevent trouble by making the same offer of 20 per cent.
abatement on non-judicial and 10 per cent. on judicial rents. One man
took the latter abatement and paid. Then another tenant demanded 40 per
cent. My agent said he would give them time, and also take money on
account, the effect of which would be to put me out of court, and
prevent my getting an order of ejectment if I wanted to for the balance.
I thought this fair, and approved it, but I refused to make a 40 per
cent. all-round abatement, authorising my agent, however, to make what
abatements he liked in special cases. My words were, "I don't limit you
on the amount of abatement you give, or as to the number of tenants you
may choose so to treat." If this was not a fair free hand, what would
be? My agent afterwards told me he had no chance to make this known. The
fact is they meant to force the Plan on the tenants and me, and to
prevent any settlement but a "victory for the League!"

In my original notes of my conversation with Father Keller at Youghal, I
found the name of one tenant whom he introduced to me, and who certainly
told me that his holdings amounted to some L300 a year, and that they
had been in his family for "two hundred years," set down as Doyle--I so
printed it with the statements made. But Father Keller, to whom I
submitted my proofs, and who was so good as to revise them, struck out
the name of Doyle, and inserted that of Loughlin, putting the rental
down at L94 (vol. ii. p. 71). Of course I accept this correction. But on
my mentioning the matter to Mr. Ponsonby by letter, he replies to me
(July 27th) as follows:--

"Maurice Doyle is a son of Richard Doyle, who died in 1876, leaving
his widow to carry on his farm of 74 acres 1 rood, in the townland
of Ballykitty, which he held in 1858 at a rental of L50, 11s. In
1868 this was reduced to L48, 11s. In September 1871 he took in
addition a farm of 159 acres 2 roods at L130, in Burgen and
Ballykitty. He afterwards got a lease for thirty-one years of this
larger farm, with a portion of his earlier holding, for L155. This
left him to pay L21, 11s. for the residue of the earlier holding as
in 1858. But at his request, in 1876, the year of his death, I
reduced this to L17.

"In March 1879, by the death of Mr. Henry Hall, in whose family it
had been for certainly a century, the Inchiquin farm of 213 acres,
valued at L258, 10s., came on my hands. This farm was valued in
1873 by one valuer at L384, 10s., and by another at L390, 10s. In
an old lease I find that this farm was let at L3 an acre. Mr. Henry
Hall to the day of his death held it at L306, 7s. 6d., under a
lease which I made a lease for life. For this farm Mrs. Richard
Doyle applied, agreeing to take it on a 31 years' lease, at L370 a
year. I let it to her, and she became the lease-holder, putting in
her son Maurice Doyle to take charge of it, though not as the
tenant. He was an active Land Leaguer from the moment he got into
the place, and in 1886 he was a leader in promoting the Plan of
Campaign. Proceedings had to be taken against his mother in order
to eject him, as she was the tenant, not he. I objected to this,
for I always have had the greatest regard for her. Had she been let
alone she would have paid her rent as she had always done. But Mr.
Lane and his allies saw it would never do to let Maurice Doyle
retain his place on his mother's holding. All this will show you
that Maurice Doyle did not inherit the Inchiquin farm. The only
inherited holding of his mother is the farm of 74 acres 1 rood in
the townland of Ballykitty, held by his father in 1858. I have no
doubt you saw Doyle at Youghal, by the description you gave me, and
you remembered his name at once. He was a thickset heavy-looking
man, florid, with a military moustache, the last time I saw him.
His mother is one of the 'rack-rented' tenants you hear of, having
been able in ten years to increase her acreage from 74 acres to 376
acres, and her rental from L48, 11s. to L542!"

As to the general effect of all this business upon the tenants, and upon
himself, Mr. Ponsonby spoke most feelingly. "The tenants are ruined
where they might have been thriving. My means of being useful to them or
to myself are taken away. My charges, though, all remain. I have to pay
tithes for Protestant Church service, of which I can't have the benefit,
the churches being closed; and the other day I had a notice that any
property I had in England would be held liable for quit-rents to the
Crown on my property in Ireland, of which the Government denies me
practically any control or use!"

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20