Critiques of government in
Ireland since the Union weren't exclusive to Irish Repealers. On the "State of
Ireland" debate in the House of Lords, (23rd March, 1846 - a few months after
the first potato blight) Earl Grey, son of the Reform PM, Charles Grey, rose to
give the following explosive volley. He was appointed Colonial Secretary by
Russell in the same year and his initial philosophy at least was to accord the
colonies as much self-government as possible as well as attempting to reform the
tariff and taxation regimes in such a way as they worked in the interest of the
colonies themselves as opposed to the mother country to which they were tied. He
seems ultimately to have had a chequered record in this regard suppressing
revolts in Ceylon, the West Indies, dismantling the New Zealand constitution and
so on .. but on the face of it he certainly appears to have been an earnest
reformer. Based at least on the evidence of the following :-
These are just selected extracts from a tirade
that continued for what must have been a couple of hours in like vein.
For the full speech see -
STATE OF IRELAND. (Hansard, 23 March 1846)
Henry Grey, 3rd Earl Grey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar themes as touched upon by Earl Grey are explored by socialist UCD lecturer Kieran Allen in an article doubling as a lambast on political rivals the Worker's Party but the part which concerns us is the section I've highlighted in bold which draws attention to the pre-Union manipulation of the Irish economy by the imperial parliament in Westminster -
The Workers Party’s attack on the Irish bourgeoisie is entirely a moral one. It provides no explanation as to why the Irish bourgeoisie might be so lazy nor why they “refused” to build a manufacturing base like every other capitalist class in Europe. We are left with the idea that they were lazy because they were Catholic. This explanation leaves Britain out of the history of Irish underdevelopment and is patently one-sided.
In fact the relationship with the British empire is one of the central factors explaining the underdevelopment of Ireland ....
Kieran Allen: Is southern Ireland a
neo-colony? (1. Why is southern Ireland underdeveloped?)
As can be seen the vast bulk of the article is concerned with demonstrating how Britain "underdeveloped Ireland" beginning with the Wool Acts of the late 17th c. and the 'mercantilist' trade restricting policies of the 18th c. (limiting Irish exports to the colonies when they competed with British exporters) This was an economic grievance (though he doesn't mention it) which gave rise to Protestant ascendency-led "Colonial nationalism" under Grattan which demanded a fully autonomous Dublin Parliament.
This native revolutionary strain coalesced with the burgeoning United Irish movement and the whole was quashed in 1798 ushering in the Act of Union which he further attacks on at least four grounds for stagnating Irish development; (1) comparatively higher taxation via a disproportionate share of the accumulated war debt with Napoleonic France (2) the reduction of tariffs for imported goods from industrialising mainland Britain which eventually crippled the native textile sector (3) direct remittance of rental to absentee landlords and (4) the re-orientation of the Irish economy to service the consumption needs of a rapidly industrialising Britain ensuring that it remained at base a largely undifferentiated agricultural zone.
He concludes as follows:-
While overall its not the greatest article
I've ever read, as a short summary of some of the economic problems faced by
pre-famine Ireland specifically as a consequence of the Union it certainly
serves its purpose. It may be added that the every day political consequences of
being tied to the Union and being denied a domestic parliament were every bit as
damaging; the nature of land tenure & the absence of tenant right, the
proliferation of small-holdings were incessantly long-fingered; municipal reform
proceeded at a snail's space; representation was grossly inadequate with
Catholics only achieving the right to sit in Parliament in 1829; 40 shilling
freeholders were disenfranchised wiping out probably 80% of the Irish
electorate; the issue of enforced taxation to uphold a minority Anglican Church
culminating in the Tithe War of the 30's; the continual frustrations of the
Repeal
movement - all of these grievances led to much disillusionment and much hardship.
Emigration rose spectacularly during this period (1800-45) as did agrarian crime with varied combinations of Whiteboys; Ribbonmen, Rockites, Terry Alts etc .. the very disturbances of which initiated by the deteriorating conditions of the countryside (demanding as they did fair rent, free sale and compensation for improvements) all of which actually deterred potential capital investment.
But such was the political importance of the Wool Act (mentioned above by Allen) in the context of what later transpired that I've no option but to flesh out its ramifications in some detail at least.
There had been restrictions imposed on the export of Irish livestock earlier in the century but despite fears this transpired to be a once-off anomaly - for now - so the Wool Act was significant not so much on account of its direct economic impact (which ranges from 'negligible' to 'catastrophic' depending on who you read) but rather that it presaged the long-feared further meddling by the English Parliament in all aspects of the Irish economy.
Basically it entailed a stand-off between English investors, manufacturers & large landholders who had sectoral interests to protect, didn't want competition from exported Irish produce and had sufficient clout in the English Parliament to influence the passing of restrictive legislation via subsidy withdrawal or export tariffs. A nascent & promising glass industry in Ireland was demolished at birth after this fashion for instance but the Irish Protestant ascendency had strong lobbying powers itself at Westminster and so it wasn't all one way traffic.
Grievances came to a head in the early 1780's, when, under the influence of the colonial revolt in America (why not us too? haven't we the same grievances? ... etc), the Irish Volunteers, a largely Protestant militia, who had been mobilised as a defensive force to ward off a potential French invasion, instead allied themselves with 'free trade' radical members of the Dublin Whig party led by Henry Grattan and in effect staged a successful coup d'état - pressing home the advantage of a distracted imperial power fighting a dual war with France and Washington's armies to achieve their goals of economic self-governance, amelioration of some of the Penal Laws (an alliance had been earlier struck with the lobbying Catholic Committee to give the movement extra clout) and the elimination the notorious jobbery and corruption in the Irish executive.
This though was risky brinkmanship and the much feted suspension of Poyning's (the Act which subordinated the Dublin Parliament to Westminster) never became absolute with Pitt still controlling key appointments of the Dublin governing executive - essentially, in other words, the famed 'independent' "Grattan's Parliament" that had been won in 1782 - was little more than a mirage.
As soon as the trans-Atlantic colonial war was over Westminster quickly worked on re-consolidating its power ushering in the second phase of the struggle which this time was influenced by the far more vigorous and distinctively republican principles of revolutionary France. The separatist Protestant Dublin Whigs which wanted political autonomy but yet remain within the Empire (i.e. to retain the connection with the Crown) now dabbled with alliances with both reformist Catholics demanding full relief of the Penal Laws and Dublin and Belfast-based Protestant, Catholic and Presbyterian United Irishmen who, in the event of Westminster not granting the full package of statute reforms, threatened to rise in revolt - which of course they eventually did, were summarily crushed and their leaders scattered to the four corners.
But all of this emerged primarily with the economic grievances of the Protestant "Colonial Nationals" (i.e. the Ascendency) - with the continual interference by Westminster in imposing tariff and trade restrictions on what was largely their capital - it was only when in order to gain extra leverage in their dealings with the British government by momentarily allying with both Catholics lobbying for emancipation and Presbyterians seeking full civil and political privileges that the full extent of the revolutionary hive which the Dublin Parliament had become, became apparent, and so, the only expedient course was to shift the lot, dissolve it, reconstitute it - ship it lock, stock and barrel across the seas and under its nose where it could better monitor and control it - and so, amid record-breaking bribes and inducements Irish MP's voted their native parliament out of existence & were now dispatched overseas to represent their constituencies where their minority status could safely assure their quiescence.
Thus ended the saga which arguably commenced in force with the Wool Act for it inspired William Molyneaux's The Case of Ireland Being Bound by Acts of the English Parliament, (publ.1698) which was written during the debates on that legislation and though it did not prevent the Act being passed it became a touchstone document for later reformers of Grattan's generation who happily rehearsed its arguments ad infinitum (as indeed did a young Thomas Jefferson)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false
Grattan, Flood et al. had a labyrinthine knowledge of all acts and statutes pertaining to the Crown's connection and jurisdiction over Irish affairs - again, with the principle bone of contention being the restrictions on trade and industry - and Molyneaux was in effect their lodestar. The most widely cited contemporary indictment of these restrictions came from the pen of John Hely-Hutchison who anonymously published Commercial Restraints in 1779:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_He...son_(statesman)
The Commercial Restraints Of
Ireland, by John Hely Hutchinson—A Project Gutenberg eBook
This is why the question of de-industrialising is continually brought up (or should be!) in the context of famine studies as the burden of agrarian sub-division wasn't being soaked up by cottage industries (textiles) or a tertiary processing sector. This weakness was possible to over-ride up until 1815 when buoyant grain prices caused by the Napoleonic War sustained a strong Irish agricultural sector but once the prices drop amid constant rental prices, rise of population in the cottier, conacre and labouring classes, and the absence of tenant security, you now have the conditions for a "perfect storm" - already in 1820.
One of the focuses among famine specialists should be upon the failures of the administration to address the issue of the pressing land problem in the decades preceding the famine bearing in mind that an increasing proportion of the population were dependent on a solitary food item which was given to successive (non-blight related) failures - thus the (increasing) vulnerability of the small-holding farmers and their actual (well-documented) precarious hold on life even before phytophtora infestans arrived. The potato, though it had a good reputation as a solid reliable food source was not indestructible - Peel himself oversaw the effects of a partial failure in the West in 1816-17 followed by another far more serious in 1822; all of which should have prompted action on land reform years before the Devon Commission inquiry of 1844.
'Industrialisation' or simply 'development', however you define them (which is in itself part of the problem as ideological differences as to what this entails announce themselves immediately) is a complex multi-variable issue which in Ireland's case clearly doesn't hinge merely on the possession of coal and iron deposits - its related to creating the conditions for capital investment, the development of a tertiary processing sector, nurturing of domestic cottage industries and overall, primarily with finding satisfactory employment for the huge swathes of landless labourers and struggling cottier households who happened to starve each year whether there was a famine or not - while yet balancing the pressing indigenous claims of tenant right, i.e. finding a solution which didn't entail forced emigration schemes, mass evictions or punitive workhouse corrective "regimes", accentuated in the Irish case by long-standing garbled notions of native indolence.
The notorious "Whiteboy Problem" of the post-Union decades and the successive Coercion Acts which it spawned are a by-product of deteriorating rural conditions themselves directly related to monopolistic industrial policies carried out throughout the 18th century, as laboriously illustrated by Hely-Hutchinson and the combat of which underpinned the life's work of Protestant Patriots such as Grattan and Flood.
Essentially, the agrarian agitation groups can be likened to rural trade unions which enforced the Irish peasantry's conception of land use rights over and above that of the law of the Crown which was upheld by the local magistrate; himself often a landlord. Some avoid the term, but peasantry may be defined as holders of tenancies or (sub-tenancies) of 30 acres or less and its within this class where you'll find the ringleaders and recruits of the 'Whiteboy' movements. The terms themselves are a little misleading as both 'Whiteboyism' and 'Ribbonism' are used by the policing authorities as generic labels attached to the committal of all 'agrarian outrages' from the turn of the 18th century. Properly speaking, Whiteboyism should refer specifically to outbreaks of rural unrest focused on tenant grievances in the midlands and Munster in 1761-62 and from 1765 (sporadically) up until 1798, whereas Ribbonism evolved from the (mainly) Catholic, agrarian-based Defenderism which sprang up as a product of sectarian clashes in Armagh (from 1785-1798).
While Whiteboyism is fine as a generic to describe all agrarian unrest from 1800-1850, "Ribbonism" is unsatisfactory as it evolved from its original agrarian sectarian context to become an urban-based artisan trade unionist type movement often carrying within its tow disaffected former United Irish republicans who kept a respectable (and respectful) distance from the Catholic Emancipation type politics of the O' Connelite movement of the 1815-183 era. Ribbonism may be described then as more nationally aware politically than the traditional agrarian movements and diverged from O' Connellism (in its local objectives but not nationally as regards Repeal). As said, both Ribbonism and Whiteboyism were now used almost interchangeably by the authorities to describe all forms of rural unrest.
Now as to the rural agitation in the pre-famine period (1800-45) each outbreak had its own distinctive goals, characteristics and geographical location but ultimately all centred on one or other of the perennial land grievances; land-jobbing (when an evicted family's plot was settled by 'outsiders'), rack-renting (when the landlord, middleman, or over-tenant raised the rent), simple eviction, non-compensation for improvements or payment of tithes to the Anglican Church. The Threshers (1806-7) emerged in Leitrim, Longford, Mayo and Sligo. The Shanavests and Caravats (1809-11) in Tipperary, Limerick, Kilkenny and Waterford.
The Carders (1813-16) all over the Midlands and Munster and what were termed 'the Ribbonmen' in Connaught and Westmeath (1819-20). The Rockites (1819-23) were exclusive to Munster and the Midlands, the Whitefeet (1830-34) to Kilkenny and Queen's County (in the so-called Tithe War) and the Terry Alts during the same period (1830-34)encompassed Clare, Tipperary, King's County, Westmeath and Limerick only to revive again in 1836 and stay active till at least 1848. Finally, we had the Molly Maguire outbreaks in 1844-47 which centred around Leitrim, Longford and Roscommon - added to which there were perhaps dozens of localised struggles which were too small or sporadic to warrant any label at all other than that of a general outbreak of 'Whiteboyism'.
For each of these movements anywhere between a dozen and a few hundred men could be mobilised for a nightly operation which was nakedly terroristic in intent - cattle could be 'houghed' (i.e. have their tendons severed), horses have their ears chopped, dogs hung etc.. but mainly the intent was to instil terror in the victim to reverse whatever decision that so aggrieved the Whiteboys (rack-renting, jobbing, tithes, evictions etc). It was a secret oath bound association which drew wide support from the surrounding peasantry using rituals and dress-codes which corresponded to many key events in Gaelic cultural consciousness; the straw attire of the May wren-boys were used and names like Queen Sibh evoked. O' Connell and the Repeal movement consistently denounced all such actions as did the Catholic Church but despite this leaders and suspected members were looked after and protected by the wider community - for example, if on conviction someone was transported or hung their family would be cared for via a pooled fund. In one instance, The Poor Inquiry Commissioners (1834) once asked a Tipperary peasant what feelings he would have for the family of a man hanged for 'beating a man to death' to which he replied;
Obviously, there are other things
to touch on here as to why particularly these "outrages" escalated to the extent
they did in the period 1815-45. The principle reason was the downward pressure
exerted on the bottom rung inhabitants of the pyramidal land structure; i.e.
those with holding of 1-30 acres (but especially the 1-15 acre category).
First, the post-Napoleonic collapse in grain prices (some 30%) which was the constant rent currency of the small-holders and which wasn't ameliorated by corresponding reductions by landlords, middlemen or over-tenants.
Secondly, the perceived need by large farmers (30 acres plus) to switch from a deteriorating grain market to a more buoyant sector of pig, poultry and cattle export taking advantage of newly introduced steam shipping which kept livestock in far better condition after the cross-channel journey - which entailed abandoning tillage (labour intensive) for pasture. This also meant estate clearances for the wide open spaces required and its at this point (c. 1820 onwards) that we see a significant upsurge both in emigration and evictions.
Third, the absence of any direct government intervention in the escalating problems centred around the enhanced premium required to pay for ever smaller allotments of land. A large under-tenant or middle-man may have the lease of 5,000 acres; sub-let the lot to a hundred tenants at a profitable price who would all be classed as large farmers (non-peasantry) and these farmers in turn would sub-let to a subsidiary strata of peasants (again at a net profit) and so on down the line until you have a hundred thousand desperate souls renting conacre (quarter of an acre) at a price multiple times the land's actual valuation. The only thing on earth that could grow on such a small patch of land and sustain a family of five was the potato - answering as it did all the base nutritional requirements.
Finally, and what possibly constitutes the greatest scandal, sporadic potato failures which were always a feature of rural life initiated a switch to the more reliable "lumper" variety after the 1822 partial famine; a large watery spud resistant to inclement weather and formerly used as pig feed - this is merely an index of desperation and fear of actual starvation in my view.
There were actually dozens of potatoes varieties each with their own characteristics and the fluctuating fortunes of these from the 17th c. onwards tells its own story - particularly the scandal of eventual dependence on the 'Lumper' (the cheapest and nutritionally worst of the lot), increasingly seen from 1820 onwards among the "lower orders". The best source for the role of the potato is Austin Bourke's "The Visitation of God: The Potato and the Great Irish Famine" which is a compilation of Bourke's essays on the subject over a long career by Cormac O' Grada.
Bourke identifies four main varieties which predominated in different periods; (1) the 'Black' from around 1700 which was immediately regarded as a superior variety and remained in wide usage for over a hundred years. Its main advantage over the varieties it supplanted was that it kept longer which was of huge importance when we consider the planting cycle. Seeds would be sown in April/May and about a sixth of the crop pulled up in early August with "the people's crop" harvested in October. This meant potatoes had to be kept for 6-8 months as the principle source of food; if it was perishable, as many varieties were, the 'hungry months' could begin as early as March/April. In the decades before the famine June/July were always the periods of greatest distress.
Formerly, the practice had been to keep the potatoes in the ground and pull them out as required but after the Great Frost of 1741 which destroyed much of the crop by rendering them irretrievable the practise had been to keep them in storage in specially dug pits or mounted inside the cabins themselves. During this period the potato had yet to become the main staple (oatmeal still predominated) but by about 1770 the potato was firmly established as the main food source gaining increasing importance as each decade went by. (2) Next came the "Apple", 'the aristocrat among potatoes', which flourished from about 1750, likewise on account of its staying power, taste, nutritional qualities and high yield; "a richly flavoured mealy potato - a little loaf in fact", as one observer called it.
The yield of the Apple degenerated over time rendering it uneconomical for small-holders but it retained its other appealing qualities which meant it increasingly became the reserve of the well to do. (3) The "Cup" (also known as the 'Minion') next came to the fore from about 1800 to 1820 and though it didn't have the longevity of either the Black or the Apple, "according to the poor folk, it stayed longer in the belly". (4) Finally, came the reign of the notorious 'Lumper' described early on by the agriculturalist Dutton (1808) as;
Two lines of a satire after the collapse of grain prices after "Bonie went down" and dating from 1815 went as follows;
This was of course
an exaggeration as the class of farmer now forced to eat the Lumper were the
peasantry and especially the small cottier and conacre holders (i.e. the vast
bulk of the population who now depended almost exclusively on the potato - that
is to say, some four and a half million). And this is directly related to the
pressures on the land outlined above in the discussion of the Whiteboys and
related to the struggle to squeeze out every drop of productivity that could be
had from ever-decreasing land allotments and poorer quality soils as when
hillsides and mountains were now being desperately colonised;
from R.McKay, An Anthology of the Potato
(Dublin, 1961), pg.24.
Davidson in "History of Potato Varieties" tells us that;
While the contemporary Drummond Report observed;
The differential quality can be also be observed in the market price quoted per cwt in Dublin in June 1845 (before the blight) -
Apples - 2s 6d - 3s
Cups - 1s 10d - 2s 2d
Lumpers - 1s 4d - 1s 6d
Bourke wrote;
Simple words, bearing a loaded charge
within.
Quote:
The
noble Earl opposite, in bringing forward on behalf of Her Majesty's Government
the different measures that have been proposed with respect to Ireland, has
disclosed to us a state of society which it is indeed awful to contemplate; a
state of society in which there is no security for life or property; a state of
society in which the usual wretchedness of the population has been so aggravated
by the partial failure of the potato crop, that famine and pestilence must stalk
through the land, unless those measures which Parliament has adopted to
counteract those evils should fortunately arrest their progress.
This is the state of things described by Her Majesty's Government; and unhappily this is no accidental, no extraordinary, no unlooked-for calamity. It is but an aggravation, and perhaps no very great aggravation, of the habitual condition of Ireland. The evils of that unhappy country are not accidental, not temporary, but chronic and habitual. The state of Ireland is one which is notorious. We know the ordinary condition of that country to be one both of lawlessness and wretchedness. It is so described by every competent authority. There is not an intelligent foreigner coming to our shores, who turns his attention to the state of Ireland, but who bears back with him such a description. Ireland is the one weak place in the solid fabric of British power—Ireland is the one deep (I had almost said ineffaceable) blot upon the brightness of British honour. Ireland is our disgrace. It is the reproach, the standing disgrace, of this country, that Ireland remains in the condition she is. It is so regarded throughout the whole civilized world. To ourselves we may palliate it if we will, and disguise the truth; but we cannot conceal it from others.
There is not, as I have said, a foreigner—no matter whence he comes, be it from France, Russia, Germany, or America—there is no native of any foreign country different as their forms of government may be, who visits Ireland, and who on his return does not congratulate himself that he sees nothing comparable with the condition of that country at home. If such be the state of things, how then does it arise, and what is its cause? My Lords, it is only by misgovernment that such evils could have been produced: the mere fact that Ireland is in so deplorable and wretched a condition saves whole volumes of argument, and is of itself a complete and irrefutable proof of the misgovernment to which she has been subjected. Nor can we lay to our souls the "flattering unction" that this misgovernment was only of ancient date, and has not been our doing. It is not enough in our own excuse to say, "No wonder this state of things exists: the Government of Ireland before the Union was the most ingeniously bad that was ever contrived in the face of the world; it was the Government of a corrupt minority, sustained by the superior power of this great country in oppressing and tyrannizing over the great body of the nation; that such a system of government could not fail to leave behind it a train of fearful evils from which we are still suffering at the present day."
To a certain extent, no doubt, this is true. No man has a stronger opinion than I regarding the iniquitous system of misgovernment in Ireland prior to the Union. But the Union is not an event of yesterday. It is nearly half a century since that measure passed. For nearly fifty years, now, Ireland has been under the immediate control of the Imperial Parliament. Since it has been so, a whole generation has grown up, and is now passing away to be replaced by another; and in that time, I ask you, what impression has been made upon the evils of Ireland? It is true some good has been done. I gladly acknowledge that many useful measures have been adopted, which have, I hope, contributed in some respects to the improvement of Ireland; but none of these measures have gone to the root of the social disease to which Ireland is a prey; in the worst symptoms of which no amelioration whatever can be observed: the wretchedness and misery of the population have experienced no abatement.
Upon that point I can quote high authority. I find that the Commission presided over by a noble Earl, whom I do not now see in his place (the Earl of Devon), reported the year before last, that "improvement was indeed beginning to take place in agriculture; but there had been no corresponding advance in the condition and comforts of the labouring classes." By the Report of that Commission we are informed, that the agricultural labourers are still suffering the greatest privations and hardships, and still depend upon casual and precarious employment for their subsistence; that they are badly fed, badly clothed, badly housed, and badly paid for their labour; and the Commissioners conclude this part of their Report by saying— We cannot forbear expressing our strong sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes have generally exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe, than the people of any other country have ever endured. This is an authentic statement, and comes from a Commission appointed only the other day to inquire into the state of the people of Ireland.
It is a Report describing the state of things in that country before the failure of the potato crop, and the Commissioners tell you that the sufferings of the great mass of the people of that country are greater than those of the population of any other country in Europe. This is indeed a fearful statement, coming from such authority. But there is another symptom of the condition of Ireland, which seems to me even more alarming than the prevalence of distress—I mean the general alienation of the whole mass of the nation from the institutions under which they live, and the existence in their minds of a strong deep feeling of hostility to the form of government under which they are placed. This feeling, which is the worst feature in the case, seems to be rather gaining strength than to be diminishing. I am led to that opinion by what I heard two years ago fall from the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the House of Commons. I heard that right hon. Gentleman—and it was a statement which made a deep impression upon me—I heard the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a speech made by a noble Friend of mine, distinctly admit that we had military occupation of Ireland, but that in no other sense could it be said to be governed; that it was occupied by troops, not governed like England. Such was the admission of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
And now, my Lords, I ask you, is that a state of things which ought to continue? And I ask is not such a state of things, so clearly established by authorities so high and indisputable, a good ground for inferring that there is something wrong in the policy which has been hitherto pursued towards Ireland; and that some measures different in character, and more effectual than those we have been in the habit of trusting to, are necessary to meet the exigency?"
This is the state of things described by Her Majesty's Government; and unhappily this is no accidental, no extraordinary, no unlooked-for calamity. It is but an aggravation, and perhaps no very great aggravation, of the habitual condition of Ireland. The evils of that unhappy country are not accidental, not temporary, but chronic and habitual. The state of Ireland is one which is notorious. We know the ordinary condition of that country to be one both of lawlessness and wretchedness. It is so described by every competent authority. There is not an intelligent foreigner coming to our shores, who turns his attention to the state of Ireland, but who bears back with him such a description. Ireland is the one weak place in the solid fabric of British power—Ireland is the one deep (I had almost said ineffaceable) blot upon the brightness of British honour. Ireland is our disgrace. It is the reproach, the standing disgrace, of this country, that Ireland remains in the condition she is. It is so regarded throughout the whole civilized world. To ourselves we may palliate it if we will, and disguise the truth; but we cannot conceal it from others.
There is not, as I have said, a foreigner—no matter whence he comes, be it from France, Russia, Germany, or America—there is no native of any foreign country different as their forms of government may be, who visits Ireland, and who on his return does not congratulate himself that he sees nothing comparable with the condition of that country at home. If such be the state of things, how then does it arise, and what is its cause? My Lords, it is only by misgovernment that such evils could have been produced: the mere fact that Ireland is in so deplorable and wretched a condition saves whole volumes of argument, and is of itself a complete and irrefutable proof of the misgovernment to which she has been subjected. Nor can we lay to our souls the "flattering unction" that this misgovernment was only of ancient date, and has not been our doing. It is not enough in our own excuse to say, "No wonder this state of things exists: the Government of Ireland before the Union was the most ingeniously bad that was ever contrived in the face of the world; it was the Government of a corrupt minority, sustained by the superior power of this great country in oppressing and tyrannizing over the great body of the nation; that such a system of government could not fail to leave behind it a train of fearful evils from which we are still suffering at the present day."
To a certain extent, no doubt, this is true. No man has a stronger opinion than I regarding the iniquitous system of misgovernment in Ireland prior to the Union. But the Union is not an event of yesterday. It is nearly half a century since that measure passed. For nearly fifty years, now, Ireland has been under the immediate control of the Imperial Parliament. Since it has been so, a whole generation has grown up, and is now passing away to be replaced by another; and in that time, I ask you, what impression has been made upon the evils of Ireland? It is true some good has been done. I gladly acknowledge that many useful measures have been adopted, which have, I hope, contributed in some respects to the improvement of Ireland; but none of these measures have gone to the root of the social disease to which Ireland is a prey; in the worst symptoms of which no amelioration whatever can be observed: the wretchedness and misery of the population have experienced no abatement.
Upon that point I can quote high authority. I find that the Commission presided over by a noble Earl, whom I do not now see in his place (the Earl of Devon), reported the year before last, that "improvement was indeed beginning to take place in agriculture; but there had been no corresponding advance in the condition and comforts of the labouring classes." By the Report of that Commission we are informed, that the agricultural labourers are still suffering the greatest privations and hardships, and still depend upon casual and precarious employment for their subsistence; that they are badly fed, badly clothed, badly housed, and badly paid for their labour; and the Commissioners conclude this part of their Report by saying— We cannot forbear expressing our strong sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes have generally exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe, than the people of any other country have ever endured. This is an authentic statement, and comes from a Commission appointed only the other day to inquire into the state of the people of Ireland.
It is a Report describing the state of things in that country before the failure of the potato crop, and the Commissioners tell you that the sufferings of the great mass of the people of that country are greater than those of the population of any other country in Europe. This is indeed a fearful statement, coming from such authority. But there is another symptom of the condition of Ireland, which seems to me even more alarming than the prevalence of distress—I mean the general alienation of the whole mass of the nation from the institutions under which they live, and the existence in their minds of a strong deep feeling of hostility to the form of government under which they are placed. This feeling, which is the worst feature in the case, seems to be rather gaining strength than to be diminishing. I am led to that opinion by what I heard two years ago fall from the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the House of Commons. I heard that right hon. Gentleman—and it was a statement which made a deep impression upon me—I heard the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a speech made by a noble Friend of mine, distinctly admit that we had military occupation of Ireland, but that in no other sense could it be said to be governed; that it was occupied by troops, not governed like England. Such was the admission of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
And now, my Lords, I ask you, is that a state of things which ought to continue? And I ask is not such a state of things, so clearly established by authorities so high and indisputable, a good ground for inferring that there is something wrong in the policy which has been hitherto pursued towards Ireland; and that some measures different in character, and more effectual than those we have been in the habit of trusting to, are necessary to meet the exigency?"
For the full speech see -
STATE OF IRELAND. (Hansard, 23 March 1846)
Henry Grey, 3rd Earl Grey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar themes as touched upon by Earl Grey are explored by socialist UCD lecturer Kieran Allen in an article doubling as a lambast on political rivals the Worker's Party but the part which concerns us is the section I've highlighted in bold which draws attention to the pre-Union manipulation of the Irish economy by the imperial parliament in Westminster -
Quote:
The Workers Party’s attack on the Irish bourgeoisie is entirely a moral one. It provides no explanation as to why the Irish bourgeoisie might be so lazy nor why they “refused” to build a manufacturing base like every other capitalist class in Europe. We are left with the idea that they were lazy because they were Catholic. This explanation leaves Britain out of the history of Irish underdevelopment and is patently one-sided.
In fact the relationship with the British empire is one of the central factors explaining the underdevelopment of Ireland ....
As can be seen the vast bulk of the article is concerned with demonstrating how Britain "underdeveloped Ireland" beginning with the Wool Acts of the late 17th c. and the 'mercantilist' trade restricting policies of the 18th c. (limiting Irish exports to the colonies when they competed with British exporters) This was an economic grievance (though he doesn't mention it) which gave rise to Protestant ascendency-led "Colonial nationalism" under Grattan which demanded a fully autonomous Dublin Parliament.
This native revolutionary strain coalesced with the burgeoning United Irish movement and the whole was quashed in 1798 ushering in the Act of Union which he further attacks on at least four grounds for stagnating Irish development; (1) comparatively higher taxation via a disproportionate share of the accumulated war debt with Napoleonic France (2) the reduction of tariffs for imported goods from industrialising mainland Britain which eventually crippled the native textile sector (3) direct remittance of rental to absentee landlords and (4) the re-orientation of the Irish economy to service the consumption needs of a rapidly industrialising Britain ensuring that it remained at base a largely undifferentiated agricultural zone.
He concludes as follows:-
Quote:
Ireland’s
underdevelopment was, thus, neither a natural state of affairs nor was it
produced by the peculiar psychological weakness of its capitalist class. The
problem arose from the relationship between Ireland and the British empire. The
colonisation of Ireland by Britain led to the breaking down of many
pre-capitalist tribal structures. The cash nexus, the market and petty commodity
production were established quicker than they would have been had colonisation
not occurred. But the strength of the British economy and the intervention of
the British state on its behalf ensured that the Irish economy was shaped in
British interests.
When Marx claimed that “every time Ireland was about to develop industrially, she was crushed and re-converted into a purely agricultural land”, he was not referring to the purely political ambitions of British politicians, although this was undoubtedly a factor. [26] Across the globe the British empire forced countries into a limited specialisation that served the needs of Britain’s industry. In that sense it became responsible for their backwardness and underdevelopment.
When Marx claimed that “every time Ireland was about to develop industrially, she was crushed and re-converted into a purely agricultural land”, he was not referring to the purely political ambitions of British politicians, although this was undoubtedly a factor. [26] Across the globe the British empire forced countries into a limited specialisation that served the needs of Britain’s industry. In that sense it became responsible for their backwardness and underdevelopment.
movement - all of these grievances led to much disillusionment and much hardship.
Emigration rose spectacularly during this period (1800-45) as did agrarian crime with varied combinations of Whiteboys; Ribbonmen, Rockites, Terry Alts etc .. the very disturbances of which initiated by the deteriorating conditions of the countryside (demanding as they did fair rent, free sale and compensation for improvements) all of which actually deterred potential capital investment.
But such was the political importance of the Wool Act (mentioned above by Allen) in the context of what later transpired that I've no option but to flesh out its ramifications in some detail at least.
There had been restrictions imposed on the export of Irish livestock earlier in the century but despite fears this transpired to be a once-off anomaly - for now - so the Wool Act was significant not so much on account of its direct economic impact (which ranges from 'negligible' to 'catastrophic' depending on who you read) but rather that it presaged the long-feared further meddling by the English Parliament in all aspects of the Irish economy.
Basically it entailed a stand-off between English investors, manufacturers & large landholders who had sectoral interests to protect, didn't want competition from exported Irish produce and had sufficient clout in the English Parliament to influence the passing of restrictive legislation via subsidy withdrawal or export tariffs. A nascent & promising glass industry in Ireland was demolished at birth after this fashion for instance but the Irish Protestant ascendency had strong lobbying powers itself at Westminster and so it wasn't all one way traffic.
Grievances came to a head in the early 1780's, when, under the influence of the colonial revolt in America (why not us too? haven't we the same grievances? ... etc), the Irish Volunteers, a largely Protestant militia, who had been mobilised as a defensive force to ward off a potential French invasion, instead allied themselves with 'free trade' radical members of the Dublin Whig party led by Henry Grattan and in effect staged a successful coup d'état - pressing home the advantage of a distracted imperial power fighting a dual war with France and Washington's armies to achieve their goals of economic self-governance, amelioration of some of the Penal Laws (an alliance had been earlier struck with the lobbying Catholic Committee to give the movement extra clout) and the elimination the notorious jobbery and corruption in the Irish executive.
This though was risky brinkmanship and the much feted suspension of Poyning's (the Act which subordinated the Dublin Parliament to Westminster) never became absolute with Pitt still controlling key appointments of the Dublin governing executive - essentially, in other words, the famed 'independent' "Grattan's Parliament" that had been won in 1782 - was little more than a mirage.
As soon as the trans-Atlantic colonial war was over Westminster quickly worked on re-consolidating its power ushering in the second phase of the struggle which this time was influenced by the far more vigorous and distinctively republican principles of revolutionary France. The separatist Protestant Dublin Whigs which wanted political autonomy but yet remain within the Empire (i.e. to retain the connection with the Crown) now dabbled with alliances with both reformist Catholics demanding full relief of the Penal Laws and Dublin and Belfast-based Protestant, Catholic and Presbyterian United Irishmen who, in the event of Westminster not granting the full package of statute reforms, threatened to rise in revolt - which of course they eventually did, were summarily crushed and their leaders scattered to the four corners.
But all of this emerged primarily with the economic grievances of the Protestant "Colonial Nationals" (i.e. the Ascendency) - with the continual interference by Westminster in imposing tariff and trade restrictions on what was largely their capital - it was only when in order to gain extra leverage in their dealings with the British government by momentarily allying with both Catholics lobbying for emancipation and Presbyterians seeking full civil and political privileges that the full extent of the revolutionary hive which the Dublin Parliament had become, became apparent, and so, the only expedient course was to shift the lot, dissolve it, reconstitute it - ship it lock, stock and barrel across the seas and under its nose where it could better monitor and control it - and so, amid record-breaking bribes and inducements Irish MP's voted their native parliament out of existence & were now dispatched overseas to represent their constituencies where their minority status could safely assure their quiescence.
Thus ended the saga which arguably commenced in force with the Wool Act for it inspired William Molyneaux's The Case of Ireland Being Bound by Acts of the English Parliament, (publ.1698) which was written during the debates on that legislation and though it did not prevent the Act being passed it became a touchstone document for later reformers of Grattan's generation who happily rehearsed its arguments ad infinitum (as indeed did a young Thomas Jefferson)
Quote:
Early
in 1698, Molyneux published The Case of Ireland's being
Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated. This controversial[5] work—through
application of historical and legal precedent—dealt with contentious
constitutional issues that had emerged in the latter years of the seventeenth
century as a result of attempts on the part of the English Parliament to pass
laws that would suppress the Irish woolen trade. It also dealt with the disputed
appellate jurisdiction of the Irish House of Lords. Molyneux's arguments
reflected those made in an unpublished piece written by his father-in-law Sir
William Domville, entitled A Disquisition Touching That Great Question
Whether an Act of Parliament Made in England Shall Bind the Kingdom and People
of Ireland Without Their Allowance and Acceptance of Such Act in the Kingdom of
Ireland.[8]
Following a debate in the English House of Commons, it was resolved that Molyneux's publication was 'of dangerous consequence to the crown and people of England by denying the authority of the king and parliament of England to bind the kingdom and people of Ireland'.[9] Despite condemnation in England, Molyneux was not punished but his work was condemned as seditious and was ceremonially burned at Tyburn by the public hangman. His arguments remained topical in Ireland as constitutional issues arose throughout the eighteenth century, and formed part of Swift's argument in Drapier's Letters.[10] The tract also gained attention in the American colonies as they moved towards independence. Although The Case of Ireland, Stated was later associated with independence movements—both in Ireland and America—as one historian points out, 'Molyneux's constitutional arguments can easily be misinterpreted' and he was 'in no sense a separatist'
Following a debate in the English House of Commons, it was resolved that Molyneux's publication was 'of dangerous consequence to the crown and people of England by denying the authority of the king and parliament of England to bind the kingdom and people of Ireland'.[9] Despite condemnation in England, Molyneux was not punished but his work was condemned as seditious and was ceremonially burned at Tyburn by the public hangman. His arguments remained topical in Ireland as constitutional issues arose throughout the eighteenth century, and formed part of Swift's argument in Drapier's Letters.[10] The tract also gained attention in the American colonies as they moved towards independence. Although The Case of Ireland, Stated was later associated with independence movements—both in Ireland and America—as one historian points out, 'Molyneux's constitutional arguments can easily be misinterpreted' and he was 'in no sense a separatist'
William_Molyneuxhttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false
Grattan, Flood et al. had a labyrinthine knowledge of all acts and statutes pertaining to the Crown's connection and jurisdiction over Irish affairs - again, with the principle bone of contention being the restrictions on trade and industry - and Molyneaux was in effect their lodestar. The most widely cited contemporary indictment of these restrictions came from the pen of John Hely-Hutchison who anonymously published Commercial Restraints in 1779:-
Quote:
He
continued to occupy a prominent place in parliament, where he advocated free trade, the relief of the Catholics from penal legislation, and the reform of
parliament. He was one of the very earliest politicians to recognize the
soundness of Adam Smith's views on trade; and he
quoted from the Wealth of Nations, adopting some of its principles, in
his Commercial Restraints of Ireland, published in 1779, which Lecky pronounces one of the best
specimens of political literature produced in Ireland in the latter half of the
18th century.
Quote:
Although
this work was published anonymously, there never was any question as to who was
its author. It was always known to be the production of Provost Hely Hutchinson,
and its first appearance was greeted with two different sorts of reception. It
was burned by the Common Hangman so effectually, that Mr. Flood said he would
give a thousand pounds for a copy and that the libraries of all the three
branches of the legislature could not produce a copy[108]—and at the same time it “earned Mr. Hely
Hutchinson’s pardon from Irish patriotism for his subserviency to the Court and
Lord Townshend.”[109] The book was the outcome of the stubborn
inability of English rulers to interpret the face of this country; and the first
sketch of the publication was the papers which the author contributed to Lord
Lieutenant Buckinghamshire in 1779 as to the cause of the existing ruin here and
as to its cure. The purport of the Letters was to exhibit, calmly and
seriously,[Pg c] and as by a friend to both countries, the grievous oppressions
which the greedy spirit of English trade inflicted on the commerce, industries,
and manufactures of Ireland during the century and a quarter that extended from
the Restoration of Charles II. to the rise of Grattan. The author draws all his
statements from the Statute Books and Commons Journals of both kingdoms, while
he does not fail to support his own conclusions and comments by State Papers and
Statistical Returns that possess an authority equal to that of the Statutes. He
lays the whole length and breadth of the position steadily and searchingly
before the Viceroy’s eyes. He shows him that the then state of Ireland teemed
with every circumstance of national poverty, while the country itself abounded
in the conditions of national prosperity. Of productiveness there was no lack;
but land produce was greatly reduced in value; wool had fallen one half, wheat
one third, black cattle in the same proportion, and hides in a much greater.
There were no buyers, tenants were not to be found, landlords lost one fourth of
their rents, merchants could do no business, and within two years over twenty
thousand manufacturers in this city were disemployed, beggared, and supported by
alms. All this was after a period of fourscore years of profound internal
peace—and the question was, what was the cause of it?
This is what the author sets himself to investigate in the Letters, and in regard of sweep of survey, historic retrospect, statistical quotation, and close economic comment, the investigation leaves little to be desired. The Provost is anxious, in the first place, to point out that it was not absentee rents, salaries, profits of offices, and pensions that caused the decline—and this forestalling admonition is no[Pg ci] more than what might be expected from a man who was such an insatiable trafficker in places, and salaries, and profits, and pensions. He admits that these things made the decline more rapid, but a “more radical” cause was to be assigned for a malady that arose out of the constitution itself. He maintains that Ireland was flourishing, prosperous, and wealthy under James and Charles I., and that after the Restoration it was one of the most improved and improving spots in Europe. This is a somewhat poetical view, especially when we remember how Strafford ruined the landowners and destroyed the wool trade; but wretched as was the condition of the people under the Stuarts, it may have been less unendurable than the condition under “a succession of five excellent sovereigns.” In truth, talking about the perpetually developed prosperity of the Irish people under the several successions of English misrule is the very irony of pharisaism, although the recital is a stereotyped phrase of English officials from the Tudor employés down to those of our own days,[110] none of whom ever fail to find “the strings of the Irish harp all in tune.”[Pg cii] In some periods the distress may have been more intense than in others, and in all periods there were not wanting instances of individual aggrandisement—but the general[Pg ciii] wretchedness remained fast fixed. England has been a constant source of woe to Ireland, and suffering is the badge of all our tribe. In any strict assize Hutchinson would be laughed out of Court for essaying to plead the wealth and prosperity of Ireland directly after the devastations of the Carews and Mountjoys, after the Desmond and Ulster confiscations and evictions, and after the Cromwellian atrocities. Hutchinson knew quite well what the condition of the people was all through; but it suited him, rhetorically, to cut out a corner of the picture and to colour that corner very highly. Graziers used to make a good thing of their cattle and of their wool, and economic returns of their exports showed pleasant balance sheets; but graziers were not the Irish people any more than Manchester is England now. In fact, they were chiefly English landowners here, and the extent of their exports is only the measure of the misery which they left unpitied and unrelieved. This, however, was not the philosophy which Hutchinson wanted to preach; and he was far too clear-headed a man to make a mistake as to what he wanted to say. He accordingly lays hold on the figures that set off his argument, and out of fancy premises he draws a solid conclusion which in no sense needed such controvertible data. What was certain was that Ireland possessed the conditions of prosperity, and that it teemed with actual poverty. The question was, what caused this contradiction? The answer was, England caused it; and this is the answer which Hutchinson plainly and nakedly gives. In all the rest of his book—i.e. from Letter III. to the close—he sustains this thesis with a directness that cannot be gainsayed or resisted. Having related the efforts[Pg civ] of Strafford—one of the most malignant enemies that Ireland ever encountered—to crush the wool trade here in the time of Charles I., Hutchinson comes to the acts of the English under Charles II. and William III.
This is what the author sets himself to investigate in the Letters, and in regard of sweep of survey, historic retrospect, statistical quotation, and close economic comment, the investigation leaves little to be desired. The Provost is anxious, in the first place, to point out that it was not absentee rents, salaries, profits of offices, and pensions that caused the decline—and this forestalling admonition is no[Pg ci] more than what might be expected from a man who was such an insatiable trafficker in places, and salaries, and profits, and pensions. He admits that these things made the decline more rapid, but a “more radical” cause was to be assigned for a malady that arose out of the constitution itself. He maintains that Ireland was flourishing, prosperous, and wealthy under James and Charles I., and that after the Restoration it was one of the most improved and improving spots in Europe. This is a somewhat poetical view, especially when we remember how Strafford ruined the landowners and destroyed the wool trade; but wretched as was the condition of the people under the Stuarts, it may have been less unendurable than the condition under “a succession of five excellent sovereigns.” In truth, talking about the perpetually developed prosperity of the Irish people under the several successions of English misrule is the very irony of pharisaism, although the recital is a stereotyped phrase of English officials from the Tudor employés down to those of our own days,[110] none of whom ever fail to find “the strings of the Irish harp all in tune.”[Pg cii] In some periods the distress may have been more intense than in others, and in all periods there were not wanting instances of individual aggrandisement—but the general[Pg ciii] wretchedness remained fast fixed. England has been a constant source of woe to Ireland, and suffering is the badge of all our tribe. In any strict assize Hutchinson would be laughed out of Court for essaying to plead the wealth and prosperity of Ireland directly after the devastations of the Carews and Mountjoys, after the Desmond and Ulster confiscations and evictions, and after the Cromwellian atrocities. Hutchinson knew quite well what the condition of the people was all through; but it suited him, rhetorically, to cut out a corner of the picture and to colour that corner very highly. Graziers used to make a good thing of their cattle and of their wool, and economic returns of their exports showed pleasant balance sheets; but graziers were not the Irish people any more than Manchester is England now. In fact, they were chiefly English landowners here, and the extent of their exports is only the measure of the misery which they left unpitied and unrelieved. This, however, was not the philosophy which Hutchinson wanted to preach; and he was far too clear-headed a man to make a mistake as to what he wanted to say. He accordingly lays hold on the figures that set off his argument, and out of fancy premises he draws a solid conclusion which in no sense needed such controvertible data. What was certain was that Ireland possessed the conditions of prosperity, and that it teemed with actual poverty. The question was, what caused this contradiction? The answer was, England caused it; and this is the answer which Hutchinson plainly and nakedly gives. In all the rest of his book—i.e. from Letter III. to the close—he sustains this thesis with a directness that cannot be gainsayed or resisted. Having related the efforts[Pg civ] of Strafford—one of the most malignant enemies that Ireland ever encountered—to crush the wool trade here in the time of Charles I., Hutchinson comes to the acts of the English under Charles II. and William III.
This is why the question of de-industrialising is continually brought up (or should be!) in the context of famine studies as the burden of agrarian sub-division wasn't being soaked up by cottage industries (textiles) or a tertiary processing sector. This weakness was possible to over-ride up until 1815 when buoyant grain prices caused by the Napoleonic War sustained a strong Irish agricultural sector but once the prices drop amid constant rental prices, rise of population in the cottier, conacre and labouring classes, and the absence of tenant security, you now have the conditions for a "perfect storm" - already in 1820.
One of the focuses among famine specialists should be upon the failures of the administration to address the issue of the pressing land problem in the decades preceding the famine bearing in mind that an increasing proportion of the population were dependent on a solitary food item which was given to successive (non-blight related) failures - thus the (increasing) vulnerability of the small-holding farmers and their actual (well-documented) precarious hold on life even before phytophtora infestans arrived. The potato, though it had a good reputation as a solid reliable food source was not indestructible - Peel himself oversaw the effects of a partial failure in the West in 1816-17 followed by another far more serious in 1822; all of which should have prompted action on land reform years before the Devon Commission inquiry of 1844.
'Industrialisation' or simply 'development', however you define them (which is in itself part of the problem as ideological differences as to what this entails announce themselves immediately) is a complex multi-variable issue which in Ireland's case clearly doesn't hinge merely on the possession of coal and iron deposits - its related to creating the conditions for capital investment, the development of a tertiary processing sector, nurturing of domestic cottage industries and overall, primarily with finding satisfactory employment for the huge swathes of landless labourers and struggling cottier households who happened to starve each year whether there was a famine or not - while yet balancing the pressing indigenous claims of tenant right, i.e. finding a solution which didn't entail forced emigration schemes, mass evictions or punitive workhouse corrective "regimes", accentuated in the Irish case by long-standing garbled notions of native indolence.
The notorious "Whiteboy Problem" of the post-Union decades and the successive Coercion Acts which it spawned are a by-product of deteriorating rural conditions themselves directly related to monopolistic industrial policies carried out throughout the 18th century, as laboriously illustrated by Hely-Hutchinson and the combat of which underpinned the life's work of Protestant Patriots such as Grattan and Flood.
Essentially, the agrarian agitation groups can be likened to rural trade unions which enforced the Irish peasantry's conception of land use rights over and above that of the law of the Crown which was upheld by the local magistrate; himself often a landlord. Some avoid the term, but peasantry may be defined as holders of tenancies or (sub-tenancies) of 30 acres or less and its within this class where you'll find the ringleaders and recruits of the 'Whiteboy' movements. The terms themselves are a little misleading as both 'Whiteboyism' and 'Ribbonism' are used by the policing authorities as generic labels attached to the committal of all 'agrarian outrages' from the turn of the 18th century. Properly speaking, Whiteboyism should refer specifically to outbreaks of rural unrest focused on tenant grievances in the midlands and Munster in 1761-62 and from 1765 (sporadically) up until 1798, whereas Ribbonism evolved from the (mainly) Catholic, agrarian-based Defenderism which sprang up as a product of sectarian clashes in Armagh (from 1785-1798).
While Whiteboyism is fine as a generic to describe all agrarian unrest from 1800-1850, "Ribbonism" is unsatisfactory as it evolved from its original agrarian sectarian context to become an urban-based artisan trade unionist type movement often carrying within its tow disaffected former United Irish republicans who kept a respectable (and respectful) distance from the Catholic Emancipation type politics of the O' Connelite movement of the 1815-183 era. Ribbonism may be described then as more nationally aware politically than the traditional agrarian movements and diverged from O' Connellism (in its local objectives but not nationally as regards Repeal). As said, both Ribbonism and Whiteboyism were now used almost interchangeably by the authorities to describe all forms of rural unrest.
Now as to the rural agitation in the pre-famine period (1800-45) each outbreak had its own distinctive goals, characteristics and geographical location but ultimately all centred on one or other of the perennial land grievances; land-jobbing (when an evicted family's plot was settled by 'outsiders'), rack-renting (when the landlord, middleman, or over-tenant raised the rent), simple eviction, non-compensation for improvements or payment of tithes to the Anglican Church. The Threshers (1806-7) emerged in Leitrim, Longford, Mayo and Sligo. The Shanavests and Caravats (1809-11) in Tipperary, Limerick, Kilkenny and Waterford.
The Carders (1813-16) all over the Midlands and Munster and what were termed 'the Ribbonmen' in Connaught and Westmeath (1819-20). The Rockites (1819-23) were exclusive to Munster and the Midlands, the Whitefeet (1830-34) to Kilkenny and Queen's County (in the so-called Tithe War) and the Terry Alts during the same period (1830-34)encompassed Clare, Tipperary, King's County, Westmeath and Limerick only to revive again in 1836 and stay active till at least 1848. Finally, we had the Molly Maguire outbreaks in 1844-47 which centred around Leitrim, Longford and Roscommon - added to which there were perhaps dozens of localised struggles which were too small or sporadic to warrant any label at all other than that of a general outbreak of 'Whiteboyism'.
For each of these movements anywhere between a dozen and a few hundred men could be mobilised for a nightly operation which was nakedly terroristic in intent - cattle could be 'houghed' (i.e. have their tendons severed), horses have their ears chopped, dogs hung etc.. but mainly the intent was to instil terror in the victim to reverse whatever decision that so aggrieved the Whiteboys (rack-renting, jobbing, tithes, evictions etc). It was a secret oath bound association which drew wide support from the surrounding peasantry using rituals and dress-codes which corresponded to many key events in Gaelic cultural consciousness; the straw attire of the May wren-boys were used and names like Queen Sibh evoked. O' Connell and the Repeal movement consistently denounced all such actions as did the Catholic Church but despite this leaders and suspected members were looked after and protected by the wider community - for example, if on conviction someone was transported or hung their family would be cared for via a pooled fund. In one instance, The Poor Inquiry Commissioners (1834) once asked a Tipperary peasant what feelings he would have for the family of a man hanged for 'beating a man to death' to which he replied;
Quote:
"Under
such circumstances, his wife and family would be regarded; and why not? I
would take the bit out of my wife's or children's mouth before I would see his,
the poor things, want it; because didn't he lose his life for the good of
the people, and die in the cause?"
First, the post-Napoleonic collapse in grain prices (some 30%) which was the constant rent currency of the small-holders and which wasn't ameliorated by corresponding reductions by landlords, middlemen or over-tenants.
Secondly, the perceived need by large farmers (30 acres plus) to switch from a deteriorating grain market to a more buoyant sector of pig, poultry and cattle export taking advantage of newly introduced steam shipping which kept livestock in far better condition after the cross-channel journey - which entailed abandoning tillage (labour intensive) for pasture. This also meant estate clearances for the wide open spaces required and its at this point (c. 1820 onwards) that we see a significant upsurge both in emigration and evictions.
Third, the absence of any direct government intervention in the escalating problems centred around the enhanced premium required to pay for ever smaller allotments of land. A large under-tenant or middle-man may have the lease of 5,000 acres; sub-let the lot to a hundred tenants at a profitable price who would all be classed as large farmers (non-peasantry) and these farmers in turn would sub-let to a subsidiary strata of peasants (again at a net profit) and so on down the line until you have a hundred thousand desperate souls renting conacre (quarter of an acre) at a price multiple times the land's actual valuation. The only thing on earth that could grow on such a small patch of land and sustain a family of five was the potato - answering as it did all the base nutritional requirements.
Finally, and what possibly constitutes the greatest scandal, sporadic potato failures which were always a feature of rural life initiated a switch to the more reliable "lumper" variety after the 1822 partial famine; a large watery spud resistant to inclement weather and formerly used as pig feed - this is merely an index of desperation and fear of actual starvation in my view.
There were actually dozens of potatoes varieties each with their own characteristics and the fluctuating fortunes of these from the 17th c. onwards tells its own story - particularly the scandal of eventual dependence on the 'Lumper' (the cheapest and nutritionally worst of the lot), increasingly seen from 1820 onwards among the "lower orders". The best source for the role of the potato is Austin Bourke's "The Visitation of God: The Potato and the Great Irish Famine" which is a compilation of Bourke's essays on the subject over a long career by Cormac O' Grada.
Bourke identifies four main varieties which predominated in different periods; (1) the 'Black' from around 1700 which was immediately regarded as a superior variety and remained in wide usage for over a hundred years. Its main advantage over the varieties it supplanted was that it kept longer which was of huge importance when we consider the planting cycle. Seeds would be sown in April/May and about a sixth of the crop pulled up in early August with "the people's crop" harvested in October. This meant potatoes had to be kept for 6-8 months as the principle source of food; if it was perishable, as many varieties were, the 'hungry months' could begin as early as March/April. In the decades before the famine June/July were always the periods of greatest distress.
Formerly, the practice had been to keep the potatoes in the ground and pull them out as required but after the Great Frost of 1741 which destroyed much of the crop by rendering them irretrievable the practise had been to keep them in storage in specially dug pits or mounted inside the cabins themselves. During this period the potato had yet to become the main staple (oatmeal still predominated) but by about 1770 the potato was firmly established as the main food source gaining increasing importance as each decade went by. (2) Next came the "Apple", 'the aristocrat among potatoes', which flourished from about 1750, likewise on account of its staying power, taste, nutritional qualities and high yield; "a richly flavoured mealy potato - a little loaf in fact", as one observer called it.
The yield of the Apple degenerated over time rendering it uneconomical for small-holders but it retained its other appealing qualities which meant it increasingly became the reserve of the well to do. (3) The "Cup" (also known as the 'Minion') next came to the fore from about 1800 to 1820 and though it didn't have the longevity of either the Black or the Apple, "according to the poor folk, it stayed longer in the belly". (4) Finally, came the reign of the notorious 'Lumper' described early on by the agriculturalist Dutton (1808) as;
Quote:
"much
used, as they are more productive with a little manure than any other kind, but
they are a wretched kind for any human creature; even pigs, I am informed, will
not eat them if they can get any other kind".
Two lines of a satire after the collapse of grain prices after "Bonie went down" and dating from 1815 went as follows;
Quote:
"Our
gentry who fed upon turtle and wine, M
Quote:
ust
now on wet Lumpers and salt herrings dine".
Quote:
A
species of potato called the Lumper has been brought into general cultivation,
on account of its great productiveness, and the facility with which it can be
raised from an inferior soil and with a comparatively small portion of manure.
The root, at its first introduction, was scarcely considered food enough for
swine; it neither possesses the farinaceous qualities of the better varieties of
the plant, nor is it as palatable as any other, being wet and tasteless, and, in
point of substantial nutriment, little better, as an article of human food, than
a Swedish turnip.
Davidson in "History of Potato Varieties" tells us that;
Quote:
"by
the year 1838 the cultivation of Lumpers was universal in Ireland"
While the contemporary Drummond Report observed;
Quote:
"in
many counties of Leinster, and throughout the provinces of Munster and
Connaught, the Lumper now constitutes the principal food of the labouring
peasantry".
The differential quality can be also be observed in the market price quoted per cwt in Dublin in June 1845 (before the blight) -
Apples - 2s 6d - 3s
Cups - 1s 10d - 2s 2d
Lumpers - 1s 4d - 1s 6d
Bourke wrote;
Quote:
"The
Lumper went down most fatally and heavily of all varieties in the first blight
attacks of 1845-46".
No comments:
Post a Comment