The doc nationality. which was being raised by the voices of millions, which was supported by the contributions of millions, seemed irresistible. Two circumstances were apparently favourable to the success of repeal. One of these was the remarkable alteration which had been effected in the policy of England trine of during the preceding twenty years. England had definitely abandoned the system of Castlereagh. She had, at Canning's bidding, adopted the new doctrine of nationality. In South America, in Belgium, in Greece, in Poland, the British people had either actively promoted, or found fault with their rulers for not promoting, the cause of nations. The principles which had thus modified the foreign policy of England had been successfully applied to British colonies; and the Canadians, who had been rebels in arms in 1837, held responsible office in an independent Canadian Government in 1842. If nationality were a good thing in foreign nations or in British colonies, why was it a bad thing. in Ireland? Irish orators and Irish writers could disinter the views of English statesmen from Hansard, and found on them arguments for Home Rule in Ireland. Political association had, moreover, been facilitated by the organisation of Ireland for a social object. A few years before Father 1842, a young Irish priest, Father Mathew, struck Mathew. with the evils which habitual drunkenness was inflicting upon the people around him, preached the blessings of temperance in the South of Ireland. His mission succeeded; his gospel spread; and Father Mathew leaving Munster, where he had been born and worked, proceeded as an apostle of temperance throughout Ireland. Never did warlike conqueror achieve a success comparable with that of this humble priest. Public-houses were shut up, breweries and distilleries thrown out of work, the consumption of whisky decreased by one half. Two millions in Ireland embraced his principles. Crime diminished with the decrease of drink, and even the Irish Government formally acknowledged the benefits which temperance had conferred on Ireland. These benefits did not, indeed, please every one. An Irish peer formally com plained in Parliament that the pledge was a piece of slip-slop -a Popish device. His opinions found no support even in the House of Lords; and a few years afterwards a Tory finance minister, who had personal experience of Ireland, admitted that on the preceding St. Patrick's Day there was not a single drunken man in the streets of several large towns.1 The social movement, which Mathew had promoted, facilitated the course of the political movement which the Nation had excited. Men who had already experienced the advantages of one association readily formed themselves into a new society. At Mathew's preaching they had pledged themselves to temperance; at O'Connell's bidding they pledged themselves to repeal. Victory, indeed, seemed imminent. A cooler head than O'Connell's might have been excused for believing that the men of Ireland, who flocked in their hundreds of thousands to Mullingar and Mallow, could not be refused. Foreign nations were already expressing their sympathy with the Irish. Men in the United States were threatening that an English invasion of Ireland would be followed by an American invasion of Canada. Advanced politicians in France were promising French assistance to the oppressed Irish. Neither France nor the United States regarded England with much cordiality in 1843. There seemed, at least, a possibility that civil war in Britain would be followed by foreign war abroad. Could England even venture on civil war? The British army, it was remembered, was largely recruited in Ireland; and the Irish troops could not be trusted to fight against Ireland. A million of Irish were living in Great Britain ready to support their kith and kin by raising disorders in English towns. Had not emancipation been surrendered in 1829 to an association inferior to that which had been formed in 1843? Was not 1 Duffy's Young Ireland, p. 147. For Lord Westmeath's attack on Mathew, Hansard, vol. lv. p. 591. Carlyle wrote to his wife a striking description of Father Mathew's service-" I almost cried to listen to him. . . . I have seen nothing so religious since I set out on my travels, &c." Life in London, vol i, P. 315. 2 Duffy's Young Ireland, pp. 316, 321. VOL V. G the same triumvirate, Peel, Wellington, and Lyndhurst, in office in 1829, which held the reins of Government in 1843? Was there any reason for supposing that they would voluntarily commence a contest now from which they had shrunk then? The position of Peel. These arguments convinced the heedless thousands to whom they were addressed. They possibly even satisfied the orators and writers who employed them. Yet they ignored one distinction which ought to have been plain. In 1829, Peel had to deal with a House of Commons in favour of the emancipation of the Roman Catholics. In 1843, Peel could reckon on a House of Commons prepared to maintain the Union at all hazards. In 1829, he could not hope to obtain coercive measures without conceding emancipation. In 1843, he was certain of obtaining any repressive laws which he proposed without conceding anything. Thus the attitude of the House of Commons in the one year suggested a policy of surrender; the attitude of the House of Commons in the other year suggested a policy of resistance. It would be unjust to the memory of a great man to ascribe his conduct to expediency. But it is none the less certain that the composition of the House of Commons made it expedient for Peel to concede emancipation in 1829 and to refuse repeal in 1843 For some weeks, indeed, after Parliament met in 1843, the great movement which was agitating Ireland attracted but slight attention. It was only in the last days of April that Lane-Fox, who sat for Ipswich, announced his intention of proposing a motion to put a stop to the agitation. He was met by Smith O'Brien, an Irish gentleman of ancient descent and moderate opinions, with an amendment pledging the House to maintain the Union, but to redress the well-founded complaints of the Irish people.1 Twelve days afterwards, an Irish peer, Lord Roden, asked Wellington in the LordsLord Roden's son, Lord Jocelyn, asked Peel in the Commons -whether the Government was prepared to take steps for the 1 Hansard, vol. lxviii. pp. 1001, 1027. suppression of agitation in Ireland. This family attack led to a memorable result. "Wellington replied to Roden by reading the address of the Lords in 1834, declaring their fixed determination to maintain unimpaired and undisturbed the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland." Her Majesty's Government, he added, agreed with this declaration, and would invariably act upon it. Peel replied to Jocelyn by reading the speech from the throne in the same year—“I have seen, with feelings of deep regret and just indignation, the continuance of attempts to excite the people of Ireland to demand a repeal of the legislative union. This bond of our national strength and safety I have already declared my fixed and unalterable resolution, under the blessing of Divine Providence, to maintain inviolate by all the means in my power" and by adding, in language of doubtful propriety, that he was authorised, on the part of Her Majesty, "to repeat the declaration made by King William." Irishmen would hardly have been human if they had submitted in silence to this language. William IV.'s memorable declaration had elicited an eloquent rebuke from Grattan in 1834.2 Redington, an Irish member, who subsequently held a position of trust in the Irish Government, recollecting that William IV., in taking his stand on the Union, had expressed his anxiety "to assist in removing all just causes of complaint, and in sanctioning all well-considered measures of improvement," inquired whether Peel was authorised to repeat this declaration also. Peel, in general terms, replied that it was the wish of the Government to administer the affairs of Ireland with forbearance, moderation, impartiality, and justice; and to do nothing inconsistent with the just rights of the Irish people.3 Yet, at the time at which this declaration was made, a step was about to be taken which savoured little of forbearance, moderation, impartiality, and justice. Sugden, who had become Chancellor of Ireland on the formation of Peel's Ministry, 2 Ante, vol. iii. p. 449. 1 Hansard, vol. lxix. pp. 9, 24 3 Hansard, vol. lxix. p. 331. Sugden and the Irish magistrates. placing his own construction on the declarations of Wellington and Peel, determined on dismissing all magistrates who ventured on attending Repeal meetings. He actually superseded a Galway magistrate, Lord French, for intending to be present at meetings at Caltra and Athlone. This proceeding led the Government into fresh embarrassments. Smith O'Brien, Grattan, Sir R. Musgrave, Lord Cloncurry, and other Whigs retired from the Commission of the Peace. Alarmed at these resignations, and the criticisms which were passed on his conduct, Sugden did not venture to carry out his threat, and several magistrates attended Repeal meetings, and were not removed from the Commission of the Peace by the Chancellor of Ireland.1 The Arms The sword which Sugden had drawn had broken in his hand; the step which he had taken had driven scores of Irish gentlemen, hitherto ranged on the side of order, into alliance with the Repealers. A far more significant measure had, however, in the meanwhile, been introduced by the Irish Government. In the course of May, Eliot, the Irish Secretary, introduced an Arms Bill. For nearly fifty years a series of Arms Acts had been continuously in force in Ireland. The condition of the country made their continuance intelligible. Hardly a month, hardly a week, passed without the occurrence of some outrage showing the little respect which the Irish entertained for life or property. Men were shot; houses were attacked or fired; arms were seized; assaults were committed; cattle were houghed; and stacks were burned by bands of men, whom it was difficult to detect, and still more difficuit to convict of the crime. It is the first function of government to preserve order; and Whigs and Tories were equally agreed in concluding that order was impossible if the use of arms were unrestricted. Acts regulating the importation and registration of arms had been passed by the Irish Parliament in 1793 and 1796, and had been renewed by the Imperial Parliament from time to time. 1 Hansard, vol. lxix. pp. 922, 982, 1064; and cf. Duffy's Young Ireland, PP. 250, 262. |