When William III. promised to depress the Irish woollen trade, he promised to do all he could for Irish linen. England did not fulfil the second promise; still the Ulster weavers were not crushed, and their industry flourished. Ulster prosperous. Some Huguenot refugees, headed by Louis Crommelin (1652–1727), were established by William III. at Lisburn, and founded the manufacturing prosperity of Ulster. Other Huguenots attempted other industries, but commercial restraints brought them to nought. The peculiar character of the flax business has prevented it from crossing the mountains which bound the northern province. Wool was the natural staple of the south.
The Scottish Presbyterians who defended Londonderry were treated little better than the Irish Catholics who besieged it—the sacramental test of 1704 being the work of the English council rather than of the Irish parliament. Dissenters. In 1715 the Irish House of Commons resolved that any one who should prosecute a Presbyterian for accepting a commission in the army without taking the test was an enemy to the king and to the Protestant interest. Acts of indemnity were regularly passed throughout the reign of George II., and until 1780, when the Test Act was repealed. A bare toleration had been granted in 1720. Various abuses, especially forced labour on roads which were often private jobs, caused the Oakboy Insurrection in 1764. Eight years later the Steelboys rose against the exactions of absentee landlords, who often turned out Protestant yeomen to get a higher rent from Roman Catholic cottiers. The dispossessed men carried to America an undying hatred of England which had much to say to the American revolution, and that again reacted on Ireland. Lawless Protestant associations, called Peep o’ Day Boys, terrorized the north and were the progenitors of the Orangemen (1789). Out of the rival “defenders” Ribbonism in part sprung, and the United Irishmen drew from both sources (1791).
The Ulster peasants were never as badly off as those of the south and west. Writers the most unlike each other—Swift and Hugh Boulter, George Berkeley and George Stone, Arthur Young and Dr Thomas Campbell—all Poverty of the peasantry. tell the same tale. Towards the end of the 17th century Raleigh’s fatal gift had already become the food of the people. When Sir Stephen Rice (1637–1715), chief baron of the Irish exchequer, went to London in 1688 to urge the Catholic claims on James II., the hostile populace escorted him in mock state with potatoes stuck on poles. Had manufactures been given fair play in Ireland, population might have preserved some relation to capital. As it was, land became almost the only property, and the necessity of producing wool for smuggling kept the country in grass. The poor squatted where they could, receiving starvation wages, and paying exorbitant rents for their cabins, partly with their own labour. Unable to rise, the wretched people multiplied on their potato plots with perfect recklessness. During the famine which began in the winter of 1739 one-fifth of the population is supposed to have perished; yet it is hardly noticed in literature, and seems not to have touched the conscience of that English public which in 1755 subscribed £100,000 for the sufferers by the Lisbon earthquake. As might be expected where men were allowed to smuggle and forbidden to work, redress was sought in illegal combinations and secret societies. The dreaded name of Whiteboy was first heard in 1761; and agrarian crime has never since been long absent. Since the Union we have had the Threshers, the Terry Alts, the Molly Maguires, the Rockites, and many others. Poverty has been the real cause of all these disturbances, which were often aggravated by the existence of factions profoundly indicative of barbarism. Communism, cupidity, scoundrelism of all kinds have contributed to every disturbance. The tendency shown to screen the worst criminals is sometimes the result of sympathy, but more often of fear. The cruelties which have generally accompanied Whiteboyism is common to servile insurrections all over the world. No wonder if Irish landlords were formerly tyrannical, for they were in the position of slave-owners. The steady application of modern principles, by extending legal protection to all, has altered the slavish character of the oppressed Irish. The cruelty has not quite died out, but it is much rarer than formerly; and, generally speaking, the worst agrarianism has of late years been seen in the districts which retain most of the old features.
The medieval colony in Ireland was profoundly modified
by the pressure of the surrounding tribes. While partially
adopting their laws and customs, the descendants of the conquerors
often spoke the language of the natives, and in so doing
nearly lost their own. The Book of Howth and many documents
composed in the Pale during the 16th century show this clearly.
Those who settled in Ireland after 1641 were in a very different
mood. They hated, feared and despised the Irish, and took
pride in preserving their pure English speech. Molyneux and
Petty, who founded the Royal Society of Dublin in 1683, were
equally Englishmen, though the former was born in Ireland.
Swift and Berkeley did not consider themselves Irishmen at all.
Burke and Goldsmith, coming later, though they might not
call themselves Englishmen, were not less free from provincialism.
It would be hard to name other fourfour other men who, within the same
period, used Shakespeare’s language with equal grace and force.
They were all educated at Trinity College, Dublin. The Sheridans
were men of Irish race, but with the religion they adopted the
literary tone of the dominant caste, which was small and exclusive,
with the virtues and the vices of an aristocracy.
Systematic infringement of English copyright was discreditable
in itself, but sure evidence of an appetite for reading. “The
bookseller’s property,” says Gibbon of his first volume, “was
twice invaded by the pirates of Dublin.” The oratory of the
day was of a high order, and incursions into the wide field of
pamphlet literature often repay the student. Handel was
appreciated in Dublin at a time when it was still the fashion
to decry him in London. The public buildings of the Irish capital
have great architectural merit, and private houses still preserve
much evidence of a refined taste. Angelica Kauffmann worked
long in Ireland; James Barry and Sir Martin Archer Shee
were of Irish birth; and on the whole, considering the
small number of educated inhabitants, it must be admitted
that the Ireland of Flood and Grattan was intellectually
fertile.
The volunteers (see Flood, Henry) extorted partial free trade (1779), but manufacturing traditions had perished, and common experience shows how hard these are to recover. The demand for union was succeeded by a craving Struggle for independence. for independence. Poynings’s law was repealed, and in 1782, in Grattan’s opinion, Ireland was at last a nation. The ensuing period of eighteen years is the best known in Irish history. The quarrel and reconciliation of Flood and Grattan (q.v.), the kindly patriotism of Lord Charlemont, the eloquence, the devotion, the corruption, are household words. (Details will be found in the biographical articles on these and other men of the period.) In the parliament of 1784, out of 300 members 82 formed the regular opposition, of whom 30 were the nominees of Whig potentates and 52 were really elected. The majority contained 29 members considered independent, 44 who expected to be bought, 44 placemen, 12 sitting for regular government boroughs, and 12 who were supposed to support the government on public grounds. The remaining seats were proprietary, and were let to government for valuable consideration. The House of Lords, composed largely of borough mongers and controlled by political bishops, was even less independent. Only Protestant freeholders had votes, which encouraged leases for lives, about the worst kind of tenure, and the object of each proprietor was to control as many votes as possible. The necessity of finding Protestants checked subdivision for a time, but in 1793 the Roman Catholics received the franchise, and it became usual to make leases in common, so that each lessee should have a freehold interest of 40s. The landlord indeed had little choice, for his importance depended on the poll-book. Salaries, sinecures, even commissions in the army were reserved for those who contributed to the return of some local magnate.
