Corpus of Electronic Texts Edition
Letters from Ireland (Author: Friedrich von Raumer)

letter 63


Killarney,

Friday, August 21st, 1835.

I have commenced with general observations. This is not unnatural, for in Ireland everything


p.193

individual immediately leads to generalities, and both are evidently connected. In England the case is similar, but yet different. There I see (at least hitherto) in the great and prominent contrasts, only the living forms of constant development; and the stupid or fanatic cries of some individuals have but slightly impeded the regular progress of the whole. But in Ireland, those great and animating contrasts are changed into inextricable, destructive conflicts. In the same manner as the bases of the life of a people, namely, agriculture, and the means of subsistence in general, so it is with the summit of all thought and existence, — namely, religion.

Could Philip II. have conceived a more mortifying disgrace for his great opponent, than that which he now experiences in Ireland — that the Protestant union, which has adopted the intolerant principles of that tyrant, is called the Orange Association? As far back as the sixteenth century, William I. opposed, with equal energy and superiority, the fanaticism of the Catholics, and of the Puritan image-breakers: shall we of the nineteenth century consent to remain behind him? Somebody objects, — it is not William I., but William III., that we are talking of. I am well aware of this, and believe that I more duly honour that great man, than those who abuse his great name in Ireland. He began to reign in England three years after the cruel expulsion of the Protestants from France, and in the same year when tolerance was used by James II. as an excuse for intolerant measures. To prevent this in England


p.194

was the first business for 1688; the greater business of his whole life, in which all Europe was concerned, was the contest with France, or the ambition and tyranny of Louis XIV. And you would measure such a man by your own petty standard, and explain and justify the present state of things by the very different circumstances of those times? The intolerant laws of those days did not originate with William, but with the Whigs; and the Whigs of our times must do much more for Ireland than they yet have done, before they can atone for the sins of their ancestors.

On the other hand, no Orangeman must complain that his name is misused by the Orange Lodges, as the Catholics, in their associations, misuse even the name of Christ. Thus religion, which should produce and strengthen charity and unanimity, is here the source of hatred and dissension; and both parties, in their infatuation, equally persuade themselves that they are proceeding in the true Christian course. Those noble-minded men, therefore, deserve a double portion of praise, who boldly speak and act, against party prejudices and party hatred, in favour of toleration and reconciliation. The absurd notion, which has been refuted for centuries, by theory and practice, that Ireland can be governed only by a party and by the sword, still haunts the imagination of many persons who fancy themselves statesmen. A Protestant lately argued with me on the necessity and advantage of a civil war, with as much composure as if he


p.195

were speaking of having his coat brushed; and the extirpation of the heretics is the natural counter-cry of the Catholics. Who is to blame? Both parties! But, above all, the lawgivers — the Parliament! A whole century passed before even private rights were granted to the Catholics, and with what reluctance was each concession made; in what an offensive, ungracious manner were even the most equitable demands contested, till defiance and power extorted them!

At length the emancipation was brought about in this manner, and the opponents of it sought and found consolation in the declaration, that it was a final measure for Ireland. I repeat it, — those must know nothing, or resolve to know nothing, of Ireland, who can entertain so erroneous an opinion. The emancipation was only the first of a whole series of measures which will and must follow. It was an act of justice which, however, is immediately advantageous only to a few; but it is the right and the business of these few to employ their newly-gained position for the benefit of their country. What avails the stale joke of O'Connell and his tail? — if you do not like it, cut it off, and dissolve the Union, as he requires.

You will ask if I entertain this opinion? By no means! The three kingdoms may and ought to live in union, like sisters. But if Ireland is treated like a step-sister, do not be surprised at the cry of distress which your injustice extorts from her. A person who has never seen Ireland, and considers the case merely in a general and


p.196

theoretical point of view, must decide without hesitation against the dissolution of the Union. But he who is better acquainted with it conceives how well-disposed persons may rely on this sheet-anchor, and consider it as the only, the best remedy. I now excuse the demand, without approving it. This erroneous hope, this false confidence, will, however, not be dispelled till more wholesome laws are passed for Ireland than O'Connel himself required. I carry my demands beyond his, according to the example of him whom he himself calls the greatest reformer in Europe.

Firstly: Provision must be equally made for the schools and churches of the Protestants and Catholics, out of the church property already existing or to be created. If there is no surplus of the Protestant church property, other measures are necessary: if it is insufficient, it will soon appear that this grant cannot be the last. Neither the sword, nor civil war, but education and Christian charity alone, can exterminate hatred and barbarism.

Secondly: The tithes must be by some means abolished, for they are a bad mode of taxation. A change in the manner of raising the tax does not, however, abolish the tax itself. To deprive the church of its due, and to make a present of it, without any reason, to the landlord, would not only be an act of injustice, but might, perhaps, in the end, render the situation of the poor tenants worse, rather than better: for the clergyman had not so many means to distrain and drive off


p.197

the cattle, as the temporal landlord; and he was, perhaps, more often averse to employ them than the latter.

Thirdly: Poor laws are indispensably necessary for Ireland. I scarcely conceive how O'Connel could so long oppose their introduction, merely because he saw the abuses that occurred in England from their misapplication. These abuses must be done away with, and only what is truly useful must be ordered. But if such a law is more necessary in Ireland than in any other country in Europe, it is likewise more difficult. More necessary, because nobody takes any care of the poor, the number of whom exceeds all belief; more difficult, because a wealthy middling class is wanting, which is the broad, indispensable foundation of all financial arrangements. In the towns, which are improving, it may be possible to overcome the difficulties; but how can it be done in the country, where all appear to be beggars? We are, therefore, —

Fourthly, compelled to make a law respecting the absentees. This, exclaim many, is as impossible as unjust. What then is impossible or unjust? Is it impossible for a man to live in his own country? — unjust for him to perform his duty there? As the king, the clergyman, the professor, the merchant, must be upon the spot where they are called to exercise their functions, so should the landowner. All may absent themselves, gain information, and return. It is one of the many false notions of private property, that it imposes on the landowner no duties, but grants


p.198

him unconditional rights. Where is the title-deed by which a few oligarchs are allowed to convert a whole people into beggars? — to deprive them of all possibility of existing as becomes human beings? I would not, however, compel them to return home, but leave them all personal liberty. I would not alter the laws of inheritance, by which a very great change would be made in the several relations. I will only tax them, as those who are present (I see this clearly) tax themselves here, for the good of those who surround them, and are active in promoting their advantage. Let the absentee, therefore, pay more to the poor-tax than he who is present. Is this also impossible? Have not the Catholics borne for centuries higher taxes than the Protestants? This was possible, without reason; and, therefore, the other would be very possible, with good reason. After so much that has been considered as revolutionary, as impossible, have we come to the end of the course? By no means. All these measures are only preliminary preparations for greater things.

Let us suppose all the complaints respecting churches, schools, tithes, absentees, the poor are removed, the mass of the people still remain in the most wretched situation; for the poor-law can comprehend only the aged, the sick, lame, blind, &c., not the able-bodied men, and the former are not a thousandth part of those who are actually in distress. What then shall we do with the nine hundred and ninety-nine?

Thus we at last come to the point where, perhaps,


p.199

a final measure is to be taken for the happiness and prosperity of Ireland; at least, without this, all others would be palliative remedies, and the complaints, sufferings, and wrongs will continue unremovable. This measure is —

Fifthly, The complete abolition of the system of tenants at will, and the conversion of all these tenants at will into proprietors. On reading this, the Tories will throw my book into the fire; and even the Whigs will be mute with astonishment. The whole battery of pillage, jacobinism, dissolution of civil society, is discharged at me; but it will not touch me — not even the assertion that I would, like St. Crispin, ‘steal leather, in order to make shoes for the poor.’ Even the Radicals ask, with astonishment, how I would work this miracle. There is a Sibylline book, a patent and yet hidden mystery, how this is to be effected; and there is a magician who has accomplished it — the Prussian municipal law, and King Frederick William III. of Prussia.

To repel those violent reproaches, I could find in my armoury other arguments and proofs how, precisely through the system attacked by me, revolutions are promoted and civil societies dissolved. To-day, however, I have neither time nor inclination to enter upon these partly theoretical discussions; I will rather, in order to allay people's apprehensions, grant in practice that my proposal ought to be rejected, unless both parties are gainers.

The ancient doctrine that, in trade and commerce, in custom-house laws, treaties of peace,


p.200

&c., only one party can and ought to gain, and that the greatest wisdom consists in deceiving and cheating the other party, — this doctrine of short-sighted selfishness is repudiated by every judicious philanthropist, and has been satisfactorily refuted in theory and practice. Unless both parties gain, there must be want of prudence or of justice, or both together, and the merited punishment never fails to follow.

As all maintain that those who were raised to the class of landowners would gain very much, I may save myself the trouble of proving it, and put aside a subsequent question, — what new dangers may one day threaten them as proprietors? But that the present proprietors must likewise gain, results from the indisputable truth, that in the long run, the tenant-at-will is able to produce and to pay less than he who has a long lease, the latter less than the hereditary farmer, and the hereditary farmer less than the proprietor. I will not here repeat what I have already said on this subject in my letter on English agriculture; till pains are taken in England to become acquainted with our laws on this subject, it is impossible to make oneself understood, and to form a correct judgment, either in praise or blame.

But to those who, in our country, are displeased with the whole, on account of some defects, or who, from ignorance, overlook the value of our reforms, or, out of ancient prejudices, wish for the return of greater evils, — to them I exclaim, ‘Go to Ireland! in order to perceive with horror the consequences of an intolerant, barbarous


p.201

legislation, and to bless the progress of improvement in Prussia.’

Ireland is the most deplorable instance in modern history that a great and noble people may, for centuries together, be involved in the same injustice and infatuation; and all the highly-praised forms of the constitution be often paralyzed by the force of passion and prejudice. Kings, lords, and commons have alternately or simultaneously wronged Ireland; how should humanity, mildness, and obedience to the laws proceed from such education? What all the forms of the constitution denied, what even now the boldest minds in England conceive to be impossible, our kings have accomplished, for schools, churches, cities, towns, peasants, landed property, trade, tolls, military institutions, &c., and laid the basis of a freedom of which Ireland, if no quicker progress is made, will be destitute for centuries to come. Our kings were effectually seconded by the persons in office, in whom the highest degree of civilization and knowledge is concentrated, and will be so, while they are not changed into servants removable at pleasure. The people everywhere co-operated, with correct judgment and good-will, and all reap, besides the advantages they have gained at home, daily more praise from impartial observers abroad. We are not vain on this account; we know (as I have often said) that one kind of bark does not grow on all trees; but a tree of liberty, without bark, is, and remains, a dry stick, though I deck it with ribbons of one or of many colours.


p.202