Atrocities in Ireland

P. Breathnach

It irks me that the past in Ireland tends to be viewed excessively as having been shaped as a struggle between British (or English) interests and the Irish people. That view depends in part on rejecting the idea that wealthy people, especially landowners, could possibly be Irish. But, as Bannasidhe has suggested, we somehow manage to make particular exceptions, such as Daniel O'Connell or Charles Stewart Parnell.

I am of the opinion that there was another contest in Ireland that we tend to downplay, possibly because it did not suit political agendas of the past century: the struggle between rich and poor in a society where the gulf between them was vast.

And now a poem (heavens, a poem as a history source and, too boot, cited by a poster who will admit to having no great interest in poetry). I refer you to "The Deserted Village". Many of us read charming extracts in our schooldays, such as the passage about the village schoolmaster. But take a few minutes and read the whole thing. Bear in mind that it was written in 1770 by the son of a clergyman who lived a somewhat dissolute life. His view was clearly that the division in society was between the oppressive rich and the disempowered poor.

It's a polemic of which George Orwell would probably have approved: http://www.poetsgraves.co.uk/Classic%20Poems/Goldsmith/the_deserted_village.htm

slowburner

Dev must have loved this poem.

pedroeibar1

CDfm wrote: »

Elisabeth I is particularly fondly remembered and the phrase "a chicken in every pot" is believed to have originated with her. :rolleyes:

Open to correction on this, but I always associated that quote (un poulet dans chaque pot) to Henri IV of France, attributed to him by the archbishop of Paris, so it's late 1600's .....
P.

ejmaztec

I can't think of any European country that didn't operate in the same way until well into the 20th century. It was always "the big house" surrounded by subservient peasants, who were just about getting enough to survive.

There seem to be a lot of TV programmes around these days, centred on large country manors, or old castles, where the places are falling apart because the owners can't afford the upkeep. The big change is that the peasants are gone because no-one wants to scratch an existence on a pittance, subsidising the lifestyle of some privileged member of society.

slowburner

ejmaztec wrote: »

I can't think of any European country that didn't operate in the same way until well into the 20th century. It was always "the big house" surrounded by subservient peasants, who were just about getting enough to survive.

There seem to be a lot of TV programmes around these days, centred on large country manors, or old castles, where the places are falling apart because the owners can't afford the upkeep. The big change is that the peasants are gone because no-one wants to scratch an existence on a pittance, subsidising the lifestyle of some privileged member of society.

There are a few 'big houses' around this neck of the woods and elsewhere, undoubtedly, where people are only too delighted to be in the employ of privileged members of society.
Peasant might not go down too well though, as a descriptive term for the folk who keep these estates going.

Bannasidhe

ejmaztec wrote: »

I can't think of any European country that didn't operate in the same way until well into the 20th century. It was always "the big house" surrounded by subservient peasants, who were just about getting enough to survive.

There seem to be a lot of TV programmes around these days, centred on large country manors, or old castles, where the places are falling apart because the owners can't afford the upkeep. The big change is that the peasants are gone because no-one wants to scratch an existence on a pittance, subsidising the lifestyle of some privileged member of society.

Absolutely.
The problem that I have with this whole 'the English did this, that and the other' to the poor Irish polemic is that it insinuates that there were no Irish living in the big houses - well, the O'Briens lived in Dromoland and that's a damn big house by anyone's standards.




Aw well, say some - they were Protestants, as if Irish and Catholic are one and the same thing so the O'Briens somehow became English when they became Anglican.

In which case what about the Catholic O'Connells of Derrynane House:


Not exactly a wee thatched cottage were every available scrap of land had spuds planted we are led to believe all the Irish we reduced to...

ejmaztec

slowburner wrote: »

There are a few 'big houses' around this neck of the woods and elsewhere, undoubtedly, where people are only too delighted to be in the employ of privileged members of society.
Peasant might not go down too well though, as a descriptive term for the folk who keep these estates going.

These days "peasants" have been replaced by volunteers, interns and Fas workers.

When I was working in Oxfordshire years ago, there was one such estate, and for some strange reason, one of the toothless peasants working there, was a "self-employed labourer", and the firm that I worked for had to do his accounts. The owner of the estate knew that he would have to pay this fellah the minimum agricultural wage if he put him on PAYE, but he refused. The guy retired a couple of years later and his single-person state retirement pension was more than the income he had from working 40 hours a week.

I couldn't believe that was actually happening in the middle of England in the late 1980s.

slowburner

ejmaztec wrote: »

These days "peasants" have been replaced by volunteers, interns and Fas workers.

Not in at least two estates here.
And as I said, the folks employed by these estates are grateful to have the security and are content with conditions.

pedroeibar1

ejmaztec wrote: »

I can't think of any European country that didn't operate in the same way until well into the 20th century. It was always "the big house" surrounded by subservient peasants, who were just about getting enough to survive.

There seem to be a lot of TV programmes around these days, centred on large country manors, or old castles, where the places are falling apart because the owners can't afford the upkeep. The big change is that the peasants are gone because no-one wants to scratch an existence on a pittance, subsidising the lifestyle of some privileged member of society.

I’m not with you 100% on my highlights. I do agree that there was a huge difference in standards of living, but it should be looked at in the context of the times. It’s also a political view, capitalism – v- socialism, (or the ‘Levellers’).

In England and on the Continent, the landlord’s home was referred to as the “Castle,” the “Manor” or the “Great House” (le manoir, le chateau, der schloss, etc.) I admit that only in Ireland and the Southern States of America (AFAIK) was the term “Big House” used in reference to the house of the landlord, or master. I wonder is that due to the awe & fear a landlord once had over those dependent on him, be they slaves, servants or tenants?

In its heyday, the ‘House’ was a big advantage to a community. In Europe it provided much needed employment at a time when the Industrial Revolution was creating mass unemployment; it provided example and leadership in style and farming developments. Many a young girl learned her domestic skills when working as a kitchen or parlour maid and brought those skills back to her village when she left to marry, as it was very unusual to have married servants “living in.” Young men, working as herds or elsewhere on the estate, similarly learned the latest in animal husbandry and livestock breeding from landlords who were members of “philosophical” establishments, such as the Royal Society. In Ireland the Royal Dublin Society was founded in 1731 to improve the economic condition by promoting agriculture, arts, industry and science. There also were sponsored popular ‘Shows’ in rural areas for smallholders, e.g. the annual ‘Tipperary Show’ where there were good awards for prize butter, animals, etc.

Sadly, in Ireland we had no ‘effective’ industrial revolution, so people were ‘trapped’ with no alternative but to stay and work whatever bit of land they could. That was their only means of survival. Sadly, improving landlords were a rare breed in Ireland, as many were absentees. Those few who did contribute still stand out in history. It did not help that too frequently our ‘Big House’ was an insular place, lived in by a family of a different religion, that did nothing to integrate with the local community and which reinforced its isolation by surrounding their houses with trees, a demesne and long stretches of stone walls. Not to mention being RM’s or often closely associated with tithes.

Cost of maintenance is a killer, even ordinary things are exorbitantly expensive – e.g. currently it is almost impossible to obtain insurance on a ‘protected structure’ and if you can, the premium is double the usual rate.

ejmaztec

slowburner wrote: »

Not in at least two estates here.
And as I said, the folks employed by these estates are grateful to have the security and are content with conditions.

The estates must have something that's making more than enough money to be able to employee people on a proper footing.

.....and when I referred to "peasants", I was being historical, because I know full well that the people working in these places nowadays, aren't. An old friend of mine ditched accountancy and got a job as a game-keeper on some huge Scottish estate. If I called him a peasant, he'd probably shoot me.:(

CDfm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Open to correction on this, but I always associated that quote (un poulet dans chaque pot) to Henri IV of France, attributed to him by the archbishop of Paris, so it's late 1600's .....
P.

I stopped short of the generous welfare system and free foreign travel .

Herbert Hoover revived the chicken in 1928 to " a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage"

http://www.presidentsusa.net/1928slogan.html

slowburner

ejmaztec wrote: »

The estates must have something that's making more than enough money to be able to employee people on a proper footing.

.....and when I referred to "peasants", I was being historical, because I know full well that the people working in these places nowadays, aren't. An old friend of mine ditched accountancy and got a job as a game-keeper on some huge Scottish estate. If I called him a peasant, he'd probably shoot me.:(

Funny you should mention pheasants peasants and shooting

Bannasidhe

slowburner wrote: »

Funny you should mention pheasants peasants and shooting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk47saogI8o

CDfm

I found this when looking up Irish and Native Americans



http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=nordirisstud

pedroeibar1

CDfm wrote: »

Herbert Hoover revived the chicken in 1928 to " a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage"

http://www.presidentsusa.net/1928slogan.html

During the Iran-Iraq war*, Saddam Hussein's equivalent was 'Guns, butter & videos' and Iraqi airforce pilots were given a car for every plane they shot down.
P.
*when real atrocities were committed against the Kurds

ejmaztec

This is the estate in Oxfordshire that I mentioned earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tew

It seems that one or two members of the Cary family, that once owned it, had a connection with Ireland, and it seems to be a pattern that the aristocracy spread their policies and bad habits wherever they went.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cary,_1st_Viscount_Falkland

Chiefly through the favour of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham Cary was appointed to succeed Viscount Grandison as lord deputy of Ireland, being sworn 18 September 1622. In office he showed himself both bigoted in his opinions and timid in carrying out a policy which continually dallied with extremes. Although he was conscientious, he was easily offended, and he failed to conduct himself with credit when confronted with any unusual difficulties.
Falkland was greatly distressed at the number of priests in Ireland and their influence over the people. He was influenced by a sermon of James Ussher on the text "He beareth not the sword in vain", and issued a proclamation on 21 January 1623, ordering their banishment from the country. This proclamation was highly inappropriate at the time because of the negotiations for the Spanish marriage/ In February 1624 he received an order from the English privy council to refrain from more extreme measures than preventing the erection of religious houses and the congregation of unlawful assemblies.
Falkland convened an assembly of the nobility of Ireland on 22 September 1626, on account of the difficulties of maintaining the English army in Ireland. He laid before the assembly a draft of concessions promised by Charles, which were subsequently known as the "Graces". They promised the removal of certain religious disabilities and the recognition of sixty years' possession as a bar to all claims of the crown based on irregularities of title. Falkland did not conduct the negotiations was skill, and for a long time there seemed no hope of a satisfactory settlement. Finally in May 1628, a deputation from the nobility agreed, before the king and privy council at Whitehall, on certain additional concessions in the "Graces" and then confirmed, that Ireland should provide a sum of £4,000 for the army for three years.
Falkland believed that his difficulties with the nobility had been largely due to the intrigues of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Adam, Lord Loftus, After the dissolution of the assembly of the nobility in 1627, he brought a charge against Loftus of malversation, and of giving encouragement to the nobility to refuse supplies. After the case had been heard in London, Lord Loftus was allowed to return to his duties pending further inquiry.
Falkland had for some years been engaged in tracking out what he supposed was a dangerous conspiracy of the Byrnes of Wicklow, and in August 1628 was able to announce to Charles I that the result of his protracted investigations had been successful, a true bill having been found against them at the Wicklow assizes. The aim of Falkland was to set up a plantation in Wicklow on the confiscated estates of the Byrnes, but as his designs were disapproved of by the commissioners of Irish causes, the king appointed a committee of the Irish privy council to investigate the matter more fully. Falkland took deep offence because one of the members of committee was the lord chancellor, Loftus and he refused to afford any assistance in the investigation on account of the "high indignity" offered to himself. When, as the result of the inquiry, it was discovered that the Byrnes had been the victims of false witnesses, Falkland was, on 10 August 1629, directed to hand over his authority to the lords justices on the pretext that his services were required in England. Charles I, recognising his good intentions, continued him in favour.
Cary broke his leg, which then had to be amputated, in Theobalds Park and as a result, he died in September 1633. He was buried on 25 September 1633 and was buried at Aldenham.

eire4

LordSutch wrote: »

Jezuz that's a pretty hard hitting statement, specially the bit . . .

"the English conquered Ireland more or less fully after the Battle of Kinsale at which point they set about the extermination of the Irish people"

I mean is that really true? or is that an opinion, or what? I don't have the knowledge of that period of Irish history.

Certainly it is historically correct that the English set about exterminating the old Gaelic way of life which they saw as barbarian. This policy kicked into high gear after Kinsale when at that point the whole country was effectively conquered. When I said exterminated in realtion to the Irish people I guess I could have phrased that better. I did not mean an out and out intentional campaign of genocide. But there is no question that the Irish were slaughtered directly and indirectly in large numbers over the years and the Irish population was reduced to abject poverty and thus when the blight hit we had the atrocity that was the famine.

As for others who say that some Irish were involved in the whole above process they are absolutely correct. One thing the English have always been very good at is perfecting the policy of divide and conquer. They used those tactics with huge success in Ireland.

Bannasidhe

eire4 wrote: »

Certainly it is historically correct that the English set about exterminating the old Gaelic way of life which they saw as barbarian. This policy kicked into high gear after Kinsale when at that point the whole country was effectively conquered. When I said exterminated in realtion to the Irish people I guess I could have phrased that better. I did not mean an out and out intentional campaign of genocide. But there is no question that the Irish were slaughtered directly and indirectly in large numbers over the years and the Irish population was reduced to abject poverty and thus when the blight hit we had the atrocity that was the famine.

As for others who say that some Irish were involved in the whole above process they are absolutely correct. One thing the English have always been very good at is perfecting the policy of divide and conquer. They used those tactics with huge success in Ireland.

A few points - the deliberate destruction of Gaelic culture -absolutely. It was Tudor policy. Minor point - by the time of Kinsale it was already fatally wounded and Hugh O'Neill had played a large part in that while being the loyal earl of Tyrone.

Yes, the Anglo-Irish ruled the roost but not everyone Irish was reduced to abject poverty. One side of my maternal family were well to do farmers in Cork - they certainly did not live in any kind of poverty. The other side had good jobs with Cork harbour commissioners - they did not live in poverty. My father's family were bakers and pub owners and farmers- they were not starving.
There was an Irish middle class who were not starving.

Yes - the lowest socio-economic group were utterly and completely left destitute and the lack of relief offered to them could be termed an atrocity.

Sadly - the English did not need to divide us - we were/are perfectly capable of doing that all by ourselves - they merely exploited that tendency.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sadly - the English did not need to divide us - we were/are perfectly capable of doing that all by ourselves - they merely exploited that tendency.

There was a certain amount of pragmatism locally and thats ok but what does come thru is that British rule was not benevolent and certainly in the 19th century it was catastrophic.

They treated the Irish & Ireland differently to themselves with different rules customs and laws.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

There was a certain amount of pragmatism locally and thats ok but what does come thru is that British rule was not benevolent and certainly in the 19th century it was catastrophic.

They treated the Irish & Ireland differently to themselves with different rules customs and laws.

See - now I have a problem with statements like that (sorry ).

The Highland Scots were treated appallingly.
The urban poor across GB were treated appallingly.
Cornish tin miners were treated appallingly.
Welsh coal miners were treated appallingly.
Northern English coal miners were treated appallingly.
The vast majority of factory workers were treated appallingly.

There was an elite - initially this was a landed elite but after the Industrial Revolution there was also a 'factory owning' elite.

Most of this elite was of English stock -well most of the 'high' landed aristocracy were of Anglo-Norman stock - but not all of them.

Most of this elite viewed those of the lower classes as barely human - Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Indian, English - race made no real difference to the levels of exploitation heaped upon the lower orders by their lords and masters.

The main difference in Ireland (excepting the industrial zone around Belfast)- and this was also the case in the Scottish Highlands - was that the elite tended to be of the landed classes, rather then the factory owners, and most, but not all, had gotten hold of that land through various plantations, Tudor/Stuart/Cromwellian land grabs etc.

CDfm

Its relative Bannasidhe -the Famine was a pretty big line to cross and hard to beat.

That part is not abstract to me.

Society isn't static and whatever our individual roots we became Irish.

Now I am not saying they did not treat their own harshly and appreciate the origans of the Scots Irish and how they came to be.

What I am saying is that there was nothing like the scale of the potato famine was experienced elsewhere (bar Scotland perhaps) and Irish peasants were as dirt poor as any of the european serfs.

We have a rich and varied heritage but need to be wary of saying everything was value free - if the Duke of Wellington could predict the famine 12 or so years and say it was evil before it happened then it was visible.

So if we are using a benchmark its a biggie.

slowburner

The case of Colonel Hogrove and Captain Primrose and the tragedy at Doolough, Delphi, County Mayo in 1849.

Hogrove and Primrose had been sent to inspect 'paupers who were receiving outdoor relief' (3 lbs of grain) in Louisburgh.
For some reason or other, the two did not carry out the inspection at Louisburgh and instead spent the night of the 30th of April in the remote Delphi Lodge (then as now, a prime location for those interested in fieldsports).

The officers deferred the inspection until the following morning and insisted that the half starved people make their way across some fourteen miles of the most treacherous land in the county.
That night rain, sleet and finally snow fell.
Some of those who died that night are named in the letters to the Mayo Constitution but others claim that hundreds may have died.

(See Mayo Constitution letters.)

ejmaztec

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that there was nothing like the scale of the potato famine was experienced elsewhere (bar Scotland perhaps) and Irish peasants were as dirt poor as any of the european serfs.

When I watched a documentary some time ago, on the subject of their famine, it was mentioned that the rest of the Scottish population chipped in to help them out, and this changed the situation entirely. Some did die, and many emigrated, but the famine was nowhere near as devastating as it was here.

The documentary suggested that Sir Walter Scott had romanticised the highlanders in his novels, which led to the lowlanders and well-to-do folks having some admiration for them.

What I'm curious about is the level of help the rest of the Irish population gave to the starving, and what those living in the towns and cities actually thought of their fellow countrymen.

Bannasidhe

ejmaztec wrote: »

When I watched a documentary some time ago, on the subject of their famine, it was mentioned that the rest of the Scottish population chipped in to help them out, and this changed the situation entirely. Some did die, and many emigrated, but the famine was nowhere near as devastating as it was here.

The documentary suggested that Sir Walter Scott had romanticised the highlanders in his novels, which led to the lowlanders and well-to-do folks having some admiration for them.

What I'm curious about is the level of help the rest of the Irish population gave to the starving, and what those living in the towns and cities actually thought of their fellow countrymen.

Pure theorising here - absolute conjecture with no supporting evidence - but it just occurred to me reading CDfm's post followed immediately by ejmaztec's that it certainly does seem that the Irish national psyche (for want of a better term) was absolutely traumatised by the Famine to a far greater extent then the Scottish one even though they occurred at the same time and resulted in a dramatic decline in the populations of both Ireland and the Scottish Highlands.

Now, baring in mind that most of us here are those whose forebears survived the Famine years - otherwise we wouldn't be here - soooo I am wondering if some of our collective national trauma was/is due to the fact that a lot of our ancestors chose to look after their own first - i.e their immediate family and were not prepared to undertake the 'chipping in' ejmaztec refers to in the post I quoted which apparently happened in Scotland.

So I am wondering did many of our ancestors close their front door on the starving rather then share and possibly risk their own immediate family? Did they learn to just not see them like many of us have trained ourselves not to see beggers and the homeless on the street of our cities?

If this did happen- and I am not saying it did, just thinking aloud - could some of our national trauma be collective guilt? Guilt the Scots don't feel as they did 'chip in' which is why we need to keep assigning blame on 'others' which absolves 'us' - if it was all someone else's fault then 'we' cannot be held responsible as there was nothing 'we' could have done against the might of government policy.

We do do that - blame others that is...FF blames Lehman, FG blames FF, we all blame the bankers and developers - even the people who took 4 holidays a year, one on longhaul, got a hot tub/whirlpool installed in the 3 bed semi, decked everything, build extensions, changed the car every year etc (be careful what you say about those people - that's my sister we're talking about:p) all paid for on credit they applied for...but now insist the debt crises had nothing to do with them...

dubhthach

Bannasidhe that's interesting argument. It reminds me of one shot drama (fiction) that was on TG4 last year dealing with a Connemara man coming back in the 1850's from serving in India (British army) to exact revenge on family/neighbours who had let his mother die in the Workhouse (and subsequently took her land) instead of taking her in during the Famine.

slowburner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So I am wondering did many of our ancestors close their front door on the starving rather then share and possibly risk their own immediate family? Did they learn to just not see them like many of us have trained ourselves not to see beggers and the homeless on the street of our cities?

I suspect so, and probably greater evils than turning a cold shoulder.
Survival is rarely pretty.
Cd alluded to this some time ago and had a sniff of something much darker.
I suspect that there are many dark memories from the famine which have been collectively suppressed.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Pure theorising here - absolute conjecture with no supporting evidence - but it just occurred to me reading CDfm's post followed immediately by ejmaztec's that it certainly does seem that the Irish national psyche (for want of a better term) was absolutely traumatised by the Famine to a far greater extent then the Scottish one even though they occurred at the same time and resulted in a dramatic decline in the populations of both Ireland and the Scottish Highlands.

I don't think I am being precious about it or holding onto any trauma but do think our famine result means they didn't like us very much.

dubhthach

An Ranger (10minutes long)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4rCZ2hEaHs

pedroeibar1

ejmaztec wrote: »

What I'm curious about is the level of help the rest of the Irish population gave to the starving, and what those living in the towns and cities actually thought of their fellow countrymen.

Very good question. Everyone knew about the deaths and it did make headlines but because it was the marginal class that were the victims it was 'to be expected from f€ckless peasants who insidted on having large families and subdividing small plots into smaller plots. Same reaction as to recent famines in Ethiopia/Sudan/Bangladesh. Bureaucracy and Victorian 'values', along with political in-fighting caused long delays - not any attempt at 'extermination':rolleyes: It was a question of transfer of the problem, pass the parcel/hot potato.Today we are moaning because we have to pay bondholders and, instead of it being indirect and procrastinated, were it an immediate levy of €30,000 on everyone NOW we would riot like the Greeks. (Poor Relief was a direct tax on landowners, not the State, so it is a fair comparison.) The signs for our economic demise were long apparent, people (i.e. 99% of the population) did not want to know.

During the Famine, one branch of my family was wiped out when the father (a young farmer and PLG), brought home 'famine fever' and it killed both him and his child. Another branch, less well-off, small farmer/sons labourers suffered a hanging and a transportation for supposedly agrarian offences. My branch - midsize farmers by the reckoning of the day - survived without any deaths. I've no idea of their views as they left no history written or oral, I imagine because of the trauma of it all.

In Kenmare there were reports of people dying in the streets.

In Cecil W Smiths 'The Great Hunger' she states that fishermen all over Ireland began to pawn or sell their nets and gear to provide cash to buy meal and seed potatoes. By the end of the Famine years, this situation was widespread. A report from January 1847 describes a typical situation, stating “all the boats were drawn up to the quay wall, stripped to the bare poles, not a sign of tackle or sail remaining... not a fish was to be had in the town, not a boat was at sea.” On Achill Island “the waters could not be fished because nets and tackle had been pawned or sold to buy a little meal.” The Vicar of Ring, in County Waterford, appealed for help because the fishermen had sold or pledged their fishing-gear to obtain food; and similar reports came in from Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Clare, and almost every fishing port along the coast. Some efforts were made by the British Government to assist Irish fisheries, and when the potato failed, Mr. Mulvany, a Board of Work’s Commissioner was appointed Commissioner for the Fishery department. He urged that £100,000 should be spent at once on the construction and improvement of harbours, quays and boat slips, and an additional £10,000 a year set aside for repairs “to make up for past neglect.” He was not successful: in the Relief Scheme of January 1847 only £5,000 a year was to be spent.

Just look at the staff in the Dept. of Finance today, most of them would match the efficiency of their Victorian predecessors.

pedroeibar1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

P
We do do that - blame others that is...FF blames Lehman, FG blames FF, we all blame the bankers and developers - even the people who took 4 holidays a year, one on longhaul, got a hot tub/whirlpool installed in the 3 bed semi, decked everything, build extensions, changed the car every year etc (be careful what you say about those people - that's my sister we're talking about:p) all paid for on credit they applied for...but now insist the debt crises had nothing to do with them...

+1
Nail. Head.