The most striking event, however, in Ireland in the earlier part of 1900 was Queen Victoria’s visit. Touched by the gallantry of the Irish regiments in South Africa, and moved to some extent, no doubt, by the presence of the duke of Connaught in Dublin as commander-in-chief, the queen determined in April to make up for the loss of her usual spring holiday abroad by paying a visit to Ireland. The last time the queen had been in Dublin was in 1861 with the Prince Consort. Since then, besides the visit of the prince and princess of Wales in 1885, Prince Albert Victor and Prince George of Wales had visited Ireland in 1887, and the duke and duchess of York (afterwards prince and princess of Wales) in 1897; but the lack of any permanent royal residence and the long-continued absence of the sovereign in person had aroused repeated comment. Directly the announcement of the queen’s intention was made the greatest public interest was taken in the project. Shortly before St Patrick’s Day the queen issued an order which intensified this interest, that Irish soldiers might in future wear a sprig of shamrock in their headgear on this national festival. For some years past the “wearing of the green” had been regarded by the army authorities as improper, and friction had consequently occurred, but the queen’s order put an end in a graceful manner to what had formerly been a grievance. The result was that St Patrick’s Day was celebrated in London and throughout the empire as it never had been before, and when the queen went over to Dublin at the beginning of April she was received with the greatest enthusiasm.
The general election later in the year made no practicaldifference in the strength of parties, but Mr George Wyndham took Mr Gerald Balfour’s place as chief secretary, without a seat in the Cabinet. Both before and after the election the United Irish League steadily advanced, fresh branches continually springing up.
The visit of Mr Redmond and others to America in 1901 was not believed to have brought in much money, and the activity of the League was more or less restrained by want of funds. Boycotting, however, becameRecent years.rife, especially in Sligo, and paid agents also promoted an agitation against grass farms in Tipperary, Clare and other southern counties. In Roscommon there was a strike against rent, especially on the property of Lord De Freyne. This was due to the action of the Congested Districts Board in buying the Dillon estate and reducing all the rents without consulting the effect upon others. It was argued that no one else’s tenants could be expected to pay more. Some prosecutions were undertaken, but the government was much criticized for not using the special provisions of the Crimes Act; and in April 1902 certain counties were “proclaimed” under it. In February 1902 Lord Rosebery definitely repudiated Home Rule, and steps to oppose his followers were at once taken among Irish voters in English constituencies.
Lord Cadogan resigned the viceroyalty in July 1902, and was succeeded by Lord Dudley. In November Sir Antony Macdonnell (b. 1844), a member of the Indian Council, became under-secretary to the lord-lieutenant. During a long and successful career in India (1865-1901) Sir Antony had never concealed his Nationalist proclivities, but his appointment, about the form of which there was nothing peculiar, was favoured by Lord Lansdowne and Lord George Hamilton, and ultimately sanctioned by Mr Balfour, who had been prime minister since Lord Salisbury’s resignation in July. About the same time a conference took place in Dublin between certain landlords and some members of the Nationalist party, of whom Mr W. O’Brien was the most conspicuous. Lord Dunraven presided, and it was agreed to recommend a great extension of the Land Purchase system with a view to give the vendor as good an income as before, while decreasing the tenants’ annual burden. This was attempted in Mr Wyndham’s Land Purchase Act of 1903, which gave the tenants a material reduction, a bonus of 12% on the purchase-money being granted to vendors from funds provided by parliament. A judicial decision made it doubtful whether this percentage became the private property of tenants for life on settled estates, but a further act passed in 1904 answered the question in the affirmative. After this the sale of estates proceeded rapidly. In March 1903 was published the report of the Royal Commission on Irish University Education appointed two years before with Lord Robertson as chairman, Trinity College, Dublin, being excluded from the inquiry. The report, which was not really unanimous, was of little value as a basis for legislation. It recommended an examining university with the Queen’s Colleges at Belfast, Cork and Galway, and with a new and well-endowed Roman Catholic college in Dublin.
In August was formed the Irish Reform Association out of the wreckage of the late Land Conference and under Lord Dunraven’s presidency, and it was seen that Sir A. Macdonnell took a great interest in the proceedings.The “Devolution” question.Besides transferring private bill legislation to Dublin on the Scottish plan, to which no one in Ireland objected, it was proposed to hand over the internal expenditure of Ireland to a financial council consisting half of nominated and half of elected members, and to give an Irish assembly the initiative in public Irish bills. This policy, which was called Devolution, found little support anywhere, and was ultimately repudiated both by Mr Wyndham and by Mr Balfour. But a difficult parliamentary crisis, caused by Irish Unionist suspicions on the subject, was only temporarily overcome by Mr Wyndham’s resignation in March 1905. Mr Walter Long succeeded him. One of the chief questions at issue was the position actually occupied by Sir Antony Macdonnell. The new chief secretary, while abstaining from displacing the under-secretary, whose encouragement of “devolution” had caused considerable commotion among Unionists, announced that he considered him as on the footing of an ordinary and subordinate civil servant, but Mr Wyndham had said that he was “invited by me rather as a colleague than as a mere under-secretary to register my will,” and Lord Lansdowne that he “could scarcely expect to be bound by the narrow rules of routine which are applicable to an ordinary member of the civil service.” While Mr Long remained in office no further complication arose, but in 1906 (Sir A. Macdonnell being retained in office by the Liberal government) his Nationalist leanings again became prominent, and the responsibility of the Unionist government in introducing him into the Irish administration became a matter of considerable heart-burning among the Unionist party.
Mr Balfour resigned in December 1905 and was succeeded by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Lord Aberdeen becoming lord-lieutenant for the second time, with Mr James Bryce as chief secretary. The general election at the beginning of 1906 was disastrous to the Unionist party, and the Liberal government secured an enormous majority. Mr Walter Long, unseated at Bristol, had made himself very popular among Irish Unionists, and a seat was found him in the constituency of South Dublin. Speaking in August 1906 he raised anew the Macdonnell question and demanded the production of all correspondence connected with the under-secretary’s appointment. Sir A. Macdonnell at once admitted through the newspapers that he had in his possession letters (rumoured to be “embarrassing” to the Unionist leaders) which he might publish at his own discretion; and the discussion as to how far his appointment by Mr Wyndham had prejudiced the Unionist cause was reopened in public with much bitterness, in view of the anticipation of further steps in the Home Rule direction by the Liberal ministry. In 1908 Sir Antony resigned and was created a peer as Baron Macdonnell. Soon after the change of government in 1906 a royal commission, with ex-Lord Justice Fry as chairman, was appointed to investigate the condition of Trinity College, Dublin, and another under Lord Dudley to inquire into the question of the congested districts.
Mr Bryce being appointed ambassador to Washington, Mr Birrell faced the session of 1907 as chief secretary. Before he left office Mr Bryce publicly sketched a scheme of his own for remodelling Irish University Education, but his scheme was quietly put on the shelf by his successor and received almost universal condemnation. Mr Birrell began by introducing a bill for the establishment of an Irish Council, which would have given the Home Rulers considerable leverage, but, to the surprise of the English Liberals, it was summarily rejected by a Nationalist convention in Dublin, and was forthwith abandoned. The extreme party of Sinn Fein (“ourselves alone”) were against it because of the power it gave to the government officials, and the Roman Catholic clergy because it involved local control of primary education, which would have imperilled their position as managers. An Evicted Tenants Bill was however passed at the end of the session, which gave the Estates Commissioners unprecedented powers to take land compulsorily. In the late summer and autumn, agitation in Ireland (led by Mr Ginnell, M.P.) took the form of driving cattle off large grass farms, as part of a campaign against what was known as “ranching.” This reckless and lawless practice extended to several counties, but was worst in Galway and Roscommon. The government was determined not to use the Crimes Act, and the result was that offenders nearly always went unpunished, benches of magistrates being often swamped by the chairmen of district councils who wereex officiojustices under the act of 1898.
The general election of 1910 placed the Liberal and Unionist parties in a position of almost exact equality in the House of Commons, and it was at once evident that the Nationalists under Mr Redmond’s leadership would hold the balance of power and control the fortunes of Mr Asquith’s government.A small body of “independent Nationalists,” led by Mr William O’Brien and Mr T. M. Healy, voiced the general dislike in Ireland of the Budget of 1909, the rejection of which by the House of Lords had precipitated the dissolution of parliament. But although this band of free-lances was a menace to Mr Redmond’s authority and to the solidarity of the “pledge-bound” Irish parliamentary party, the two sections did not differ in their desire to get rid of the “veto” of the House of Lords, which they recognized as the standing obstacle to Home Rule, and which it was the avowed policy of the government to abolish.
Bibliography.—Ancient: TheAnnals of the Four Masters, ed. J. O’Donovan (1851), compiled in Donegal under Charles I., gives a continuous account of Celtic Ireland down to 1616. The independentAnnals of Lough Cé(Rolls series) end with 1590. TheTopographia and Expugnatioof Giraldus Cambrensis (Rolls series) are chiefly valuable for his account of the Anglo-Norman invaders and for descriptions of the country. Sir J. T. Gilbert’sViceroys of Ireland(Dublin, 1865) gives a connected view of the feudal establishment to the accession of Henry VIII. TheCalendar of Documents relating to Irelandin the Public Record Office extends from 1171 to 1307. Christopher Pembridge’sAnnals from 1162 to 1370were published by William Camden and reprinted in Sir J. T. Gilbert’sChartularies of St Mary’s Abbey(Dublin, 1884).The Annals of Clyn, Dowling and Gracehave been printed by the Irish Archaeological Society and the Celtic Society.For the 16th century see volumes ii. and iii. of thePrinted State Papers(1834), and theCalendars of State Papers, Ireland, including that of the Carew MSS. 1515 to 1603. See also Richard Stanihurst’sChronicle, continued by John Hooker, which is included in Holinshed’sChronicles; E. Spenser,View of the State of Ireland, edited by H. Morley (1890); Fynes Moryson,History of Ireland(1735); Thomas Stafford,Pacata Hibernia(1810); and R. Bagwell,Ireland under the Tudors(1885-1890).For the 17th century see theCalendars of Irish State Papers, 1603-1665(Dublin, 1772);Strafford Letters, edited by W. Knowler (1739): Thomas Carte,Life of Ormonde(1735-1736), andOrmonde Papers(1739); Roger Boyle, earl of Orrery,State letters(1743); theContemporary History of Affairs in Ireland, 1641-1652(1879-1880), andHistory of the Irish Confederation and the War in Ireland, 1641-1649(1882-1891), both edited by Sir J. T. Gilbert; Edmund Ludlow’sMemoirs, edited by C. H. Firth (1894); theMemoirsof James Touchet, earl of Castlehaven (1815); andCromwell’s Letters and Speeches, edited by T. Carlyle (1904). See also J. P. Prendergast,The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland(1870); Denis Murphy,Cromwell in Ireland(1885): M. A. Hickson,Ireland in the 17th Century(1884); Sir John Temple,History of the Irish Rebellion(1812); P. Walsh,History of the Remonstrance(1674); George Story,Impartial History of the Wars of Ireland(1693); Thomas Witherow,Derry and Enniskillen(1873); Philip Dwyer,Siege of Derry(1893); Lord Macaulay,History of England; and S. R. Gardiner,History of England, 1603-1656. Further writings which may be consulted are:The Embassy in Ireland of Rinuccini, 1645-1649, translated from the Italian by A. Hutton (1873); Sir William Petty’sDown Survey, edited by T. A. Larcom (1851), and hisEconomic Writings, edited by C. H. Hull (1899); Charles O’Kelly’sMacariae Excidium, edited by J. C. O’Callaghan (1850); andA Jacobite Narrative of the War in Ireland, 1688-91, edited by Sir J. T. Gilbert (1892).For the 18th century J. A. Froude’sEnglish in Irelandand W. E. H. Lecky’sHistory of Englandcover the whole ground. See also theLetters 1724-1738of Archbishop Hugh Boulter, edited by G. Faulkner (1770); theWorksof Dean Swift; John Campbell’sPhilosophical Survey of Ireland(1778); Arthur Young’sTour in Ireland(1780); Henry Grattan’sLife of the Right Hon. Henry Grattan(1839-1846); theCorrespondenceof the Marquess Cornwallis, edited by C. Ross (1859); Wolfe Tone’sAutobiography, edited by R. B. O’Brien (1893); and R. R. Madden’sUnited Irishmen(1842-1846).For the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century see theAnnual Register; R. M. Martin,Ireland before and after the Union(1848); Sir T. Wyse,Historical Sketch of the late Catholic Association(1829); G. L. Smyth,Ireland, Historical and Statistical(1844-1849); Sir C. E. Trevelyan,The Irish Crisis(1880); N. W. Senior,Journals, Conversations and Essays relating to Ireland(1868); Sir G. C. Lewis,On Local Disturbances in Ireland and on the Irish Church Question(1836); John Morley,Life of W. E. Gladstone; Lord Fitzmaurice,Life of Lord Granville(1905); and R. Barry O’Brien,Life of Parnell(1898). Other authorities are Isaac Butt,Irish Federalism(1870); H. O. Arnold-Forster,The Truth about the Land League(1883); A. V. Dicey,England’s Case against Home Rule(1886); W. E. Gladstone,History of an Idea(1886), and a reply to this by J. E. Webb entitledThe Queen’s Enemies in America(1886); and Mrs E. Lynn Linton,About Ireland(1890). See also theReport of the Parnell Special Commission(1890); theReportof the Bessborough Commission (1881), of the Richmond Commission (1881), of the Cowper Commission (1887), and of the Mathew Commission (1893), and theReportof the Congested Districts Board (1899).For the church in Ireland see: Henry Cotton,Fasti ecclesiae hibernicae(1848-1878); W. M. Brady,The Episcopal Succession(Rome, 1876); R. Mant,History of the Church of Ireland(1840); J. T. Ball,The Reformed Church in Ireland, 1537-1886(1886); and W. D. Killen,Ecclesiastical History of Ireland(1875). A. Theiner’sVetera Monumenta(Rome, 1864) contains documents concerning the medieval church, and there are many others in Ussher’s Works, and for a later period in Cardinal Moran’sSpicilegium Ossoriense(1874-1884). TheWorksof Sir James Ware, edited by Walter Harris, are generally useful, and Alice S. Green’sThe Making of Ireland and its Undoing(1908), although written from a partisan standpoint, may also be consulted.
Bibliography.—Ancient: TheAnnals of the Four Masters, ed. J. O’Donovan (1851), compiled in Donegal under Charles I., gives a continuous account of Celtic Ireland down to 1616. The independentAnnals of Lough Cé(Rolls series) end with 1590. TheTopographia and Expugnatioof Giraldus Cambrensis (Rolls series) are chiefly valuable for his account of the Anglo-Norman invaders and for descriptions of the country. Sir J. T. Gilbert’sViceroys of Ireland(Dublin, 1865) gives a connected view of the feudal establishment to the accession of Henry VIII. TheCalendar of Documents relating to Irelandin the Public Record Office extends from 1171 to 1307. Christopher Pembridge’sAnnals from 1162 to 1370were published by William Camden and reprinted in Sir J. T. Gilbert’sChartularies of St Mary’s Abbey(Dublin, 1884).The Annals of Clyn, Dowling and Gracehave been printed by the Irish Archaeological Society and the Celtic Society.
For the 16th century see volumes ii. and iii. of thePrinted State Papers(1834), and theCalendars of State Papers, Ireland, including that of the Carew MSS. 1515 to 1603. See also Richard Stanihurst’sChronicle, continued by John Hooker, which is included in Holinshed’sChronicles; E. Spenser,View of the State of Ireland, edited by H. Morley (1890); Fynes Moryson,History of Ireland(1735); Thomas Stafford,Pacata Hibernia(1810); and R. Bagwell,Ireland under the Tudors(1885-1890).
For the 17th century see theCalendars of Irish State Papers, 1603-1665(Dublin, 1772);Strafford Letters, edited by W. Knowler (1739): Thomas Carte,Life of Ormonde(1735-1736), andOrmonde Papers(1739); Roger Boyle, earl of Orrery,State letters(1743); theContemporary History of Affairs in Ireland, 1641-1652(1879-1880), andHistory of the Irish Confederation and the War in Ireland, 1641-1649(1882-1891), both edited by Sir J. T. Gilbert; Edmund Ludlow’sMemoirs, edited by C. H. Firth (1894); theMemoirsof James Touchet, earl of Castlehaven (1815); andCromwell’s Letters and Speeches, edited by T. Carlyle (1904). See also J. P. Prendergast,The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland(1870); Denis Murphy,Cromwell in Ireland(1885): M. A. Hickson,Ireland in the 17th Century(1884); Sir John Temple,History of the Irish Rebellion(1812); P. Walsh,History of the Remonstrance(1674); George Story,Impartial History of the Wars of Ireland(1693); Thomas Witherow,Derry and Enniskillen(1873); Philip Dwyer,Siege of Derry(1893); Lord Macaulay,History of England; and S. R. Gardiner,History of England, 1603-1656. Further writings which may be consulted are:The Embassy in Ireland of Rinuccini, 1645-1649, translated from the Italian by A. Hutton (1873); Sir William Petty’sDown Survey, edited by T. A. Larcom (1851), and hisEconomic Writings, edited by C. H. Hull (1899); Charles O’Kelly’sMacariae Excidium, edited by J. C. O’Callaghan (1850); andA Jacobite Narrative of the War in Ireland, 1688-91, edited by Sir J. T. Gilbert (1892).
For the 18th century J. A. Froude’sEnglish in Irelandand W. E. H. Lecky’sHistory of Englandcover the whole ground. See also theLetters 1724-1738of Archbishop Hugh Boulter, edited by G. Faulkner (1770); theWorksof Dean Swift; John Campbell’sPhilosophical Survey of Ireland(1778); Arthur Young’sTour in Ireland(1780); Henry Grattan’sLife of the Right Hon. Henry Grattan(1839-1846); theCorrespondenceof the Marquess Cornwallis, edited by C. Ross (1859); Wolfe Tone’sAutobiography, edited by R. B. O’Brien (1893); and R. R. Madden’sUnited Irishmen(1842-1846).
For the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century see theAnnual Register; R. M. Martin,Ireland before and after the Union(1848); Sir T. Wyse,Historical Sketch of the late Catholic Association(1829); G. L. Smyth,Ireland, Historical and Statistical(1844-1849); Sir C. E. Trevelyan,The Irish Crisis(1880); N. W. Senior,Journals, Conversations and Essays relating to Ireland(1868); Sir G. C. Lewis,On Local Disturbances in Ireland and on the Irish Church Question(1836); John Morley,Life of W. E. Gladstone; Lord Fitzmaurice,Life of Lord Granville(1905); and R. Barry O’Brien,Life of Parnell(1898). Other authorities are Isaac Butt,Irish Federalism(1870); H. O. Arnold-Forster,The Truth about the Land League(1883); A. V. Dicey,England’s Case against Home Rule(1886); W. E. Gladstone,History of an Idea(1886), and a reply to this by J. E. Webb entitledThe Queen’s Enemies in America(1886); and Mrs E. Lynn Linton,About Ireland(1890). See also theReport of the Parnell Special Commission(1890); theReportof the Bessborough Commission (1881), of the Richmond Commission (1881), of the Cowper Commission (1887), and of the Mathew Commission (1893), and theReportof the Congested Districts Board (1899).
For the church in Ireland see: Henry Cotton,Fasti ecclesiae hibernicae(1848-1878); W. M. Brady,The Episcopal Succession(Rome, 1876); R. Mant,History of the Church of Ireland(1840); J. T. Ball,The Reformed Church in Ireland, 1537-1886(1886); and W. D. Killen,Ecclesiastical History of Ireland(1875). A. Theiner’sVetera Monumenta(Rome, 1864) contains documents concerning the medieval church, and there are many others in Ussher’s Works, and for a later period in Cardinal Moran’sSpicilegium Ossoriense(1874-1884). TheWorksof Sir James Ware, edited by Walter Harris, are generally useful, and Alice S. Green’sThe Making of Ireland and its Undoing(1908), although written from a partisan standpoint, may also be consulted.
(R. Ba.)
1The importance of the commerce between Ireland and Gaul in early times, and in particular the trade in wine, has been insisted upon by H. Zimmer in papers in theAbh. d. Berl. Akad. d. Wissenschaften(1909).2On the subject of Ptolemy’s description of Ireland see articles by G. H. Orpen in theJournal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland(June 1894), and John MacNeill in theNew Ireland Review(September 1906).3Scholars are only beginning to realize how close was the connexion between Ireland and Wales from early times. Pedersen has recently pointed out the large number of Brythonic and Welsh loan words received into Irish from the time of the Roman occupation of Britain to the beginning of the literary period. Welsh writers now assume an Irish origin for much of the contents of the Mabinogion.4It seems probable that the celebrated monastery of Whithorn in Galloway played some part in the reform movement, at any rate in the north of Ireland. Findian of Moville spent some years there.5The O’Neills who played such an important part in later Irish history do not take their name from Niall Nóigiallach, though they are descended from him. They take their name from Niall Glúndub (d. 919).6At this period it is extremely difficult to distinguish between Norwegians and Danes on account of the close connexion between the ruling families of both countries.7This name survives in Fingall, the name of a district north of Dublin city. Dubgall is contained in the proper names MacDougall, MacDowell.8In Anglo-Norman times the Scandinavians of Dublin and other cities are always called Ostmen,i.e.Eastmen; hence the name Ostmanstown, now Oxmanstown, a part of the city of Dublin.9On the name see K. MeyerErin, iv. pp. 71-73.10Donaban, the son of this Ivar of Waterford, is the ancestor of the O’Donavans, Donoban that of the O’Donovans.11The termrathwas perhaps applied to the rampart, but bothlisandrathare used to denote the whole structure.12See D’Arbois de Jubainville,Revue celtique, xxv. 1 ff., 181 ff.13The whole question is discussed by Mr J. H. Round in his article on “The Pope and the Conquest of Ireland” (Commune of London, 1899, pp. 171-200), where further references will be found.
1The importance of the commerce between Ireland and Gaul in early times, and in particular the trade in wine, has been insisted upon by H. Zimmer in papers in theAbh. d. Berl. Akad. d. Wissenschaften(1909).
2On the subject of Ptolemy’s description of Ireland see articles by G. H. Orpen in theJournal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland(June 1894), and John MacNeill in theNew Ireland Review(September 1906).
3Scholars are only beginning to realize how close was the connexion between Ireland and Wales from early times. Pedersen has recently pointed out the large number of Brythonic and Welsh loan words received into Irish from the time of the Roman occupation of Britain to the beginning of the literary period. Welsh writers now assume an Irish origin for much of the contents of the Mabinogion.
4It seems probable that the celebrated monastery of Whithorn in Galloway played some part in the reform movement, at any rate in the north of Ireland. Findian of Moville spent some years there.
5The O’Neills who played such an important part in later Irish history do not take their name from Niall Nóigiallach, though they are descended from him. They take their name from Niall Glúndub (d. 919).
6At this period it is extremely difficult to distinguish between Norwegians and Danes on account of the close connexion between the ruling families of both countries.
7This name survives in Fingall, the name of a district north of Dublin city. Dubgall is contained in the proper names MacDougall, MacDowell.
8In Anglo-Norman times the Scandinavians of Dublin and other cities are always called Ostmen,i.e.Eastmen; hence the name Ostmanstown, now Oxmanstown, a part of the city of Dublin.
9On the name see K. MeyerErin, iv. pp. 71-73.
10Donaban, the son of this Ivar of Waterford, is the ancestor of the O’Donavans, Donoban that of the O’Donovans.
11The termrathwas perhaps applied to the rampart, but bothlisandrathare used to denote the whole structure.
12See D’Arbois de Jubainville,Revue celtique, xxv. 1 ff., 181 ff.
13The whole question is discussed by Mr J. H. Round in his article on “The Pope and the Conquest of Ireland” (Commune of London, 1899, pp. 171-200), where further references will be found.
IRELAND, CHURCH OF.The ancient Church of Ireland (described in the Irish Church Act 1869 by this its historic title) has a long and chequered history, which it will be interesting to trace in outline. The beginnings of Christianity in Ireland are difficult to trace, but there is no doubt that the first Christian missionary whose labours were crowned with any considerable success was Patrick (fl.c.450), who has always been reckoned the patron saint of the country. For six centuries the Church of which he was the founder occupied a remarkable position in Western Christendom. Ireland, in virtue at once of its geographical situation and of the spirit of its people, was less affected than other countries by the movements of European thought; and thus its development, social and religious, was largely independent of foreign influences, whether Roman or English. In full communion with the Latin Church, the Irish long preserved many peculiarities, such as their monastic system and the date at which Easter was kept, which distinguished them in discipline, though not conspicuously in doctrine, from the Christians of countries more immediately under papal control (seeIreland:Early History). The incessant incursions of the Danes, who were the scourge of the land for a period of nearly three hundred years, prevented the Church from redeeming the promise of her infancy; and at the date of the English conquest of Ireland (1172) she had lost much of her ancient zeal and of her independence. By this time she had come more into line with the rest of Europe, and the Synod of Cashel put the seal to a new policy by its acknowledgment of the papal jurisdiction and by its decrees assimilating the Church, in ritual and usages, to that of England. There was no thought of a breach of continuity, but the distinctive features of Celtic Christianity gradually disappeared from this time onwards. English influence was strong only in the region round Dublin (known as the Pale); and beyond this district the Irish were not disposed to view with favour any ecclesiastical reforms which had their origin in the sister country. Thus from the days of Henry VIII. the Reformation movement was hindered in Ireland by national prejudice, and it never succeeded in gaining the allegiance of the Irish people as a whole. The policy which directed its progress was blundering and stupid, and reflects little credit on the English statesmen who were responsible for it. No attempt was made to commend the principles of the Reformation to the native Irish by conciliating national sentiment; and the policy which forbade the translation of the Prayer Book into the Irish language, and suggested that where English was not understood Latin might be used as an alternative, was doomed to failure from the beginning. And, in fact, the reformed church of Ireland is to this day the church of a small section only of the population.
The Reformation period begins with the passing of the Irish Supremacy Act 1537. As in England, the changes in religion of successive sovereigns alternately checked and promoted the progress of the movement, although in Ireland the mass of the people were less deeply affected by the religious controversies of the times than in Great Britain. At Mary’s accession five bishops either abandoned, or were deprived of, their sees; but the Anglo-Irish who remained faithful to the Reformation were not subjected to persecution such as would have been their fate on the other side of the Channel. Again, under Elizabeth, while two bishops (William Walsh of Meath and Thomas Leverous of Kildare) were deprived for open resistanceto the new order of things, and while stern measures were taken to suppress treasonable plotting against the constitution, the uniform policy of the government in ecclesiastical matters was one of toleration. James I. caused the Supremacy Act to be rigorously enforced, but on political rather than on religious grounds. In distant parts of Ireland, indeed, the unreformed order of service was often used without interference from the secular authority, although the bishops had openly accepted the Act of Uniformity.
The episcopal succession, then, was unbroken at the Reformation. The Marian prelates are admitted on all hands to have been the true bishops of the Church, and in every case they were followed by a line of lawful successors, leading down to the present occupants of the several sees. The rival lines of Roman Catholic titulars are not in direct succession to the Marian bishops, and cannot be regarded as continuous with the medieval Church. The question of the continuity of the pre-Reformation Church with the Church of the Celtic period before the Anglo-Norman conquest of Ireland is more difficult. Ten out of eleven archbishops of Armagh who held office between 1272 and 1439 were consecrated outside Ireland, and there is no evidence forthcoming that any one of them derived his apostolic succession through bishops of the Irish Church. It may be stated with confidence that the present Church of Ireland is the direct and legitimate successor of the Church of the 14th and 15th centuries, but it cannot so clearly be demonstrated that any existing organization is continuous with the Church of St Patrick. In the reign of James I. the first Convocation of the clergy was summoned in Ireland, of which assembly the most notable act was the adoption of the “Irish Articles” (1615). These had been drawn up by Usher, and were more decidedly Calvinistic in tone than the Thirty-nine Articles, which were not adopted as standards in Ireland until 1634, when Strafford forced them on Convocation. During the Commonwealth period the bishoprics which became vacant were not filled; but on the accession of Charles II. the Church was strengthened by the translation of John Bramhall (the most learned and zealous of the prelates) from Derry to the primatial see of Armagh, and the consecration of twelve other bishops, among whom was Jeremy Taylor. The short period during which the policy of James II. prevailed in Ireland was one of disaster to the Church; but under William and Mary she regained her former position. She had now been reformed for more than 100 years, but had made little progress; and the tyrannical provisions of the Penal Code introduced by the English government made her more unpopular than ever. The clergy, finding their ministrations unacceptable to the great mass of the population, were tempted to indolence and non-residence; and although bright exceptions could be named, there was much that called for reform. To William King (1650-1729), bishop of Derry, and subsequently archbishop of Dublin, it was mainly due that the work of the Church was reorganized, and the impulse which he gave it was felt all through the 18th century. His ecclesiastical influence was exerted in direct opposition to Primate Hugh Boulter and his school, who aimed at making the Established Church the instrument for the promotion of English political opinions rather than the spiritual home of the Irish people. In 1800 the Act of Union was passed by the Legislature; and thenceforward, until Disestablishment, there was but one “United Church of England and Ireland.”
Continuous agitation for the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities brought about in 1833 the passing of the Church Temporalities Act, one of the most important provisions of which was the reduction of the number of Irish archbishoprics from four to two, and of bishoprics from eighteen to ten, the funds thus released being administered by commissioners. In 1838 the Tithe Rentcharge Act, which transferred the payment of tithes from the occupiers to the owners of land, was passed, and thus a substantial grievance was removed. It became increasingly plain, however, as years passed, that all such measures of relief were inadequate to allay the dissatisfaction felt by the majority of Irishmen because of the continued existence of the Established Church. Her position had been pledged to her by the Act of Union, and she was undoubtedly the historical representative of the ancient Church of the land; but such arguments proved unavailing in view of the visible fact that she had not gained the affections of the people. The census of 1861 showed that out of a total population of 5,798,967 only 693,357 belonged to the Established Church, 4,505,265 being Roman Catholics; and once this had been made clear, the passing of the Act of Disestablishment was only a question of time. Introduced by Mr Gladstone, and passed in 1869, it became law on the 1st of January 1871.
The Church was thus suddenly thrown on her own resources, and called on to reorganize her ecclesiastical system, as well as to make provision for the maintenance of her future clergy. A convention of the bishops, clergy, and laity was summoned in 1870, and its first act was to declare the adherence of the Church of Ireland to the ancient standards, and her determination to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, while reaffirming her witness, as Protestant and Reformed, against the innovations of Rome. Under the constitution then agreed on, the supreme governing body of the Church is the General Synod, consisting of the bishops and of 208 clerical and 416 lay representatives of the several dioceses, whose local affairs are managed by subordinate Diocesan Synods. The bishops are elected as vacancies arise, and, with certain restrictions, by the Diocesan Synods, the Primate, whose see is Armagh, being chosen by the bishops out of their own number. The patronage of benefices is vested in boards of nomination, on which both the diocese and the parish are represented. The Diocesan Courts, consisting of the bishop, his chancellor, and two elected members, one clerical and the other lay, deal as courts of first instance with legal questions; but there is an appeal to the Court of the General Synod, composed of three bishops and four laymen who have held judicial office. During the years 1871 to 1878 the revision of the Prayer Book mainly occupied the attention of the General Synod; but although many far-reaching resolutions were proposed by the then predominant Evangelical party, few changes of moment were carried, and none which affected the Church’s doctrinal position. A two-thirds majority of both the lay and clerical vote is necessary before any change can be made in the formularies, and an ultimate veto rests, on certain conditions, with the house of bishops.
The effects of Disestablishment have been partly good and partly evil. On the one hand, the Church has now all the benefits of autonomy and is free from the anomalies incidental to state control. Her laws are definite, and the authority of her judicial courts is recognized by all her members. The place given to the laity in her synods has quickened in them the sense of responsibility so essential to the Church’s progress. And although there are few worldly inducements to men to take orders in Ireland, the clergy are, for the most part, the equals of their predecessors in social standing and in intellectual equipment, while the standard of clerical activity is higher than in pre-Disestablishment days. On the other hand, the vesting of patronage in large bodies like synods, or (as is the case in some districts) in nominators with little knowledge of the Church beyond the borders of their own parish, is not an ideal system, although it is working better as the dangers of parochialism and provinciality are becoming more generally recognized than in the early years of Disestablishment.
The finances are controlled by the Representative Church Body, to which the sum of £7,581,075, sufficient to provide life annuities for the existing clergy (2043 in number), amounting to £596,913, was handed over by the Church Temporalities Commissioners in 1870. So skilfully was this fund administered, and so generous were the contributions of clergy and laity, at and since Disestablishment, that while on 31st December 1906 only 136 annuitants were living, the total assets in the custody of the Representative Church Body amounted at that date to £8,729,941. Of this sum no less than £6,525,952 represented the free-will offerings of the members of the Churchfor the thirty-seven years ending 31st December 1906. Out of the interest on capital, augmented by the annual parochial assessments, which are administered by the central office, provision has to be made for two archbishops at £2500 per annum, eleven bishops, who receive about £1500 each, and over 1500 parochial clergy. Of the clergy only 338 are curates, while 1161 are incumbents, the average annual income of a benefice being about £240, with (in most cases) a house. The large majority of the clergy receive their training in the Divinity School of Trinity College, Dublin. At the census of 1901 the members of the Church of Ireland numbered 579,385 out of a total population of 4,456,546.
See R. Mant,History of the Church of Ireland(2 vols., London, 1840);Essays on the Irish Church, by various writers (Oxford, 1866); Maziere Brady,The Alleged Conversion of the Irish Bishops(London, 1877); A. T. Lee,The Irish Episcopal Succession(Dublin, 1867); G. T. Stokes,Ireland and the Celtic Church(London, 1888),Ireland and the Anglo-Norman Church(London, 1892),Some Worthies of the Irish Church(London, 1900); T. Olden,The Church of Ireland(London, 1892); J. T. Ball,The Reformed Church of Ireland(London, 1890); H. C. Groves,The Titular Archbishops of Ireland(Dublin, 1897); W. Lawlor,The Reformation in Ireland(London, 1906);Reports of the Representative Church Body(Dublin, 1872-1905).
See R. Mant,History of the Church of Ireland(2 vols., London, 1840);Essays on the Irish Church, by various writers (Oxford, 1866); Maziere Brady,The Alleged Conversion of the Irish Bishops(London, 1877); A. T. Lee,The Irish Episcopal Succession(Dublin, 1867); G. T. Stokes,Ireland and the Celtic Church(London, 1888),Ireland and the Anglo-Norman Church(London, 1892),Some Worthies of the Irish Church(London, 1900); T. Olden,The Church of Ireland(London, 1892); J. T. Ball,The Reformed Church of Ireland(London, 1890); H. C. Groves,The Titular Archbishops of Ireland(Dublin, 1897); W. Lawlor,The Reformation in Ireland(London, 1906);Reports of the Representative Church Body(Dublin, 1872-1905).
(J. H. Be.)
IRENAEUS,bishop of Lyons at the end of the 2nd century, was one of the most distinguished theologians of the ante-Nicene Church. Very little is known of his early history. His childhood was spent in Asia Minor, probably at or near Smyrna; for he himself tells us (Adv. haer.iii. 3, 4, and Euseb.Hist. Eccl.v. 20) that as a child he heard the preaching of Polycarp, the aged bishop of Smyrna (d. February 22, 156). But we do not know when this was. He can hardly have been born very long after 130, for later on he frequently mentions having met certain Christian presbyters who had actually seen John, the disciple of our Lord. The circumstances under which he came into the West are also unknown to us; the only thing which is certain is that at the time of the persecution of the Gallic Church under Marcus Aurelius (177) he was a presbyter of the church at Lyons. In 177 or 178 he went to Rome on a mission from this church, to make representations to Bishop Eleutherius in favour of a more lenient treatment of the Montanists (seeMontanism.; Eus. v. 4. 2). On his return he was called upon to undertake the direction of the church at Lyons in the place of Bishop Pothinus, who had perished in the persecution (Eus. v. 5. 8). As bishop he carried on a great and fruitful work. Though the statement of Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc.i. 29), that within a short time he succeeded in converting all Lyons to Christianity, is probably exaggerated, from him at any rate dates the wide spread of Christianity in Lyons and its neighbourhood. He devoted particular attention to trying to reconcile the numerous sects which menaced the existence of the church (see below). In the dispute on the question of Easter, which for a long time disturbed the Christian Church both in West and East, he endeavoured by means of many letters to effect a compromise, and in particular to exercise a moderating influence on Victor, the bishop of Rome, and his unyielding attitude towards the dissentient churches of Africa, thus justifying his name of “peace-maker” (Eirenaios) (Eus.H. E.v. 24. 28). The date of his death is unknown. His martyrdom under Septimius Severus is related by Gregory of Tours, but by no earlier writer.
The chief work of Irenaeus, written about 180, is his “Refutation and Overthrow of Gnosis, falsely so called” (usually indicated by the nameAgainst the Heresies). Of the Greek original of this work only fragments survive; it only exists in full in an old Latin translation, the slavish fidelity of which to a certain extent makes up for the loss of the original text. The treatise is divided into five books: of these the first two contain a minute and well-informed description and criticism of the tenets of various heretical sects, especially the Valentinians; the other three set forth the true doctrines of Christianity, and it is from them that we find out the theological opinions of the author. Irenaeus admits himself that he is not a good writer. And indeed, as he worked, his materials assumed such unmanageable proportions that he could not succeed in throwing them into a satisfactory form. But however clumsily he may have handled his material, he has produced a work which is even nowadays rightly valued as the first systematic exposition of Catholic belief. The foundation upon which Irenaeus bases his system consists in the episcopate, the canon of the Old and New Testaments, and the rule of faith. With their assistance he sets forth and upholds, in opposition to the gnostic dualism,i.e.the severing of the natural and the supernatural, the Catholic monism,i.e.the unity of the life of faith as willed by God. The “grace of truth” (thecharisma), which the apostles had called down upon their first disciples by prayer and laying-on of hands, and which was to be imparted anew by way of succession (διαδοχή,successio) to the bishops from generation to generation without a break, makes those who receive it living witnesses of the salvation offered to the faithful by written and spoken tradition. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, rightly expounded by the church alone, give us an insight into God’s plan of salvation for mankind, and explain to us the covenant which He made on various occasions (Moses and Christ; or Noah, Abraham, Moses and Christ). Finally, the “rule of faith” (regula fidei), received at baptism, contains in itself all the riches of Christian truth. To distribute these,i.e.to elucidate the rule of faith as set forth in the creed, and further to point out its agreement with the Scriptures, is the object of Irenaeus as a theologian. Hence he lays the greatest stress on the conception of God’s disposition of salvation towards mankind (oeconomia), the object of which is that mankind, who in Adam were sunk in sin and death, should in Christ, comprised as it were in his person, be brought back to life. God, as the head of the family, so to speak, disposes of all. The Son, the Word (Logos) for ever dwelling with the Father, carries out His behests. The Holy Ghost (Pneuma), however, as the Spirit of wisdom for ever dwelling with the Father, controls what the Father has appointed and the Son fulfilled, and this Spirit lives in the church. The climax of the divine plan of salvation is found in the incarnation of the Word. God was to become man, and in Christ he became man. Christ must be God; for if not, the devil would have had a natural claim on him, and he would have been no more exempt from death than the other children of Adam; he must beman, if his blood were indeed to redeem us. On God incarnate the power of the devil is broken, and in Him is accomplished the reconciliation between God and man, who henceforth pursues his true object, namely, to become like unto God. In the God-man God has drawn men up to Himself. Into their human, fleshly and perishable nature imperishable life is thereby engrafted; it has become deified, and death has been changed into immortality. In the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper it is the heavenly body of the God-man which is actually partaken of in the elements. This exposition by Irenaeus of the divine economy and the incarnation was taken as a criterion by later theologians, especially in the Greek Church (cf. Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus). He himself was especially influenced by St John and St Paul. Before him the Fourth Gospel did not seem to exist for the Church; Irenaeus made it a living force. His conception of the Logos is not that of the philosophers and apologists; he looks upon the Logos not as the “reason” of God, but as the “voice” with which the Father speaks in the revelation to mankind, as did the writer of the Fourth Gospel. And the Pauline epistles are adopted almost bodily by Irenaeus, according to the ideas contained in them; his expositions often present the appearance of a patchwork of St Paul’s ideas. Certainly, it is only one side of Paul’s thought that he displays to us. The great conceptions of justification and atonement are hardly ever touched by Irenaeus. In Irenaeus is no longer heard the Jew, striving about and against the law, who has had to break free from his early tradition of Pharisaism.
Till recent times whatever other writings and letters of Irenaeus are mentioned by Eusebius appeared to be lost, with the exception of a fragment here or there. Recently, however, two Armenian scholars, Karapet Ter-Měkěrttschian and ErwandTer-Minassianz, have published from an Armenian translation a German edition (Leipzig, 1907; minor edition 1908) of the work “in proof of the apostolic teaching” mentioned by Eusebius (H. E.v. 26). This work, which is in the form of a dialogue with one Marcianus, otherwise unknown to us, contains a statement of the fundamental truths of Christianity. It is the oldest catechism extant, and an excellent example of how Bishop Irenaeus was able not only to defend Christianity as a theologian and expound it theoretically, but also to preach it to laymen.
Bibliography.—The edition of the Benedictine R. Massuet (Paris, 1710 and 1734, reprinted in Migne,Cursus patrologiae, Series Graeca, vol. v., Paris, 1857) long continued to be the standard one, till it was superseded by the editions of Adolph Stieren (2 vols., Leipzig, 1848-1853) and of W. Wigan Harvey (2 vols., Cambridge, 1857), the latter being the only edition which contains the Syriac fragments. For an English translation see theAnte-Nicene Library. Of modern monographs consult H. Ziegler,Irenaeus, der Bischof von Lyon(Berlin, 1871); Friedrich Loofs,Irenaeus-Handschriften(Leipzig, 1888); Johannes Werner,Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus(Leipzig, 1889); Johannes Kunze,Die Gotteslehre des Irenaeus(Leipzig, 1891); Ernst Klebba,Die Anthropologie des heiligen Irenaeus(Münster, 1894); Albert Dufourcq,Saint Irénée(Paris, 1904); Franz Stoll,Die Lehre des Heil. Irenaeus von der Erlösung und Heiligung(Mainz, 1905); also the histories of dogma, especially Harnack, and Bethune-Baker,An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine(London, 1903).
Bibliography.—The edition of the Benedictine R. Massuet (Paris, 1710 and 1734, reprinted in Migne,Cursus patrologiae, Series Graeca, vol. v., Paris, 1857) long continued to be the standard one, till it was superseded by the editions of Adolph Stieren (2 vols., Leipzig, 1848-1853) and of W. Wigan Harvey (2 vols., Cambridge, 1857), the latter being the only edition which contains the Syriac fragments. For an English translation see theAnte-Nicene Library. Of modern monographs consult H. Ziegler,Irenaeus, der Bischof von Lyon(Berlin, 1871); Friedrich Loofs,Irenaeus-Handschriften(Leipzig, 1888); Johannes Werner,Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus(Leipzig, 1889); Johannes Kunze,Die Gotteslehre des Irenaeus(Leipzig, 1891); Ernst Klebba,Die Anthropologie des heiligen Irenaeus(Münster, 1894); Albert Dufourcq,Saint Irénée(Paris, 1904); Franz Stoll,Die Lehre des Heil. Irenaeus von der Erlösung und Heiligung(Mainz, 1905); also the histories of dogma, especially Harnack, and Bethune-Baker,An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine(London, 1903).
(G. K.)
IRENE,the name of several Byzantine empresses.
1.Irene(752-803), the wife of Leo IV., East Roman emperor. Originally a poor but beautiful Athenian orphan, she speedily gained the love and confidence of her feeble husband, and at his death in 780 was left by him sole guardian of the empire and of their ten-year-old son Constantine VI. Seizing the supreme power in the name of the latter, Irene ruled the empire at her own discretion for ten years, displaying great firmness and sagacity in her government. Her most notable act was the restoration of the orthodox image-worship, a policy which she always had secretly favoured, though compelled to abjure it in her husband’s lifetime. Having elected Tarasius, one of her partisans, to the patriarchate (784), she summoned two church councils. The former of these, held in 786 at Constantinople, was frustrated by the opposition of the soldiers. The second, convened at Nicaea in 787, formally revived the adoration of images and reunited the Eastern church with that of Rome. As Constantine approached maturity he began to grow restive under her autocratic sway. An attempt to free himself by force was met and crushed by the empress, who demanded that the oath of fidelity should thenceforward be taken in her name alone. The discontent which this occasioned swelled in 790 into open resistance, and the soldiers, headed by the Armenian guard, formally proclaimed Constantine VI. as the sole ruler. A hollow semblance of friendship was maintained between Constantine and Irene, whose title of empress was confirmed in 792; but the rival factions remained, and Irene, by skilful intrigues with the bishops and courtiers, organized a powerful conspiracy on her own behalf. Constantine could only flee for aid to the provinces, but even there he was surrounded by participants in the plot. Seized by his attendants on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus, the emperor was carried back to the palace at Constantinople; and there, by the orders of his mother, his eyes were stabbed out. An eclipse of the sun and a darkness of seventeen days’ duration were attributed by the common superstition to the horror of heaven. Irene reigned in prosperity and splendour for five years. She is said to have endeavoured to negotiate a marriage between herself and Charlemagne; but according to Theophanes, who alone mentions it, the scheme was frustrated by Aëtius, one of her favourites. A projected alliance between Constantine and Charlemagne’s daughter, Rothrude, was in turn broken off by Irene. In 802 the patricians, upon whom she had lavished every honour and favour, conspired against her, and placed on the throne Nicephorus, the minister of finance. The haughty and unscrupulous princess, “who never lost sight of political power in the height of her religious zeal,” was exiled to Lesbos and forced to support herself by spinning. She died the following year. Her zeal in restoring images and monasteries has given her a place among the saints of the Greek church.
See E. Gibbon,The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire(ed. J. Bury, London, 1896), vol. v.; G. Finlay,History of Greece(ed. 1877, Oxford,) vol. ii.; F. C. Schlosser,Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser des oströmischen Reiches(Frankfort, 1812); J. D. Phoropoulos,Εἰρήνη ἡ αὐτοκράτειρα Ῥωμαίων(Leipzig, 1887); J. B. Bury,The Later Roman Empire(London, 1889), ii. 480-498; C. Diehl,Figures byzantines(Paris, 1906), pp. 77-109.
See E. Gibbon,The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire(ed. J. Bury, London, 1896), vol. v.; G. Finlay,History of Greece(ed. 1877, Oxford,) vol. ii.; F. C. Schlosser,Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser des oströmischen Reiches(Frankfort, 1812); J. D. Phoropoulos,Εἰρήνη ἡ αὐτοκράτειρα Ῥωμαίων(Leipzig, 1887); J. B. Bury,The Later Roman Empire(London, 1889), ii. 480-498; C. Diehl,Figures byzantines(Paris, 1906), pp. 77-109.
(M. O. B. C.)
2.Irene(c.1066-c.1120), the wife of Alexius I. The best-known fact of her life is the unsuccessful intrigue by which she endeavoured to divert the succession from her son John to Nicephorus Bryennius, the husband of her daughter Anna. Having failed to persuade Alexius, or, upon his death, to carry out acoup d’étatwith the help of the palace guards, she retired to a monastery and ended her life in obscurity.
3.Irene(d. 1161), the first wife of Manuel Comnenus. She was the daughter of the count of Sulzbach, and sister-in-law of the Roman emperor Conrad II., who arranged her betrothal. The marriage was celebrated at Constantinople in 1146. The new empress, who had exchanged her earlier name of Bertha for one more familiar to the Greeks, became a devoted wife, and by the simplicity of her manner contrasted favourably with most Byzantine queens of the age.