extraordinary qualities in the field. Bravery among American
officers is a rule which has happily had few exceptions, but
as an eminent general said, Grant possessed a quality above
bravery ; he had an insensibility to danger, apparently an uncon
sciousness of fear.
With this rare quality General Grant combined an evenness
of judgment, to be depended upon in sunshine and in storm.
Napoleon said, " The rarest attribute among generals is two
o clock in the morning courage." "I mean," he added, " un
prepared courage, that which is necessary on an unexpected
occasion and which in spite of the most unforeseen events
leaves full freedom of judgment and promptness of decision/
No better description could be given of the type of courage
which distinguished General Grant. His constant readiness
to fight was another quality which, according to the same high
authority, established his rank as a commander. " Generals,"
said the exile at St. Helena, " are rarely found eager to give
battle ; they choose their positions, consider their combina-
MEMORIAL SERVICES. 475
tions, and then indecision begins." "Nothing," added this
greatest warrior of modern times, " nothing is so difficult as to
decide." General Grant in his services in the field never once
exhibited indecision, and it was this quality which gave him
his crowning characteristic as a military leader ; he inspired his
men with a sense of their invincibility, and they were thence
forth invincible !
The career of General Grant when he passed from military
to civil administration was marked by his strong qualities.
His Presidency of eight years was rilled with events of magni
tude, in which if his judgment was sometimes questioned,
his patriotism was always conceded. He entered upon his
office after the angry disturbance caused by the unexpected
course of Mr. Lincoln s successor, and quietly enforced a policy
which had been for four years the source of embittered disputa
tion. His election to the Presidency proved in one important
aspect a landmark in the history of the country. For nearly
fifty years preceding that event there had been few Presidential
elections in which the fate of the Union had not in some
degree been agitated either by the threats of political malcon
tents or in the apprehensions of timid patriots. That day and
that danger had passed. The Union was saved by the victory
of the army commanded by General Grant. No menace of its
destruction has been heard since General Grant s victory at the
polls.
Death holds a flag of truce over its own. Under that flag,
friend and foe sit peacefully together, passions are stilled, be
nevolence is restored, wrongs are repaired, justice is done. It
was impossible that a career so long, so prominent, so positive
as that of General Grant, should not have provoked strife and
engendered enmity. For more than twenty years from the
death of Mr. Lincoln to the close of his own life General
Grant was the most conspicuous man in America one towards
whom leaders looked for leadership, upon whom partisans built
their hopes of victory, to whom personal friends by tens of
thousands offered the incense of sincere devotion. It was
according to the weakness and the strength of human nature
that counter-movements should ensue, that General Grant s
primacy should be challenged, that his party should be resisted,
476 MEMORIAL SERVICES.
that his devoted friends should be confronted by jealous men
in his own ranks, and by bitter enemies in the ranks of his
opponents. But all these passions, all these resentments are
buried in the grave which to-day receives his remains. Conten
tion over his rank as a commander ceases, as Unionist and
Confederate alike testify to his prowess in battle and his
magnanimity in peace. Controversy over his civil Administra
tion closes, as Democrat and Republican unite in pronouncing
him to have been in every act and in every aspiration an
American patriot.
THE IRISH QUESTION. 477
THE IRISH QUESTION.
[Speech delivered by Mr. Elaine before a public meeting in Portland, Maine,
June 1, 188G. The meeting was called to order by His Honor, Charles P.
Chapman, Mayor of the city, and His Excellency, Frederic Robie, Governor of
the State, presided.]
YOUR EXCELLENCY AND FELLOW-CITIZENS, Directly after
the published notice of this meeting I received a letter from a
venerable friend in an adjacent county asking me, as I was
announced to speak, to explain if I could, just what the " Irish
question" is. I appreciate this request, for on an issue that
calls forth so much sympathy and so much sentiment among
those devoted to free government, throughout the world, and
evokes so much passion among those who are personally con
cerned in the contest, there may be danger of not giving suffi
cient attention to the simple, elementary facts which enter into
the subject.
What then is Home Rule ? It is nothing more and nothing
less than that which is enjoyed among us by every State and
every Territory of the Union. Negatively it is what the people
of Ireland do not enjoy. In a Parliament of 670 members
Great Britain has 567 and Ireland has 103. Except with the
consent of this Parliament, in which the Irish members are
outnumbered by more than five to one, the people of Ireland
possess no Legislative power whatever. They cannot incorpo
rate a horse railroad company, or authorize a ferry over a
stream, or organize a gas company to light the streets of a city.
Apply that to yourselves. Suppose the State of Maine were
linked with the State of New York in a joint Legislature in
which New York had five members to Maine s one. Suppose
you could not take a step for the improvement of your beauti
ful city, or this State organize an association of any kind, or
478 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
adopt any measure for its own advancement, unless by the
permission of the overwhelming majority of the New York
members I How long do you think the people of Maine would
endure such a condition of affairs? Yet that illustrates the
position which Ireland holds with respect to England, except
that there is one irritating feature in addition which would not
apply to New York and Maine ; the centuries of oppression
which have inspired the people, of Ireland with a deep sense of
wrong on the part of England.
If the Anglo-Celtic contention were left to the people of the
United States to adjust, I suppose we should say, adopt the
Federal system ! Let Ireland have her legislature, let England
have her legislature, let Scotland have her legislature, let
Wales have her legislature, and then let the Imperial Parlia
ment legislate for the British Empire. Let questions that are
Irish be settled by Irishmen, questions that are English be set
tled by Englishmen, questions that are Welsh be settled by
Welshmen, and questions that are Scotch be settled by Scotch
men. Let questions that affect the whole Empire of Great
Britain be settled in a Parliament in which the four great con
stituent elements shall be impartially represented. That would
be our direct, shorthand method of settling the question. Under
that system we have lived and grown and prospered for more
than two hundred years in the United States, continually ex
panding and continually strengthening our institutions.
I do not forget that it would be political empiricism to
attempt to give the details of any measure that would settle
this prolonged strife between Great Britain and Ireland. To
prescribe definite measures for a British Parliament would be
a presumption on our part as much as for the English people to
prescribe definite measures for the American Congress. I have
noticed so many errors, even among the leading men of Great
Britain, concerning the Congress of the United States, that I
have been taught modesty in attempting to criticise the pro
cesses and the specific measures of the British Parliament. I
well remember that Lord Palmerston on a grave occasion dur
ing our Civil war informed the House of Commons that " the
President of the United States could not of his own power
declare war ; that it required the assent of the Senate." Every
THE IRISH QUESTION. 479
school-boy in America knows th?t it is the Congress of the
United States, both Senate and House, to which the war power
is given by the Constitution of the Republic, and not to the
President at all. But Lord Palmerston s error was slight com
pared with another which is said to have occurred in Parlia
ment. A member in an authoritative manner assured the
House that no law in the United States was valid until it had
received the assent of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the
several States ; and a fellow-member corrected him, saying,
" You are wrong ; the American Congress cannot discuss any
measure until two-thirds of the Legislatures of the States shall
have already approved it." Admonished by these and like in
stances, I refrain from any discussion of the details of Mr.
Gladstone s Home Rule bill. It may not be perfect. It may
not give to Ireland all that she is entitled to. I only know
that it is a step in the right direction, and that the long-
oppressed people of Ireland hail it as a great and beneficent
measure of relief. They and their representatives understand
it ; and more than all Mr. Gladstone understands it.
On the occasion of Lord John Russell s somewhat famous
motion in the House of Commons in 1844 to inquire into the
condition of Ireland, Mr. Seward said (I mean Lord Macaulay,
but I am sure that the memory of neither will be injured by
mistaking one for the other) Lord Macaulay said, in one of his
most eloquent speeches, " You admit that you govern Ireland
not as you govern England, not as you govern Scotland, but as
you govern your new conquests in Scinde ; not by means of
the respect which the people feel for the law, but by means of
bayonets and artillery and intrenched camps." If that were
true in 1844 I am sure I do not exaggerate when I say that the
long period of forty-two years which has intervened has served
to strengthen rather than to diminish the truth of Macaulay s
words. And now without in any way denying the facts set
forth in Macaulay s extraordinary statement, Lord Salisbury
comes forward with a remedy of an extremely harsh character.
He says in effect that " the Irish can remain as they are now
situated, or they can emigrate." But the Irish have been in Ire
land as long as Lord Salisbury s ancestors have been in England
and I presume much longer. His Lordship s lineage is not
480 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
given in Burke s Peerage beyond the illustrious Burleigh of
Queen Elizabeth s day, and possibly his remote ancestry may
have been Danish pirates or peasants in Normandy before the
Conquest, and centuries after the Irish people were known in
Ireland. I repeat, therefore, Lord Salisbury s proposition is
extremely harsh. Might we not, indeed, with good reason call
it impudent? Would it transgress courtesy if we called it
insolent ? Should we violate truth if we called it brutal in its
cruelty ? We have had occasion in this country to know Lord
Salisbury too well. He was the bitterest foe that the Govern
ment of the United States had in the British Parliament during
our civil war. He coldly advocated the destruction of the
American Union simply as a measure of increasing the com
merce and prosperity of Great Britain. His policy for Ireland
and his policy towards the United States are essentially alike
in spirit and in temper.
Another objection to Mr. Gladstone s policy comes from the
Presbyterians of Ulster in the form of an appeal to the Pres
byterians of the United States against granting the boon of
Home Rule to Ireland. As a Protestant I deplore this action.
I was educated under Presbyterian influences, in a Presbyte
rian college. I have connections with that church by blood
and affinity that began with my life and shall not cease until
my life ends. And yet I am free to say that I should be
ashamed of the Presbyterian Church of America if it re
sponded to an appeal which demands that five millions of Irish
people shall be perpetually deprived of free government because
of the remote and fanciful danger that a Dublin Parliament
might interfere with the religious liberty of Presbyterians in
Ulster. Mr. Chairman, if the Home Rule bill shall pass, the
Dublin Parliament will assume power with a greater responsi
bility to the public opinion of the world, than was ever before
imposed upon a Legislative body, because if the Dublin Parlia
ment is formed it will be formed by reason of the pressure of
public opinion from the liberty-loving people of the world. If
the Irishmen who compose it should take one step against
perfect liberty of conscience, or against any Protestant form of
worship, they would fall under a condemnation even greater in
its intensity than the friendship and sympathy which their own
THE IRISH QUESTION. 481
sufferings have so widely called forth. But I have not the
remotest fear that any such result will happen. The Catholics
and the Presbyterians of Ireland will live and do just as the
Presbyterians and Catholics of the United States live and do.
They will accord perfect liberty of conscience each to the
other, and will be mutually governed by the greatest of Chris
tian virtues, which is charity.
Mr. Gladstone s policy includes another measure. It pro
poses to do something to relieve the Irish from the intolerable
oppression of absentee landlordism. Let me here quote Lord
Macaulay again. Speaking of Ireland whose territory is less
than the territory of the State of Maine, less than thirty-three
thousand square miles in extent, Lord Macaulay in the same
speech from which I have already quoted, says, " In natural
fertility Ireland is superior to any area of equal size in Europe,
and is far more important to the prosperity, the strength, the
dignity of the British Empire than all our distant dependen
cies together ; more important than the Canadas, the West
Indies, South Africa, Australasia, Ceylon and the vast domin
ions of the Moguls." I am sure that if any Irish orator had
originally made that declaration in America he would have
been laughed at for Celtic exaggeration and imagination.
This extraordinary statement from Lord Macaulay led me to
a practical examination of Ireland s resources. I went at it in a
direct, farmer-like way, and examined the statistics relating to
Ireland s production. I gathered all my information from trust
worthy British authority, and I give you the result of my
examination, frankly confessing that I was astounded at the
magnitude of the figures. In the year 1880 Ireland produced
four million bushels of wheat. But wheat has ceased to be tlie
crop of Ireland. She produced eight million bushels of barley.
But barley is not one of the great crops of Ireland. She pro
duced seventy million bushels of oats, a very extraordinary
yield considering Ireland s small area. The next item I think
every one will recognize as peculiarly adapted to Ireland ;
of potatoes, she produced one hundred and ten millions of
bushels within sixty millions of the whole product of the-
United States for the same year. In turnips and mangels
together she produced one hundred and eighty-five million
482 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
bushels vastly greater in weight than the largest cotton crop
of the United States. She produced of flax sixty millions of
pounds, and of cabbage eight hundred and fifty millions of
pounds. She produced of hay three million eight hundred
thousand tons. She had on her thousand hills and in her val
leys over four million head of cattle, and in the same pasturage
she had three million five hundred thousand head of sheep.
She had five hundred and sixty thousand horses, and two hun
dred and ten thousand asses and mules. During the year 1880
she exported to England over seven hundred thousand cattle,
over seven hundred thousand sheep, and nearly half a million
swine. Pray remember all these came from a territory not
quite so large as the State of Maine, and from an area of cul
tivation less than twenty millions of acres in extent ! But with
this magnificent abundance on this fertile land, rivaling the
richness of the ancient land of Goshen, there are men in want
of food, and appealing to-day to the charity of the stranger
compelled to ask alms through their blood and kindred in
America. Why should this sad condition occur in a land that
overflows with plenty, and exports millions of produce to other
countries ? According to the inspired command of the great
Lawgiver of Israel, " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that tread-
eth out the corn," and St. Paul, in quoting this text in his first
epistle to Timothy, added, "The laborer is worthy of his
reward." Yet many of the men engaged in producing these
wonderful harvests are to-day lacking bread.
Mr. Gladstone believes, and we hope more than half of Great
Britain believes with him, that the cause of this distress in
Ireland is to be traced in large part to the absentee ownership
of the land. Seven hundred and twenty-nine Englishmen own
half the land in Ireland. Three thousand other men own the
majority of the other half of the agricultural land of Ireland.
Counting all the holdings there are but nineteen thousand two
hundred and eighty-eight owners of land in Ireland, and this in
a population of more than five million souls. Produce that
condition of affairs in Maine or in all New England and the
distress here in a few years would be as great as the distress in
Ireland to-day. Mr. Gladstone, speaking as a statesman and a
Christian, says that this intolerable wrong must cease, and that
THE IRISH QUESTION. 483
the men who till the land in Ireland must be permitted to
purchase and to hold it.
But the story is not half told. The tenants and the peasan
try of this little island, not so large, mind you, as Maine, pay a
rental of sixty-five millions of dollars per annum upon the land.
Besides this, Ireland pays an imperial tax of thirty-five millions
of dollars annually, and a local tax of fifteen millions more.
Thus the enormous sum of one hundred and fifteen millions of
dollars is annually wrought out of the bone and flesh and spirit
of the Irish people ! No wonder that under this burden many
lie crushed and down-trodden.
I believe the day has dawned for deliverance from these great
oppressions ; but from the experience of Ireland s past, it is not
wise to be too sanguine of a speedy result. For one, therefore,
I shall not be disappointed to see Mr. Gladstone s measures
defeated in this Parliament. The English members can do it.
But there is one thing which the English members cannot do.
They cannot permanently defy the public opinion of the lovers
of justice and liberty throughout the civilized world. Lord
Hartington made a very significant admission when in a com
plaining tone he accused Mr. Gladstone of having conceded so
much in his measure that Irishmen would never take less. I
do not know the day, whether it be this year or next year or
the year after that, or even years beyond, when a final settle
ment shall be made ; but I have confidence that if Mr. Glad
stone s bills are defeated the settlement will never be made on
as easy terms for English landlords as the Premier now proposes.
They complain sometimes in England of such meetings as
we are now holding. They say we are transcending the
just and proper duties of a friendly nation. Even if that were
true, the Englishman who remembers 1862-63-64 should main
tain a discreet silence. Yet I freely admit that misconduct
of Englishmen during our war would by no means justify mis
conduct on our part now. I do not refer to that as any pallia
tion or as any ground for justification if we were doing wrong.
I do not adopt the flippant cry of tit for tat, or the illogical
taunt of tu quoque. Indeed, there has been nothing done in
America that is not strictly within the lines of justice and
strictly within the limits of international obligation. Nor is
484 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
any thing done in the United States with the intention of in
juring or with the remotest desire to injure Great Britain. The
English people themselves are divided, and the American people
sympathize with what they believe to be the liberal and just
side of English opinion. We are no more sympathizing with
Ireland as against the England of the past than we are sympa
thizing with Gladstone against Salisbury in the England of the
present. Nor must it be forgotten that England herself, appar
ently not appreciating her own course towards Ireland, has
never failed in the last fifty years to extend sympathy and
sometimes the helping-hand to nationalities in Europe strug
gling to be freed from the clutch of tyranny. When Hungary
resisted the rule of Austria, Kossuth was as much a hero in
England as he was in America. When Lombardy raised the
standard of revolt against the House of Hapsburg, the British
Ministry could scarcely be held back from open expression of
sympathy. When Sicily revolted against the reign of the
Neapolitan Bourbons, English sjanpathy was so active that Lord
Palmerston was openly accused of permitting guns from Wool
wich Arsenal to be smuggled to the Island of Sicily to aid the
insurrection against King Bomba.
The American people are therefore justified by the example
of England, and apart from any consideration except the broad
one of human fellowship, stand forth as the friends of Ireland
in her present distress. They do not stand forth as Democrats.
They do not stand forth as Republicans. They do not stand
forth as Protestants. They do not stand forth as Catholics.
But they stand forth as citizens of a Free Republic, sympathiz
ing with freedom throughout the world.
If I had a word of personal advice to give, or if I were in a
position to give authoritative counsel, it would be this: the
time is coming that will probably try the patience and the
self-control of the Irish people more severely than they have
been tried in any other stage in the progress of their long
struggle. My advice is that by all means and with every
personal and moral influence which can be used, all acts of vio
lence be suppressed. Irishmen have earned the approving
opinion of that part of the Christian world which believes in
free government. Let them have a care that nothing be done
THE IRISH QUESTION. 485
to divide this opinion. Let no act of imprudence or rashness or
personal outrage or public violence produce a re-action. Never
has a cause been conducted with a clearer head or with better
judgment in its parliamentary relations than that which has
been conducted by Mr. Parnell. I regard it as a very fortunate
circumstance that Mr. Parnell is a Protestant. It has been the
singular, and in many respects the happy fortune of Ireland in
every trouble to be so led that generous-minded men the world
over might see that it was not sectarian strife, but a struggle
for freedom and good government. How often has the leader
in Irish agitation been a Protestant : Dean Swift, Molyneux,
Robert Emmet, Theobald Wolf Tone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald,
Henry Grattan, and I might add many names to the list. These
patriots carried the Irish cause high above and bej ond all
considerations of sectarian difference and founded it on "the
rights of human nature," as Jefferson denned the American
cause in our own Revolutionary period. Thus led and thus
guarded the Irish cause must prevail. There has never been
a contest for liberty by any section of the British Empire
composed of white men that was not successful in the end, if
the white men were united. By union the Thirteen Colonies
gained their independence. By union Canada gained every con
cession she wished upon the eve of a revolution, and there is
nothing to-day which Canada could ask this side of absolute
separation that would not be granted for the asking.
I have only one more word to say, and that again is a word
of advice. The men of Irish blood in this country should keep
this question as it has been kept thus far, out of our own polit
ical controversies. They should mark any man as an enemy
who seeks to use it for personal or for partisan advancement.
To the sacredness of your cause conducted in this spirit, you
can in the lofty language of the most eloquent of Irishmen,
Edmund Burke "you can attest the retiring generations, you
can attest the advancing generations, between whom we stand
as a link in the great chain of eternal order." Conducted in
that spirit you can justify your cause before earthly tribunals,
and you can carry it with pure heart and strong faith before