Essay: Kingdom or Colony
Door: Ido
Blijf op de hoogte en volg Ido
13 Maart 2016 | Ierland, Limerick
Omdat ik te lui ben om dit essay nog een keer in andere woorden te zetten ga ik er gewoon niet om heen draaien en het hele ding hieronder plakken.
Moge het duidelijk zijn dat ik van nagenoeg niemand verwacht dit hele 2062 woorden lange artikel te lezen. Voel je compleet vrij om halverwege, of na de eerste paragraaf, of na de eerste zinnen, of na de titel, of gewoon nu al verveeld te raken en komische videos te gaan bekijken op het internet.
Was Ireland a Kingdom or a Colony after 1691?
Amidst the wars, conflicts and disputes that make up politics in the eighteenth century, Ireland is no exception. Factions struggle for power and monarchs are never really satisfied with what they have. Though Ireland was just as much an inegalitarian society as most of western Europe at the time, it had some key features that inspire a wholly different type of debate. A split in religion and power combined with the strong and looming influence of the British Empire paint a unique picture of a divided and, according to some, dependant country. The issue that is sometimes considered to be at the heart of this debate is the following: ‘Can Ireland be considered to be a kingdom or a colony in the eighteenth century?’.
This essay will discuss different points of view with regard to this matter and will attempt to reconcile these views to draw a logical conclusion. The focus will be on the period of c.1691 to c.1720. The first main part of this text will look at the Anglo-Irish relationship from an English perspective. Several laws and acts would appear to give the connection a relatively colonial relationship, especially considering other British endeavours around the world at this point in time. Secondly, this essay will examine the Irish side of the debate, and the amount of dependency that the country, and specifically the parliament really had at this point. Government and powers here could possibly lead one to think of Ireland as more of a Kingdom, as opposed to it being entirely under English control.
After the Glorious Revolution and the Williamite invasion of Ireland the country was left divided between a Protestant and a Catholic community. The latter army had been defeated, and king James II was no longer in the country. Even though the Jacobite supporters may very well have remained a factor among the people, the victorious Protestant side remained in power at this point and the Treaty of Limerick was established . It allowed for religious tolerance and gave the defeated army of James II a chance to leave the country and seek refuge on the continent. These events set the stage for the ambiguous debate on whether Ireland is to be considered a colony or not.
The case that can be made for English control revolves heavily around two key pieces of legislation that clearly defined the relationship between the English parliament and the Irish parliament from the English perspective during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. The first of these was Poynings’ law. It essentially dictated that any bill that was to be discussed in the Irish parliament had to be passed by the English privy council first, secondly it was not the Irish parliament introducing these bills, but the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appointed by the English royal house to rule over Ireland in their stead. The Irish parliament thereby lost the ability to initiate legislation in its own country3.
The second piece of legislation indicating a colonial relationship came in the form of the Declaratory act of 17204. As a reaction to Molyneux’s ‘The case of Ireland’ (which will be discussed later in this essay), it declared Ireland to be dependent upon the English government. One vital sentence in this act goes as follows: “Therefore for the better Securing of the Dependency of Ireland upon the Crown of Great Britain, May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be Declared; And be Declared by the Kings most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament Assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That the said kingdom of Ireland hath been, is, and of Right ought to be Subordinate unto and Dependent upon the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, as being inseparably United and Annexed thereunto”4
This passage very clearly defines the attitude of the English parliament and crown towards the nation of Ireland. It is viewed as being dependant, subordinate and annexed. Despite rebellions and factions resisting English rule, it certainly retained a certain amount of control over its western neighbour. The question remains of course whether this control can be said to be sufficient enough to consider Ireland a colony as a whole.
However, throughout documents and legislation, a number of things stand out as being in support of considering Ireland as a kingdom. A main factor here is the terminology. Even in the seemingly very controlling Declaratory act of 1720 as quoted above the country is referred to as “said kingdom of Ireland”4. Despite declaring a nation to by subordinate and completely under control, it is still considered to be a kingdom. This argument is further exemplified by the actions of Henry VIII over one hundred and fifty years before these events. He was declared to be king of Ireland1, as opposed to Ireland simply being absorbed as English territory, its throne was kept intact and simply automatically occupied by the English monarch. Even though around this same time the British Empire had an entirely different attitude towards its other colonies around the world, which were simply deemed to be a part of the empire. Though to some this might seem like a mere technicality, it signifies the way that Ireland as a nation was viewed by both the people of and outside of the country.
However, also on this side of the debate there exists legislation that very clearly defines the position of the Irish parliament in Dublin. Contrary to some expectations it are the Penal Laws passed around the turn of the seventeenth century that illustrate how Ireland may have been more autonomous than it might initially have seemed. The penal laws of (amongst others) 1697 and 1703 served (on paper) to suppress Catholicism in Ireland and to safeguard the position of the Protestant elite5 6. Though initially these laws appear to be an example of ruthless English control over their subordinate ‘colony’, one essential detail remains: these laws were passed by the Irish parliament in Dublin. Had the Irish people been unified and solidary at this time, they might very well have resisted the passing of these laws, but this was far from the case. There has been much debate about the true nature of these laws; some claiming them to be utter repression of a culture whilst other prefer the view of these laws being not as bad as they might seem at first.7 The true purpose of these laws aside, however, it were Irish people, in Dublin who pushed these laws through. This could be seen as a clear argument for Ireland having control of its own people and country.
Additionally, one of the best cases made for Irelands autonomy and status of a kingdom might very well be made by William Molyneux. In his ‘The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated.’8 (1698) he makes a crystal clear case for the equality of all people, and the right of the Irish to rule themselves. As a progressive thinker for his time, Molyneux advocates that all government must be with consent of the governed: “On this Equality in Nature is founded that Right which all Men claim, of being free from all Subjection to Positive Laws, till by their own Consent they give up their Freedom, by entring into Civil Societies for the common Benefit of all Members thereof”8. His thinking and ideas go directly against the position that the English parliament appears to have taken at this point in time. And it is therefore no surprise that the English House of Commons reacts rather strongly to this Case, as is evident from “The Humble Address of the House of Commons to the King”9. This difference in approach strongly signifies the attitude of these different parties and the odd political landscape that has arisen from the ‘subordination’ of the kingdom if Ireland.
Another voice of opposition comes from writer Jonathan Swift. In his Drapier’s Letters (1724) he clearly voices opposition to English policy in Ireland, and addresses the right of the English parliament to act in Ireland, or rather the lack thereof10. Even though these were published over 20 years later and addressed a different set of actions of the English parliament, the sentiment remains precisely the same. Swift voices that the English government has no business in Irish society. “For I declare, next under God, I depend only on the King my Sovereign, and on the laws of my own country”10. Similar to Molyneux, Swift does not accept English rule and views Ireland as a separate nation entitled to its own, independent government. Stronger still, he addresses his fellow countrymen, indicating a degree of public opinion that has not played a part in Irish politics before.
A final detail in support of the ‘kingdom’ theory comes from a work of poetry, namely The Vision (1681). This poem, viewed by some as evidence of the presence of Jacobite support in Ireland around this time contains small elements as well to point towards Ireland being on equal footing with the English. “Then answered lady Aoibhill, of aspect bright, they had cause to light three candles above the harbours: in the name of the faithful king who is soon to come to rule and defend the triple realm forever”11. Two small elements to this poem appear to point to Ireland as being equal to both England and Scotland. They are referred to as ‘three candles’ and as ‘the triple realm’. The three nations, though here being considered as part of a whole appear to be treated equally, as opposed to one being dependant on or a colony of the other.
In conclusion, arguments can be made for both sides of this discussion, and the different viewpoints that existed in eighteenth century Ireland and England still lead to division amongst historians today. Even the same piece of source material might be looked at and interpreted in different ways depending on the context and background of the one doing the interpreting. Poynings’ law and the Declaratory act point towards English control, whilst great thinkers like Molyneux and Swift strongly voice a different opinion to the matter. At the heart stand the Penal laws, as they form the source of a great amount of controversy revolving around this issue. Possibly there is no single right answer to the debate. It remains certain that the answer will definitely differ between taking an Irish point of view as opposed to looking at things from an English perspective. Combined with the religious division that remained present throughout these centuries, it will remain difficult to fully grasp and understand.
On a closing note, it ought to be observed that dr Chambers must certainly have paid close attention to his choice of conjugation when it came to naming this module: ‘Kingdom and Colony’ as opposed to ‘or’. It reflects the ambiguity surrounding the issue central to the course, and exemplifies how the difference in perspective can lead to different answer.
Gefeliciteerd, helemaal gelezen. Dat is eerlijk waar best indrukwekkend.
Als beloning is hier het volgende: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hIugp7p5O0
Moge het duidelijk zijn dat ik van nagenoeg niemand verwacht dit hele 2062 woorden lange artikel te lezen. Voel je compleet vrij om halverwege, of na de eerste paragraaf, of na de eerste zinnen, of na de titel, of gewoon nu al verveeld te raken en komische videos te gaan bekijken op het internet.
Was Ireland a Kingdom or a Colony after 1691?
Amidst the wars, conflicts and disputes that make up politics in the eighteenth century, Ireland is no exception. Factions struggle for power and monarchs are never really satisfied with what they have. Though Ireland was just as much an inegalitarian society as most of western Europe at the time, it had some key features that inspire a wholly different type of debate. A split in religion and power combined with the strong and looming influence of the British Empire paint a unique picture of a divided and, according to some, dependant country. The issue that is sometimes considered to be at the heart of this debate is the following: ‘Can Ireland be considered to be a kingdom or a colony in the eighteenth century?’.
This essay will discuss different points of view with regard to this matter and will attempt to reconcile these views to draw a logical conclusion. The focus will be on the period of c.1691 to c.1720. The first main part of this text will look at the Anglo-Irish relationship from an English perspective. Several laws and acts would appear to give the connection a relatively colonial relationship, especially considering other British endeavours around the world at this point in time. Secondly, this essay will examine the Irish side of the debate, and the amount of dependency that the country, and specifically the parliament really had at this point. Government and powers here could possibly lead one to think of Ireland as more of a Kingdom, as opposed to it being entirely under English control.
After the Glorious Revolution and the Williamite invasion of Ireland the country was left divided between a Protestant and a Catholic community. The latter army had been defeated, and king James II was no longer in the country. Even though the Jacobite supporters may very well have remained a factor among the people, the victorious Protestant side remained in power at this point and the Treaty of Limerick was established . It allowed for religious tolerance and gave the defeated army of James II a chance to leave the country and seek refuge on the continent. These events set the stage for the ambiguous debate on whether Ireland is to be considered a colony or not.
The case that can be made for English control revolves heavily around two key pieces of legislation that clearly defined the relationship between the English parliament and the Irish parliament from the English perspective during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. The first of these was Poynings’ law. It essentially dictated that any bill that was to be discussed in the Irish parliament had to be passed by the English privy council first, secondly it was not the Irish parliament introducing these bills, but the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appointed by the English royal house to rule over Ireland in their stead. The Irish parliament thereby lost the ability to initiate legislation in its own country3.
The second piece of legislation indicating a colonial relationship came in the form of the Declaratory act of 17204. As a reaction to Molyneux’s ‘The case of Ireland’ (which will be discussed later in this essay), it declared Ireland to be dependent upon the English government. One vital sentence in this act goes as follows: “Therefore for the better Securing of the Dependency of Ireland upon the Crown of Great Britain, May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be Declared; And be Declared by the Kings most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament Assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That the said kingdom of Ireland hath been, is, and of Right ought to be Subordinate unto and Dependent upon the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, as being inseparably United and Annexed thereunto”4
This passage very clearly defines the attitude of the English parliament and crown towards the nation of Ireland. It is viewed as being dependant, subordinate and annexed. Despite rebellions and factions resisting English rule, it certainly retained a certain amount of control over its western neighbour. The question remains of course whether this control can be said to be sufficient enough to consider Ireland a colony as a whole.
However, throughout documents and legislation, a number of things stand out as being in support of considering Ireland as a kingdom. A main factor here is the terminology. Even in the seemingly very controlling Declaratory act of 1720 as quoted above the country is referred to as “said kingdom of Ireland”4. Despite declaring a nation to by subordinate and completely under control, it is still considered to be a kingdom. This argument is further exemplified by the actions of Henry VIII over one hundred and fifty years before these events. He was declared to be king of Ireland1, as opposed to Ireland simply being absorbed as English territory, its throne was kept intact and simply automatically occupied by the English monarch. Even though around this same time the British Empire had an entirely different attitude towards its other colonies around the world, which were simply deemed to be a part of the empire. Though to some this might seem like a mere technicality, it signifies the way that Ireland as a nation was viewed by both the people of and outside of the country.
However, also on this side of the debate there exists legislation that very clearly defines the position of the Irish parliament in Dublin. Contrary to some expectations it are the Penal Laws passed around the turn of the seventeenth century that illustrate how Ireland may have been more autonomous than it might initially have seemed. The penal laws of (amongst others) 1697 and 1703 served (on paper) to suppress Catholicism in Ireland and to safeguard the position of the Protestant elite5 6. Though initially these laws appear to be an example of ruthless English control over their subordinate ‘colony’, one essential detail remains: these laws were passed by the Irish parliament in Dublin. Had the Irish people been unified and solidary at this time, they might very well have resisted the passing of these laws, but this was far from the case. There has been much debate about the true nature of these laws; some claiming them to be utter repression of a culture whilst other prefer the view of these laws being not as bad as they might seem at first.7 The true purpose of these laws aside, however, it were Irish people, in Dublin who pushed these laws through. This could be seen as a clear argument for Ireland having control of its own people and country.
Additionally, one of the best cases made for Irelands autonomy and status of a kingdom might very well be made by William Molyneux. In his ‘The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated.’8 (1698) he makes a crystal clear case for the equality of all people, and the right of the Irish to rule themselves. As a progressive thinker for his time, Molyneux advocates that all government must be with consent of the governed: “On this Equality in Nature is founded that Right which all Men claim, of being free from all Subjection to Positive Laws, till by their own Consent they give up their Freedom, by entring into Civil Societies for the common Benefit of all Members thereof”8. His thinking and ideas go directly against the position that the English parliament appears to have taken at this point in time. And it is therefore no surprise that the English House of Commons reacts rather strongly to this Case, as is evident from “The Humble Address of the House of Commons to the King”9. This difference in approach strongly signifies the attitude of these different parties and the odd political landscape that has arisen from the ‘subordination’ of the kingdom if Ireland.
Another voice of opposition comes from writer Jonathan Swift. In his Drapier’s Letters (1724) he clearly voices opposition to English policy in Ireland, and addresses the right of the English parliament to act in Ireland, or rather the lack thereof10. Even though these were published over 20 years later and addressed a different set of actions of the English parliament, the sentiment remains precisely the same. Swift voices that the English government has no business in Irish society. “For I declare, next under God, I depend only on the King my Sovereign, and on the laws of my own country”10. Similar to Molyneux, Swift does not accept English rule and views Ireland as a separate nation entitled to its own, independent government. Stronger still, he addresses his fellow countrymen, indicating a degree of public opinion that has not played a part in Irish politics before.
A final detail in support of the ‘kingdom’ theory comes from a work of poetry, namely The Vision (1681). This poem, viewed by some as evidence of the presence of Jacobite support in Ireland around this time contains small elements as well to point towards Ireland being on equal footing with the English. “Then answered lady Aoibhill, of aspect bright, they had cause to light three candles above the harbours: in the name of the faithful king who is soon to come to rule and defend the triple realm forever”11. Two small elements to this poem appear to point to Ireland as being equal to both England and Scotland. They are referred to as ‘three candles’ and as ‘the triple realm’. The three nations, though here being considered as part of a whole appear to be treated equally, as opposed to one being dependant on or a colony of the other.
In conclusion, arguments can be made for both sides of this discussion, and the different viewpoints that existed in eighteenth century Ireland and England still lead to division amongst historians today. Even the same piece of source material might be looked at and interpreted in different ways depending on the context and background of the one doing the interpreting. Poynings’ law and the Declaratory act point towards English control, whilst great thinkers like Molyneux and Swift strongly voice a different opinion to the matter. At the heart stand the Penal laws, as they form the source of a great amount of controversy revolving around this issue. Possibly there is no single right answer to the debate. It remains certain that the answer will definitely differ between taking an Irish point of view as opposed to looking at things from an English perspective. Combined with the religious division that remained present throughout these centuries, it will remain difficult to fully grasp and understand.
On a closing note, it ought to be observed that dr Chambers must certainly have paid close attention to his choice of conjugation when it came to naming this module: ‘Kingdom and Colony’ as opposed to ‘or’. It reflects the ambiguity surrounding the issue central to the course, and exemplifies how the difference in perspective can lead to different answer.
Gefeliciteerd, helemaal gelezen. Dat is eerlijk waar best indrukwekkend.
Als beloning is hier het volgende: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hIugp7p5O0
Reageer op dit reisverslag
Je kunt nu ook Smileys gebruiken. Via de toolbar, toetsenbord of door eerst : te typen en dan een woord bijvoorbeeld :smiley
