One hundred years ago
AN odd little incident marked the Parliamentary chat on Monday night. Mr Clancy moved the abolition of the Ulster King-at-Arms, and Sir M. Hicks- Beach said he really did not know of what use he was. The office, however, had existed for three hundred years. This encouraged the economists; and after Dr Tanner had mentioned some- body who ought to be Ulster King-at- Arms instead of Sir Bernard Burke, because he had traced the Queen's pedigree back to the time of Moses — a remark condemned by the Speaker as irrelevant — it seemed possible that poor Sir Bernard might be left wageless. Mr J. O'Connor, however, saved him by the patriotic allegation that 'by race, creed, and tradition the Irish are an aristocratic, and not a democratic peo- ple'. Every Irishman in private always makes that allegation; but on what evidence does it rest? . . . As a matter of fact, much of the present Irish movement is Jacobin; the Irish are fighting their own chiefs as much as the English, and they certainly give one conclusive proof that their feeling for aristocracy is not deep. Utterly free to elect whom they will, and with two- thirds of Ireland to choose from, they send up as their chosen and loved representatives — the Parnellites. The truth is, the Irish are neither aristocratic nor democratic, but only clannish.
The Spectator, 18 September 1886
Previous page
