"'Hibernianism' and Potatoes"
In November 1848, a writer for the Economist stumbled onto a comparison of Young Ireland leader
William Smith O�Brien and the American patriot George Washington in an unnamed �very liberal provincial
paper.� This comparison outraged the author, who proceeded to distinguish vividly between the Irish and
American situations. The Irish population was �ignorant,� while the American rebels were �men who knew
their rights.� O�Brien was an instigator, �agitating himself and a few kindred spirits into a causeless rebellion�
while Washington followed the lead of his countrymen, �a people already goaded into general insurrection.�
The American Revolution was justified because the Americans� rights had been violated by �unjust, improper
authority.� O�Brien�s rebellion was merely �rebellion for its own sake.� [1]
The Economist�s defense of George Washington seems rather startling at first glance. Washington, after
all, was a successful traitor against the English crown. However, it indicates a fundamental difference in
England�s colonial relationship with its American colonies and with Ireland. Americans were like the
English, because the English settlers quickly established themselves as the majority population, while the
bulk of the Irish remained quite unlike the English. The Irish were �others,� a group unfavorably described by
the English to emphasize the virtues of �Englishness.� The English used this difference, actual and perceived,
to justify their continued presence in Ireland and control of the Irish. Thus, when the American colonists
rebelled, the Economist could later justify their behavior. When the Irish rebelled, however, the Economist
was outraged.
This story is an example of what I call �Hibernianism.� Its foundation is Orientalism, Edward Said�s
explanation of cultural domination. Orientalism is based on an appropriation and reformulation of the
cultures of colonized groups to maintain an unequal balance of power. The dominated groups become
�others.� They, as they are described by their colonizers, embody negative or undesirable characteristics,
which serve to highlight the virtues and superiority of the dominant culture and justify its continued
domination of this inferior �other.�
�Hibernianism,� which describes specifically the Orientalist relationship between England and Ireland, is a
similar method of cultural control and imperialist legitimization. English descriptions of the Irish, from the
twelfth century onwards, emphasized Irish barbarity and inferiority. English observers criticized Irish
farming, social organization, and cultural practices and argued that English domination would civilize the
Irish by forcing them to adopt English cultural, agricultural, and, eventually, religious, practices. During the
latter part of the eighteenth century, English descriptions of the Irish began to adopt racial overtones.
English racial theorists categorized Irish and English into separate racial groups. English �Saxons� in these
schemas were racially superior to Irish �Celts.� Though theorists disagreed on whether race was biologically
or environmentally-determined, they agreed that the Celts were racially incapable of ruling themselves.
English responses to the Irish famine in the 1840s highlight the Hibernianism that underpinned English
attitudes to the Irish. Some recent historians of the English government�s official response, especially
Christine Kinealy and Peter Gray, emphasize the element of social engineering incorporated into famine
relief and the government�s attempt to use a crisis situation to manipulate, or �modernize,� the structure of
Irish society and economy.
Hibernianism does not appear to have spanned class divisions during the famine. Three newspapers
representing policy making opinion, the Illustrated London News, the Economist, and The Times, present a
different point on the general spectrum of the Hibernianist discourse of the Irish �other.� The Northern Star,
however, a working class paper, rejected the idea of Irish inferiority.
The Illustrated London News was by far the most sympathetic to the Irish of the three newspapers
reflecting policy making opinion examined here, but it did not avoid themes of Hibernianism. Descriptions
of the Irish became more disparaging as the famine progressed, validating the argument that the Irish were
of the Irish became more disparaging as the famine progressed, validating the argument that the Irish were
unable to progress towards a more perfect civilization, meaning one like England�s, without help. With the
proper guidance, though, the Irish �others� could be reformed to exhibit the superior cultural characteristics of
the English.
During the first two years of the famine, the ILN attributed Ireland�s miserable condition to general
mismanagement. England had not fulfilled its duty to help Ireland improve, thereby creating appalling
squalor in Ireland. In February 1847, the paper sent an artist to the west of Ireland to depict the condition of
the peasantry and �to direct public sympathy to the suffering poor of these locations.� [2] What the artist
found defied description; he wrote that �neither pen nor pencil could portray the misery and horror, at this
moment, to be witnessed in Skibbereen.� [3] Coverage throughout 1848 and much of 1849 would not be so
sympathetic.
This shift in coverage coincided with the Young Irelanders� nationalist backlash against the English
domination of Ireland. The middle-class oriented ILN could blame the previous aristocratic government of
Ireland for creating the situation which intensified the effect of crop failure. However, the Young Irelanders�
uprising indicated intense, if localized, Irish dissatisfaction with current middle class influenced English
policies. Blaming the English government for the situation in Ireland now meant blaming its readership,
something it was unwilling to do. English misgovernment was now dismissed as �strange and perplexing,�
[4] and the paper found an alternate explanation for Ireland�s condition in the character of the Irish
peasantry.
Irish character compounded errors in government; �faults in the character of the Irish themselves . . .
rendered misrule more speedily fatal to them than it would have been to a people of greater energy, more
steady self-reliance, and a more enduring continuity of purpose.� [5] Since Catholic Emancipation in 1829,
which removed the vestiges of the penal laws, the Irish were �to all intents and purposes, and in every
imaginable way, the copartners of Englishmen and Scotchmen in constitutional liberty.� [6] Nevertheless,
Ireland remained �a foul ulcer, a perpetual source of disquietude and misery, setting all imaginable remedy at
defiance.� [7] When the ILN pondered this apparent contradiction, it decided �that if Ireland is so wretched
and degraded in comparison with England and Scotland, the fault must be . . . in the Irish themselves.� [8]
The ILN criticized every aspect of the Irish peasant�s life, from his sustenance and his dwelling to his
language: �[p]otatoes are all his diet. He has no other resource, unless grass or seaweeds may be considered
as aids to his dinners. He lives in a wigwam, and shares it with a pig. He speaks a barbarous language, and
is in arrear with the intelligence of the world.� [9] Use of the term �wigwam� reinforced the status of the Irish
as �others� and implied a closer kinship with the supposedly savage Native Americans than with English.
Though the paper supported the New Poor Law amendment in 1847, by the fall of 1849 the ILN
reconsidered its opinion. This did not herald a complete return to the paper�s sympathetic coverage,
however. Rather, the ILN combined its previous sympathy with the continued assertion that the Irish were
to be blamed for their own misfortune. Ireland�s evils were not religious or political. Instead, they were
�purely social.� Though never specifically defined, the term encompassed economic, agricultural, and cultural
connotations, and almost always indicated that the Irish themselves, not the English, were at fault. �Social�
explanations specifically excluded political and religious ones.
In this context, the English were not responsible for fixing past mistakes, but for helping Ireland to
become civilized and modern. Legislation ceased to be an effective solution -- it aimed to fix a social
problem by political means. The only way to effect change was the introduction of private English capital.
[10] This proposed solution was reinforced by the correspondent sent to Ireland to describe the effects of
the New Poor Law. He visited Kylemore, a thriving town. Not coincidentally, Kylemore was where �[t]wo
enterprising Englishmen . . . planted themselves . . . about four years ago.� These men overcame �moral as
well as physical opposition . . . [They] conquered the habits of the people, which was a more difficult task
well as physical opposition . . . [They] conquered the habits of the people, which was a more difficult task
than subduing the neglected and deserted heath.� [11] This anecdote is a graphic illustration of the ILN�s
underlying assumption that Ireland needed English enterprise and hard-work to thrive. The two Englishmen
in Kylemore, hoped the ILN, would be the first of many �pioneers� to the �fertile and promising wilderness� of
Ireland. [12] Ireland, then, was still an untamed place ripe for conquest and subjugation.
Like the explanations in the ILN, pre-1848 explanations in the Economist were attributed to English
misgovernment of Ireland. During and after 1848, the Economist began to explain the famine in almost
completely racial terms, relying on the accepted racial categories of �Celt� and �Saxon.� The Economist's
frequent use of these terms further enforced Hibernianism and alleged English racial superiority. The Irish
�other� in the Economist became a racialized �other.�
Though the Economist blamed economic interference for Ireland�s state, much of the blame was laid on
the Irish peasantry. Ireland had been abused by England in the past, but �the effects of former
misgovernment have become so deeply rooted in the national character, as to have even gone on increasing
long after the cause had been removed.� [13] The Economist was convinced that the first step to solving the
problem lay in admitting the deficiencies of Irish character, and it accordingly exhorted the Irish to look
inward: �Irish misery will never be cured, or even materially alleviated, till Irish men have learned to look
for its causes in their own character and their own conduct.� [14]
The Economist denied racial differences at this point, however. Racial characteristics, according to the
Economist, were biological, and as such, difficult to overcome. The journal was still optimistic about
bringing social and economic improvement to Ireland, and it was loath to attribute differences between
England and Ireland to race because �if we ascribe to some original and inherent peculiarities of race every
thing that is unhappy in the condition of Ireland, we at once bar out all hope of improvement.� [15]
This cautious optimism was replaced with contempt and despair in 1848. Almost overnight, the
Economist adopted a racial explanation for the situation in Ireland. An article published in the spring of
1848 made explicit that the Economist considered the Saxons superior to the Celts. Each race embodied
definite traits, and the Economist favored those embodied by Saxons. �Thank God! we are Saxons!� wrote the
journal. "Flanked by the savage Celt on one side, and the flighty Gaul on the other, the one a slave to the
passions, the other a victim to the theories of the hour, we feel deeply grateful from our inmost hearts that
we belong to a race, which, if it cannot boast the glowing fancy of one of its neighbors, nor the brilliant
esprit of the other, has an ample compensation in the solid, slow, reflective, phlegmatic temperament,
which has saved us from so many errors, spared us so many experiments, and purchased for us so many
real, though incomplete and unsystematic, blessings." [16] England�s success and Ireland�s failure were
direct results of their respective racial characteristics. The Irish �other� in the pages of the Economist was now
becoming racialized, and this transition accompanied a more pessimistic perspective on the ultimate
potential of the Irish for a �civilized� government.
Ireland was not only undeserving of the benefits of English law, but was incapable of living peaceably
under them. �Justice to Ireland,� the Repealers� and Young Irelanders� nationalist slogan, was reinterpreted by
the Economist to be more severe discipline, �not assimilation to English government, but a strong line of
demarcation drawn between the administration needed for two such different peoples -- that, in a word,
what Ireland wants, is not equal law, but appropriate law.� [17] The Irish were not able to live under liberty,
but needed authoritarian government. England had indeed misgoverned Ireland, but not in the sense that the
Economist assumed at the start of the famine. Now the journal held that England�s �mistake has been in
supporting that the government of a civilized people will suffice for a savage one.� [18] The Economist now
considered the possibility of eventual equal law for the two countries �a delusion, a mockery, and a mischief.�
[19]
An analysis of The Times�s coverage of the Irish during the famine reveals a racialized explanation of the
condition of Ireland, similar to the later coverage in the Economist. In 1845-6, The Times sent a
�Commissioner� to travel throughout Ireland and determine the causes of Irish misery. Race was the
Commissioner�s primary explanation. This explanation stressed the inferiority and �otherness� of the Irish,
especially their incapacity for hard work and their simple-mindedness. The famine presented a tremendous
opportunity to accomplish a transformation of Ireland: �An island, a social state, a race is to be changed.
The surface of the land, its divisions, its culture, its proprietors, its occupiers, its habitations, its manners, its
law, its language, and the heart of a people who for 2000 years have remained unalterable within the
compass of those mighty changes which have given us European civilization, are all to be created anew.�
[20]
Race, then, did not have to be a limiting factor in a group�s development. Inherent characteristics were
unique to each race, but these characteristics could be mitigated by environmental conditions. Such a use of
the term �race� indicates a paradox in English racial thinking of the Irish. Theorists by this time were
beginning to argue that race was biological, and hence unchangeable, and the discussion of race in the
Economist reflected an element of biological determinism. The discussion of race in The Times reflected the
environmentally-determined definition: that racial characteristics were dependent on external, not internal,
factors. Thus, The Times argued that racial characteristics could be modified through English influence and
instruction
Thomas Campbell Foster, a barrister by training, was The Times's Commissioner on Ireland. Foster�s tour
began in August 1845 and ended in January 1846, the first season of the potato blight. Foster�s reports are
an excellent example of fully racialized �Hibernianism.� He wrote in his first report that he wanted to
determine objectively the true causes of Ireland�s miseries. He had, he stated, �no motive whatever save an
earnest desire to ascertain the truth, and to state it with strict impartiality.� [21] The commentary he provided
during his ostensibly �objective� fact-finding mission confirmed what the English thought they knew about the
Irish and justified their Irish policy. It assured his English readers that the bulk of Ireland lived in selfinduced misery. Foster decided during his first week in Ireland that Ireland�s problems were not religious,
demographic, or related to the system of landholding; instead, they were �social.� The Times used �social� in the
same context the ILN used it, to indicate economic, agricultural, and cultural origins. The Times also
included race in the social category, and since those parts of Ireland that thrived had a marked �Saxon�
presence, Foster attributed regional differences in prosperity to race, and his reports provide a running
commentary on the perceived racial differences between the English and the Irish. [22]
He began his discussion of racial differences in County Fermanagh, Ulster, which he described as �one of
the most Orange and Protestant districts in Ireland.� [23] The town of Enniskillen was tidy, the people clean,
and the land profitable, which Foster attributed to the racial differences between �Celts� and �Saxons.� He
could discern Saxons by sight; the Saxon men were taller and bulkier, the women were tall and good
looking, and both sexes were better dressed than the Celts. Foster was certain that differences between the
people of Fermanagh and the �Celtic population of Leitrim� were not political or religious. He declared
confidently that �until it is proved that Orangism [sic] and Protestantism� could cause physical differences, �I
shall continue of the opinion that these great differences . . . must chiefly be attributed to the characteristics
of race.� [24] He found such stark differences between �Celt� and �Saxon� throughout his tour of Ireland, each
time attributing them to �the acknowledged difference of race.� [25]
The observable differences in material condition were due to racial characteristics, and yet were
correctable, illustrated by a comparison of resident and absentee landlords in Gweedore, County Donegal.
The property of the absentee landlord had tremendous natural resources, but the peasantry lived in squalor.
�They are untaught,� said Foster, and �they know not how to improve.� [26] The resident landlord in Gweedore,
by comparison, improved his tenantry. He learned the �Erse language� of his �aboriginal Irish� tenantry and
took the time to teach them how to farm properly and keep themselves and their houses clean. The
landlord�s success proved to Foster�s satisfaction that Ireland�s problem was social, not religious or political.
landlord�s success proved to Foster�s satisfaction that Ireland�s problem was social, not religious or political.
He posed a series of questions to emphasize his point: "Did converting this Roman Catholic population to
Protestantism effect this change? They are Roman Catholics yet. Did Saxonizing them and making them
Orangemen effect it? They are all Celts . . . The remedy was a social one. The people were justly dealt
with, taught, shown by example, encouraged, and employed." [27] Racial characteristics did not have to
condemn the Irish peasants to living in their usual custom. A good Saxon landlord could show them a better
way.
Foster thought the English government should do on a larger scale what the resident landlord of
Gweedore did. First, the English government should �seek out . . . the character of the people of Ireland.�
[28] Then, it could tailor policy accordingly. The type of government in England, �a free and liberal
Government� with �mild and humane laws,� was inappropriate for most of Ireland. [29] The Irish, said Foster,
were too �cowardly,� �savage,� �brutalized,� and �ignorant� for liberal government to be effective. [30] Rather, the
Irish �will bear and require a more despotic rule� because of their condition. [31] Such a government would
be able to force the Irish to work for their own benefit.
These three papers, which together reached much of the voting and decision making classes, present a
relatively unified opinion of Irish inferiority and the need to reform Ireland. Hibernianism, with its
characterization of the Irish as inferior �others� was a definite explanatory framework for the famine in policy
making consciousness. Was a similar framework reflected in working class opinion? Based on an analysis
of coverage in the Northern Star, the answer is �no.�
The Northern Star accepted �Celt� and �Saxon� as distinct racial categories, each with its own inherent
characteristics, and acknowledged the hostility between the two groups, but an assumption of Celtic
inferiority was not reflected in the pages of the paper. [32] The Northern Star explicitly criticized English
policies based on Irish racial inferiority. �Let [the English] treat poor Paddy as a fellow subject -- as a
brother, and let them forget that his blood is of the hot, wild stream of the Celt . . . what need honest
Englishmen care what branch of the great human family we belong to.� [33]
Rather than the necessity of English presence in Ireland described in the three papers discussed earlier,
the Northern Star stated quite emphatically that the English did not belong in Ireland. The Coercion Bill
debated and passed in 1846 gave, in the words of the Northern Star, �unbridled license to an alien in
language, an alien in religion, AND AN ALIEN IN BLOOD.� [34] English presence in Ireland was
destroying Ireland and the Irish. The Irish were facing �utter annihilation� �in the land that God designed for
them.� [35]
Corrupt administration was a direct contributor to their annihilation, and the long running feature in 1846-7,
called �The Narrative of Malcolm M�Gregor,� demonstrated this.
Malcolm M�Gregor was a Scot who decided to tour Ireland for himself, not believing the reports of Irish
barbarity he read in the newspapers. He was shocked immediately by the poverty and resolved to present a
more accurate picture of Ireland. He befriended a Catholic family, the O�Donnells, and his narrative is the
story of their destruction. Phelim O�Donnell, the honest and hardworking only son of the family, was
brought up on charges of non-payment of rent. Although Phelim had a receipt, his landlord, Captain
Squeezetenant, insisted that Phelim owed him money. The trial was a farce, and the judge found in favor of
the landlord. Phelim continued to refuse to pay, and he was killed by Captain Squeezetenant in the process
of confiscating the �overdue� rent. Phelim�s sickly mother died when she heard the news, his kindly father
became delirious with anger and grief, and Phelim�s beautiful sister Kathleen (with whom Malcolm had
fallen in love) was hysterical. At the inquest, Squeezetenant was acquitted, the magistrate accepting his
story that Phelim was resisting the lawful confiscation. Phelim�s male relatives, who witnessed the murder
and were dissatisfied with the miscarriage of justice, tried Squeezetenant secretly, found him guilty, and
drew straws to choose his executioner. The executioner, however, did not have the chance to carry out his
duty, for Phelim�s father had already shot Captain Squeezetenant. This is where the story ends: a promising
duty, for Phelim�s father had already shot Captain Squeezetenant. This is where the story ends: a promising
young man is dead, his family is in shambles, the authorities are corrupt, and true justice must be
administered outside the legal system. [36]
Within this context of English ruination of Ireland, the Northern Star reversed the common categories of
�savage� and �civilized�: �[l]ike a tiger in the jungle, yelling with savage joy over his writhing victim, our Saxon
oppressors and their hireling abettors clasp their hands with exultation at our prostrate condition, our
poverty, our persecutions, our dissensions . . .� [37] This sentiment is a scathing criticism of the explanation
of the famine as a tremendous regenerative opportunity expressed in the other papers. The Northern Star
considered the English response stingy, describing it as early as the fall of 1845 as a �pompous and
ostentatious offering of a pitiful portion of that enormous wealth that they have extracted from the sinews of
their slaves.� [38] In 1849, well after other newspapers had ceased any extensive discussion of the famine
and evaluation of policy, the Northern Star described the English response as overwhelmingly inadequate,
and perhaps even a bit ridiculous: �When the reader calmly peruses and seriously reflects upon the annexed
description of Irish suffering and misery . . . he must blush in this state of things to find the time of the
British Parliament occupied with Marriage Bills, Highway Bills, Sheepstealing Bills, Navigation Bills,
Clergy Relief Bills, and votes of thanks to Lord Gough for the murder of men defending their property
against usurpers.� [39] Perhaps this evaluation is a bit unfair; the English government did spend a
considerable amount of time debating how to approach the famine in Ireland, but it underlines the Northern
Star�s position that the government�s agenda in Ireland was unacceptable.
In the end, however, the Northern Star�s opinion was out-shouted and out-voted. Newspapers which
expressed and reinforced the opinions of governing elites, of which the Illustrated London News, the
Economist, and The Times are three extremely prominent examples, reflected a definite Hibernianist
interpretation. When the opinions belonged to those who made or influenced the policies and allocated the
money, the Irish were always portrayed as culturally or racially separate and inferior, in need of corrective
measures.
Return to my homepage
Bibliography
Economist 1845-1850.
Illustrated London News 1845-1850.
Northern Star 1845-1850.
The Times (London) 1845-1850.
Gray, Peter. �Famine Relief Policy in Comparative Perspective: Ireland, Scotland, and Northwestern Europe,
1845-1849.� Eire-Ireland 32 (1997): 86-108.
-----. Famine, Land and Politics: British Government and Irish Society 1843-1850. Dublin & Portland:
Irish Academic Press, 1999.
Kinealy, Christine. This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-1852. Boulder: Roberts Rinehart
Publishers, 1995.
-----. A Death-Dealing Famine: The Great Hunger in Ireland. London and Chicago: Pluto Press, 1997.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
[1] Economist, 4 November 1848, p. 1244.
[2] ILN, 20 February 1847.
[3] ILN, 13 February 1847.
[4] ILN, 27 May 1848.
[5] ILN, 25 November 1848.
[6] ILN, 29 July 1848.
[7] ILN, 27 May 1848.
[8] ILN, 29 July 1848.
[9] ILN, 27 May 1848.
[10] ILN, 18 August 1849.
[11] ILN, 5 January 1850.
[12] ILN, 5 January 1850.
[13] �Charity for Ireland.� Economist, 16 October 1847, 1188-1189.
[14] �The puzzle of Ireland.� Economist, 10 Octoer 1846, 1315-1317.
[15] "Why is there a Deficient Town Population in Ireland?" Economist, 18 April 1846, 499-501.
[16] "The Saxon, the Celt, and the Gaul." Economist, 29 April 1848, 477-478.
[17] Ibid., emphasis in original.
[18] "Ireland Again: The Disease and its Remedy." Economist, 23 September 1848, 1074-1075.
[19] Ibid.
[20] The Times, 9 October 1846.
[21] The Times, 21 August 1845
[22] The Times, 25 August 1845, 26 August 1845.
[23] The Times, 28 August 1845.
[24] Ibid., emphasis in original.
[25] The Times, 22 October 1845.
[26] The Times, 9 September 1845.
[27] Ibid., emphasis in original.
[28] The Times, 23 September 1845.
[29] The Times, 20 January 1846.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid., emphasis in original.
[32] Northern Star 4 October 1845; 14 November 1846.
[33] NS, 20 November 1847.
[34] NS, 11 April 1846.
[35] NS, 11 December 1847.
[36] NS, 17 October 1846, 24 October 1846, 3 October 1846, 14 November 1846, 28 November 1846, 12
December 1846, 26 December 1846, 2 January 1847, 9 January 1847, 16 January 1847, 30 January 1847.
[37] NS, 8 January 1848.
[38] NS, 15 November 1845.
[39] NS, 5 May 1849.
Copyright, Clare M. Norcio 2001