John Mitchel (Irish: Seán Mistéil; b.November 3, 1815 – d. March 20,
1875) was an Irish nationalist activist, solicitor and political journalist. Born in Camnish, near Dungiven, County Londonderry, Ireland he became a leading Member of both Young Ireland and the
Irish Confederation. He also became a public voice for the Southern American
viewpoint in the United States in the 1850s and
1860s before ending up elected to the British House of
Commons, only to be disqualified because he was a convicted felon. His Jail Journal [1] is one of Irish nationalism's most
famous texts.
Family
John Mitchel’s father also John, was educated mainly at the University of Glasgow, he entered the ministry early as a
Presbyterian clergyman. [2]
William Dillon, Mitchel’s biographer tells that “about the year 1810, he was put in charge of the church at or near Dungiven, in
the county of Derry.” It was here that he met and married a Miss Mary Haslett.[2] In 1819, the Rev. Mitchel was called to Derry, were he remained for some four years, when he received the “call” from both Newry and Armagh. He accepted the call to Newry,
and remained there, respected by all classes, until his death in 1840.[2] After her husband’s death Miss Mitchel travelled a good deal. In
1853, when her son escaped from his exile in Van Diemen’s Land, and went to the United States, she, with her other son and two of
her daughters, went there to receive him. She lived in America several years then recrossed the Atlantic, and went to live in
London. Thence she removed to Newry, where she remained till her death, which occurred in 1865.[2]
Early life
At the age of four, John Mitchel was sent to a classical school, run by an old minister named Moor, nicknamed “Gospel Moor” by
the students. He read books from a very early age.[2] When a little over five years old, he was introduced into the Latin grammar by his
teacher and made very quick progress for a child of his age.[2]
When he was seven, the family had moved to Newry, where he attended a school run by Mr. McNeil.
Mitchel did not get on with McNeil, who considered the topics that Mitchel was reading (Caesar) too advanced for
him.[2] John was discouraged by
this and began to pay less attention in class, where McNeil pronounced him stupid. He was taken out of the school, and sent to a
classical school, kept by a Dr. Henderson. The encouragement and support of Dr. Henderson laid the foundations of his classical
scholarship which was to play such a major part in his later life.[2] Mitchel also met his life-long friend, John
Martin, at the school, who was to experience and share in much of his later career. In 1830 John was entered at Trinity
College, Dublin. He was not then yet fifteen years old, and some friends thought it a mistake to send him to college so young.
But his master, Dr. Henderson, was eager that he should go as soon as possible.[2] He took his degree in 1834, at the age of nineteen. Having obtained
his degree, his preparation for the ministry began, his fathers wish being that he would join him in profession. John surprised
them all, when he changed his mind, and would not become a minister.[2] Mrs Mitchel’s brother, Mr. William Haslett, was at this time the director of a bank in
Derry, and it was decided to send John there as a bank clerk. When this arrangement did not work out, law was ultimately
selected, and towards the end of 1835 or the beginning of 1836, John Mitchel entered the office of a Newry solicitor, a Mr. John
Quinn, who was a friend of his fathers.[2]
Marriage and family
In the spring of 1836, that he first meet with Miss Jane Verner, the only daughter of Captain James Verner. Though both
families we opposed to the relationship, they became engaged in the autumn of the same year. They were then married on 3 February
1837, by the Rev. David Babington, in the parish church of Drumcree.[2] Their first child, John was born
on 24th January, 1838, and their second son, James, was born in February 1840. At this time Mitchel was a member of a literary
society, and contributed essays from time to time. He also contributed a series of letters to The
Times newspaper on Canadian politics, which were published. Also around this period, a project was started, to hold a
public dinner for Daniel O’Connell, the leader of the Repeal Association. John Mitchel took an active part in the preparation,
and though violence was anticipated, Newry then being a stronghold of the Orange Order, while creating much excitement, it went
off peacefully.[3] Around 1839, Mitchel
suffered his first attack of asthma, which was to trouble him for the rest of his life. In 1840 Mitchel completed his
apprenticeship, and was sworn in as an attorney. He then formed a partnership with a Mr Fraser, a successful attorney in Newry.
They decided to expand the practice, and established an office in Banbridge, which Mitchel
would take charge of. John Mitchel and his family were to spend the next five years living in Banbridge, and the domestic life was says his biographer William Dillon, both “peaceful and happy”. During
this period two more of his children were born, Henrietta in the month of October, 1842, and William in the May of 1844.[3]
Early politics
According to his biographer William Dillon, Banbridge at this time was in an Orange constituency, and the Orangemen liked to
“walk” to their assemblies, to commemorate important historical anniversaries. On their return homeward in the evenings some of
them would often insist on walking through some Catholic neighbourhood, and "stop at the doors of Catholic homes to play party
tunes." This would lead to confrontation, and would often end in the wrecking of houses, beatings or even killings, on both
sides.[3] John Mitchel was often employed by
the Catholics in the legal proceedings arising out of these affrays. He had ample opportunity then of observing how these cases
were dealt with by a bench of magistrates, many of whom were Orangemen themselves. Dillon suggests that it was this personal
experience which was to instil in him a “hatred of injustice,” and this at a time when he was taking a keen interest in
politics.[3] Up until the time of his marriage,
John Mitchel had by and large taken his politics from his father.[3] Even then there was an aspect in his feeling on political matters which hardly existed in his
father’s. He had “begun to comprehend the degradation of his countrymen,” which his biographer said he found traces of in
Mitchel’s correspondences at this time.[3] An
example of this was given when not long after the granting of the Catholic
emancipation in 1829, it was decided by the “popular party” to run a Catholic candidate for
Newry. Newry was then regarded by the ascendancy party as one of their strongholds, and they were very resentful "at so insolent
a proceeding on the part of the Catholics." Many members of the Rev. Mr. Mitchel’s congregation took an active part in the
elections on the side of the ascendancy, and pushed for the Rev. Mitchel to do same, which he resolutely refused to do. Because
of this he was nicknamed “Papist Mitchel.”[3]
A further advance in his rising political development is found in a letter, sent by him in October, 1842, to his friend
John Martin, with his impression on the The Nation which he sent him, “I think the The Nation will do very well,” and
again in October, on the pouring of twenty thousand additional troops into the country, “How do you think the country will take
all this?” he asks, “I think I know how it ought to take it; but if I put it on paper, you might inform the Attorney-General, and
get me arrested.”[3]
On Mitchel’s frequent trips to Dublin, he came in contact with the Repeal members who gathered about the The Nation
Office (later to be known as Young Ireland) and it was in the spring of 1843, that
John Mitchel became a member of the Repeal Association,[1]and had also
begun to contribute to The Nation.[4] He placed a notice of pamphlet by his uncle, Mr. Haslet, Mayor of
Derry, on the estates of the London Societies in Ulster and also had a leading article entitled, "Convicted Criminals", and
contributed half of an article on "Anti-Irish Catholics", the first part of which was written by Thomas Davis.[5] In “Convicted Criminals”, which was published in The
Nation on 2 March, 1844, Mitchel, responding to a complaint by an English Member of Parliament a Mr. Busfield Ferrand that a
“Convicted Conspirator” (Daniel O’Connell) had been cheered in the House of Commons, Mitchel wrote: “History has some examples of Convicted ‘Conspirators’ who
were not altogether disreputable characters. Conspirators whose memory all good men revere, and whose conviction is the very
thing that has advanced their principles and made their names immortal. “Christ was a convicted conspirator.”… The Son of God was
crucified between two thieves, and those who passed by, among whom was some progenitor of Busfield Ferrand, reviled Him, wagging
their heads. His degradation and abasement were, ‘in the eyes of those Ferrands, complete. He was a convicted conspirator… And
now behold that criminal is the Saviour of the world. Ah! Mr. Busfield Ferrand, those ‘partial juries’ and valiant Chief
Justices’ are powerful indeed, but not all-powerful. They positively cannot turn innocence into guilt; and irrespective of all
the Sheriffs, Judges and special panels…the essence of crime and virtue is absolutely out of the jurisdiction of the courts of
law."[6] It was under Davis’s
encouragement, that Mitchel wrote his first book, Life of Hugh O’Neill,[3] which Davis never got to see published. Thomas Davis died on 16 September, 1845, of scarlet fever. His death was
entirely unexpected and caused dismay among his friends.[5] William Dillon (Mitchel’s biographer) believed that it was immediately after
the publication of “Hugh O’Neil,” that Duffy proposed that he join the staff of the
The Nation, a proposal “which he said, had the effect of “changing the whole course” of John Mitchel’s life. According to
Dillon, from that time forward, John Mitchel’s life was that of a Public man, and that the next two and a half years of his life
form “part of the history of Ireland.”[4]
The Nation
Main article:'The Nation
Mitchel accepted Duffy’s invitation to join the staff of The
Nation, in the autumn of 1845. He discarded his profession, and brought his wife and
children to live in Dublin, first, for a short time at, George’s Place; then at No.1 Heathfielf, Upper Leeson Street, and finally at No. 8, Ontario Terrace, Charlemont Bridge, where he was arrested in 1848.[5]
For the next two years Mitchel wrote both political and historical articles and reviews for The Nation. He covered a wide range of subjects, including the Famine, on which he contributed some influential articles which attracted significant attention. On
25 October, 1845 he wrote on "The People’s Food", pointing to the failure of the potato crop, and
warning landlords against pursuing their tenants for rents forcing them to sell their other crops to meet their demands, and
therefore starve.[7]
He reviewed such things as Curran’s Speeches, Carlyle’s Life of Cromwell, a pamphlet by Isaac Butt on The Protection of Home Industry, The Age of Pitt and Fox, and later on The
Poets and Dramatists of Ireland, edited by Denis Florence MacCarthy (4
April, 1846); The Industrial History of Free Nations, by Torrens McCullagh, and on Father
Meehan’s The Confederation of Killkenny (8 August, 1846).
But it was to Mitchel’s political writings in The Nation that would show how strongly Mitchel felt with regard to
English rule in Ireland.[5]
On 1 November his article was on "Foreign Relations", and was titled, "England’s Difficulty is Ireland’s Opportunity". In this
edition also he raised the issue on "Potato Disease", he pointed out how powerful an agent hunger had been in certain
revolutions.[6]
On 8 November, in an article titled "The Detectives", he says, “The people are beginning to fear that the Irish Government is
merely a, machinery for their destruction; that, for all the usual functions of Government, this Castle-nuisance is altogether
powerless; that it is unable, or unwilling, to take a single step for the prevention of famine, for the encouragement of
manufactures, or providing fields of industry, and is only active in promoting, by high premiums and bounties, the horrible
manufacture of crimes!”[6]
He followed this up on 22 November, with an article titled "Threats of Coercion", it was one in which he advocated the attack
on railways if they were used against the people by the Government, and was in response to an article in the London journal
The Standard, which outlined how the railroads could be used for troops in Ireland, this led to the failed prosecution
against the paper in the following year. In this trial, Mitchel acted as solicitor for Gavan Duffy, the editor of the
paper.[6]
On 6 December, Mitchel had an article entitled "Oregon—Ireland", in reference to the dispute then pending between England and
America about Oregon. He wrote, “If there is to be a war between England and the United States, tis impossible for us to pretend
sympathy with the former. We shall have allies, not enemies, on the banks of the Columbia, and distant and desolate as are those
tracts beyond the Rocky Mountains, even there may arise an opportunity for demanding and regaining our place among the
nations.”[6]
On 20 December Mitchel made an appeal to the Protestants of Ireland, to join their fellow countrymen. The article titled "The
Protestant Interest", in it he was pointing to the efforts of the Whig leaders to win support in Ireland by the promise of
gratuity and places, in it he says, “But, Protestants of Ireland, shall it be so? Is it not time for all to rise above such vile
influences as these? Does not our national interest, our national honour (for, after all, we are a nation), demand that we spurn
the mean practice of both these foreign factions! that we shuffle off the coil of filthy place-hunting politics, that has kept us
so long grovelling in the dust!... Ah! if you would hearken to us—and a hope dawns upon us that you will—if the Protestant
magnates of the land would even now place themselves at the head of our national Confederacy, and, in this inter-regnum of
foreign rule, would meet us as brothers.”[6]
In an article on "The Administration of Justice", on 7 February, 1846, Mitchel pointed out that the Englishman made his own
laws, that they were not imported, that “no stranger,” or “slave of a stranger, sat upon his judgment seats,” that English men
had grown “to love and honour their native land, and expected no premium upon its betrayal.”[8]
He wrote another article on the Famine on 14 February, in which he illustrated the wretched way in which the famine was being
trifled with, and asked, had not the Government even yet any conception that there might be soon “millions of human beings in
Ireland having nothing to eat.”[5]
On 28 February, he noted his observation on the Coercion Bill which was then going through the House of Lords, “This is the
only kind of legislation for Ireland that is sure to meet with no obstruction in that House. However they may differ about
feeding the Irish people, they agree most cordially in the policy of taxing, prosecuting and ruining them.”[8]
In an article on "English Rule" on 7 March, he wrote: “The Irish People are expecting famine day by day... and they ascribe it
unanimously, not so much to the rule of heaven as to the greedy and cruel policy of England. Be that right or wrong, that is
their feeling. They believe that the season as they roll are but ministers of England’s rapacity; that their starving children
cannot sit down to their scanty meal but they see the harpy claw of England in their dish. They behold their own wretched food
melting in rottenness off the face of the earth, and they see heavy-laden ships, freighted with the yellow corn their own hands
have sown and reaped, spreading all sail for England; they see it and with every grain of that corn goes a heavy curse. Again the
people believe—no matter whether truly or falsely— that if they should escape the hunger and the fever their lives are not safe
from judges and juries. They do not look upon the law of the land as a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to those who do well;
they scowl on it as an engine of foreign rule, ill-omened harbinger of doom.”[8]
Mitchel made the acquaintance of Thomas Carlyle during his connection with The
Nation. Carlyle described a dinner at Mitchel’s house in 1846, Carlyle said of Mitchel that he was “a fine elastic-spirited
young fellow, whom I grieved to see rushing to destruction palpable by attack of windmills, but upon whom all my persuasions were
thrown away.[5] Carlyle was to go on to say of Mitchel when he was on trial, “Irish
Mitchel, poor fellow …I told him he would most likely be hanged, but I told him, too, that they could not hang the immortal part
of him.”[5]
The conditions under which Mitchel resigned his position as leader writer on The Nation, he himself outlined, writing
years afterwards, Mitchel explained how he came to regard as "absolutely necessary a more vigorous policy against the English
Government than that which William Smith O'Brien, Charles Gavan Duffy and other Young Ireland leaders were
willing to pursue" in 1847, when he severed his connection with The Nation, he says, “I had
watched the progress of the famine policy of the Government, and could see nothing in it but a machinery, deliberately devised,
and skilfully worked, for the entire subjugation of the island—the slaughter of portion of the people, and the pauperization of
the rest,” and he had therefore “come to the conclusion that the whole system ought to be met with resistance at every point, and
the means for this would be extremely simple, namely, a combination among the people to obstruct and render impossible the
transport and shipment of Irish provisions; to refuse all aid to its removal; to destroy the highways; to prevent everyone, by
intimidation, from daring to bid for grain and cattle if brought to auction under ‘distress’ (a method of obstruction which put
an end to Church tithes before); in short, to offer a passive resistance universally; but occasionally, when opportunity served,
to try the steel. To recommend such a course would be extremely hazardous, and was besides in advance of the revolutionary
progress made up to that time by Mr. Duffy, the proprietor of The Nation, Mitchel as a result resigned from the journal,
and started his own paper, The United Irishman.[5]
The United Irishman
The first number of the United Irishman appeared on 12 February 1848. In the Prospectus it was announced that the paper would be edited by John Mitchel, “aided by Thomas Devin Reilly, John Martin of Loughorne and other
competent contributors.” it was said that the projectors of the journal “believed that the world was weary of old Ireland and
also of Young Ireland—that the day for both these noisy factions is past and gone—that Old and Young alike have grown
superannuated and obsolete together. They believe that Ireland really and truly wants to be freed from English dominion.” Mitchel
took as the motto for the paper the words of Wolf Tone, “Our independence must he
had at all hazards. If the men of property will not support us, they must fall; we can support ourselves by the aid of that
numerous and respectable class of the community, the men of no property.” The Prospectus finished: “To enforce and apply
these principles — to make Irishmen thoroughly understand them, lay them up to their hearts, and practise them in their
lives—will be the sole and constant study of the United Irishman”.[5]
Mitchel through his paper called for resistance against British rule in Ireland, through the non-payment of rents, and preventing
the export of food from the country and became the most vocal in highlighting how the British, in his opinion, deliberately
exasperated and mismanaged the Irish Potato Famine to reduce the population (which
the British Government considered to have a surplus) to more manageable levels.[9]
The doctrine on which the United Irishman were to be conducted were stated to be: “that the Irish people had a distinct and
indefeasible right to their country, and to all the moral and material wealth and resources thereof, to possess, to govern the
same, for their own use, maintenance, comfort and honour, as a distinct Sovereign State; that it was within their power and their
manifest duty to make good and exercise that right; that the life of one peasant was as precious as the life of one nobleman or
gentleman; that the property of the farmers and labourers of Ireland was as sacred as the property of all the noblemen and
gentlemen in Ireland, and also immeasurably more valuable; that the Tenant Right custom should be extended to all Ulster, and
adopted and enforced by common consent in the other three provinces; that every man who paid taxes should have an equal voice
with every other man in the government of the State and the outlay of those taxes; that no man at present had any “legal” rights
or claim to the protection of any law and that all “legal” and constitutional agitation “in Ireland was a delusion; that every
freeman, and every man who desired to become free, ought to have arms, and to practise the use of them; that no “combination of
classes” in Ireland was desirable, just, or possible save on the terms of the rights of the industrious classes being
acknowledged and secured; and that no good thing could come from the English Parliament or the English Government”.[5]
In the first editorial, addressed to “The Right Hon. the Earl of Clarendon, Englishman, calling himself Her Majesty’s Lord
Lieutenant — General and General Governor of Ireland,” Mitchel stated that the purpose of the journal was to resume the struggle
which had been waged by Tone and Emmet, the
Holy War to sweep this Island clear of the English name and nation.” Lord Clarendon was also addressed as “Her Majesty’s
Executioner-General and General Butcher of Ireland”.[10]
For the full text of Letter see.[2]
The paper had a big circulation and began to exercise a great influence on the masses of the people.[5] In Mitchel’s
Letters to “The Protestant Farmers, Labourers and Artisans of the North of Ireland,” Mitchel demonstrated how England did not
care about any religion and plundered Protestants as well as Catholics.[5] “The Pope,” he wrote, “we know is the ‘Man of Sin,’ and
the ‘Antichrist,’ and also, if you like, the ‘Mystery of Iniquity,’ and all that; but he brings no ejectments in Ireland. The
Seven Sacraments are, to be sure, very dangerous, but the quarter-acre clause touches you more nearly. In short, our vicious
system of Government, and especially the infamous land laws, are the machinery that brought you to this pass”.[10]
Commenting on this first edition of the United Irishman, Lord Stanley in the
House of Commons, on 24 February
1848, outlined his concerns, "My Lords, with the permission of the noble lord on the woolsack,
whose notice of motion stands before mine upon the paper, I now rise for the purpose of calling your attention to the publication
of a paper in Ireland, of which I gave notice a few evenings ago; and in doing so, I shall trouble your lordships with a very few
observations of my own, because the whole of my case depends on the extracts from the paper itself, and on the result of the
questions which I shall have to put to her Majesty’s Government in connection with them…
"The first article in this paper I shall now direct your attention to. I am not seeking to call the attention of Government to
a casual article, or to bring these gentlemen within the scope of the law for a hasty or ill-considered expression. No, my lords,
this is a different case. These facts are contained in the programme of the course to be pursued, and of the object intended to
be carried out, and for the purpose of exciting sedition and rebellion among her Majesty’s subjects in Ireland (hear, hear)…
"Now, my lords, I think that whatever may be your opinions as to the expediency of language of this kind, you will see it is
language used in no common way, and for this reason I have called the attention of her Majesty’s Government to it. This is not a
mere casual article in a newspaper—it is the declaration of the aim and object for which it is established, and of the design
with which its promoters have set out; that object being to do everything possible to drive the people of Ireland to sedition, to
urge them into open rebellion, and to promote civil war for the purpose of exterminating every Englishman in Ireland (hear,
hear). I hope, my lords, her Majesty’s Government will not say that this is a matter quite in theory—that it is below contempt,
and that we should allow it to pass by in silence. If such a publication had appeared in England, I should have been very much
inclined to think the good sense and sound judgment of the people would have rejected the article at once as a seditious
invective, whose very violence, like an overdose of poison, prevented its effect.
"But this language is addressed, not to the sober-minded and calm-thinking people of England, but to a people, hasty,
excitable, enthusiastic and easily stimulated, smarting under great manifold distresses, and who have been for years excited to
the utmost pitch to which they could go consistently with their own safety, by the harangues of democrats and revolutionists
(hear, hear).
"This paper was published at five pence, but, as I am informed, when the first number appeared, so much was it sought after,
that, on its first appearance, it was eagerly bought in the streets of Dublin at one shilling and sixpence and two shillings a
number. With the people of Ireland, my lords, this language will tell (hear, hear); and I say it is not safe for you to disregard
it. These men are honest; they are not the kind of men who make their patriotism the means of barter for place or pension. They
are not to be bought of by the Government of the day for a colonial place, or by a snug situation in the customs or excise (hear,
hear). No; they honestly repudiate this course; they are rebels at heart, and they are rebels avowed, who are in earnest in what
they say and propose to do.
"My lords, this is not a fit subject, at all events, for contempt. My belief is, that these men are dangerous—my belief is,
that they are traitors in intent already, and if occasion offers, they will be traitors in fact. You may prosecute them—you may
convict them; but depend upon it, my lords, it is neither just to them, nor safe for yourselves, to allow such language to be
indulged in. I believe, because I have this strong persuasion of the earnestness and honesty of these men, that it is my duty to
call your lordships’ attention to the first number of this paper, called the United Irishman, which is intended to produce
an excitement leading to rebellion, for the purpose of showing you the language held forth, and the object avowed by these men,
to whom a large portion of the people of Ireland look up with confidence, and for the purpose of asking her Majesty’s Government
if this paper has come under their consideration, and if so, whether the Law Officers in Ireland have been consulted, and if it
is the intention of the Government to take any notice of it I (hear, hear)”.[11]
Only sixteen editions of the United Irishman had been produced when Mitchel was arrested, and the paper suppressed.
Mitchel concluded his last article in the United Irishman, from Newgate prison, entitled “A Letter to Farmers”,[5] “For me, I
abide my fate joyfully; for I know that whatever betide me, my work is nearly done. Yes; Moral Force and ‘Patience and
Perseverance’ are scattered to the wild winds of heaven. The music my countrymen now love best to hear is the rattle of arms and
the ring of the rifle. As I sit here, and write in my lonely cell, I hear, just dying away, the measured tramp of ten thousand
marching men—my gallant Confederates, unarmed and silent, but with hearts like bended bow, waiting till the time comes. They have
marched past my prison windows to let me know that there are ten thousand fighting men in Dublin— ‘felons’ in heart and soul. I
thank God for it. The game is afoot, at last. The liberty of Ireland may come sooner or come later, by peaceful negotiation or
bloody conflict— but it is sure; and wherever between the poles I may chance to be, I will hear the crash of the down fall of the
thrice-accursed British Empire”.[10]
The Policy of John Mitchel
William Dillon, Mitchel’s biographer, in the most detailed account of his life, outlined what the policies were which Mitchel
adopted. On the question of an immediate insurrection, Mitchel was quite clear when writing in The Nation on February 5, 1848, “for I say distinctly…that I do not recommend an
immediate insurrection… Mr. Doheny has shown most graphically how the people would be
butchered if they rose in armed resistance to the poor rates; but the only resistance to rates I spoke of was passive resistance.
Passive resistance was the word”.
Mitchel preached passive resistance to English law. It was Mitchel’s opinion, that the great mass of the Irish People were
hostile to the law and the law makers of England, and that it was possible through passive resistance to bring English law into
contempt, in effect, to abolish English law.[12] It was
with this object that he urged the people to oppose the payment of rent, to defy the payment of poor rates, and to resist in
every way possible short of insurrection the attempt by the Government to carry off the food they raised and having to sell it
for payment of rent. The policy of Mitchel has since come to be known as “boycotting.” [13]
Mitchel summed up his policy thus “Therefore, I had come to the conclusion that the whole system ought to be met with resistance
at every point; and the means for this would be extremely simple; namely, a combination amongst the people to obstruct and render
impossible the transport and shipment of Irish provisions; to refuse, all aid in its removal; to destroy the highways, to prevent
every one, by intimidation, from daring to bid for grain or cattle if brought to auction under distress (a method of obstruction
which had put an end to tithes before)— in short, to offer a passive resistance universally, but occasionally, when opportunity
served, to try the steel”. [13]
In a further attempt to undermine “English law” in Ireland, Mitchel, writing in the United Irishman, on February 12,
outlined what the Governments response would be, in his open letter to Lord Clarendon,
and how the Government would use the law against him, “Yes, of course you will prosecute before long; in self-defence, I hope,
you must; — that you will bid the sheriff to bid Mr. Ponder (that, I think, is the gentleman’s name) not to pack the jury. A
high-minded English nobleman, a conciliatory and ameliorative nobleman, so gracious at Lord Mayor’s feasts, so condescending at
Ancient Concerts, so blandly benignant at reunions of literary persons,— surely such a nobleman as this will not play with loaded
dice, or with marked cards, to juggle away an accused man’s liberty or life. No, I feel that I have only to mention the
circumstance in order to make you hasten to arrange this point with the worthy sheriff.
But lest there should be any mistake, I will tell you what I shall do — there shall be no secrets from you. I intend, then, to
pay special regard to the jury lists, to excite public attention continually to the jury arrangements of this city; and, above
all, to publish a series of interesting lectures on “the office and duty of jurors,” more especially in cases of sedition, where
the “law” is at one side, and the liberty of their country at the other.
I need say no more. You must now perceive that this same anticipated prosecution is one of the chief weapons wherewith we mean
to storm and sack the enchanted Castle. For be it known to you, that in such a case you
shall either publicly, boldly, notoriously, pack a jury, or else see the accused rebel walk a free man out of the Court of
Queen’s Bench — which will be a victory only less than the rout of your Lordship’s
redcoats in the open field. And think you that in case of such a victory, I will not repeat the blow? and again repeat it,— until
all the world shall see that England’s law dose not govern this nation ?
But you will pack? You will bravely defy threats and bullying, and insolent public opinion, and do your duty? You will have up
The United Irishman before twelve of your Lordship’s lion-and-unicorn tradesmen who are privileged to supply some
minor matters for the vice regal establishment ? Will you do this, and carry your conviction with a high hand? I think you
will, nay, I think you must, if you and your nation mean to go on making even a show of governing here,[10] this was another part of
the same plan the object always being to discredit English law and to bring the administration of that law into contempt.
Mitchel thought the sort of policy that in the last resort would not do anything worse than attend meetings and pass
resolutions had had a fair trial. This had been tried by O’Connell in the repeal
agitation with conditions more encouraging to its success than were ever likely to occur again, its failure had been complete and
decisive. [13]
As to Parliamentary action, Mitchel outlined his opinions on this “For my part, I admit that I am weary of constitutional
agitation, and will never lift a finger to help it more. I believe we have not the materials for it, and that the show of
constitutional power we possess was exactly devised by our enemies to delude us into an endless and drift agitation. We have
miserable franchises, and every day makes them worse. We have a government that first makes us poor, and then tempts our poverty
with bribes and promises. We have few men of public virtue and national spirit, and in a sinking and debased province we cannot
hope to rear such men more abundantly”.
The only opinion that Mitchel felt that the Government would respond to was “armed opinion”, and he outlined it thus “must the
force of opinion always be legal? — always be peaceful? Does opinion then mean law? Does opinion cease to be opinion the moment
it steps out of the trenches of the constitution? Why, sir, I hold that there is no opinion in Ireland worth a farthing which is
not illegal. I hold that armed opinion is a thousand times stronger than unarmed — and further, that in a national struggle that
opinion is the most potent whose sword is sharpest, and whose aim is surest. We are told it was opinion and sympathy, and other
metaphysical entities that rescued Italy, and scared Austria back from Ferrara without a blow. Yes, but it was opinion with the
helmet of a national guard on his head, and a long sword by his side; it was opinion, standing, match in hand, at the breech of a
gun charged to the muzzle. Now, I say all this, not to vindicate myself, for I have nowhere recommended the Irish nation to
attain legislative independence by force of arms in their present broken and divided condition (as Mr. O'Connell resolution imputes to me), not to vindicate myself, but to vindicate the original free
constitution of our confederacy”.
The last of Mitchel’s policies was on the question of secret conspiracy, Mitchel made the following observations in the
oft-quoted Letter to Lord Clarendon,” “we differ from the illustrious conspirators of
Ninety-Eight, not in principle — no, not an iota — but, as I shall presently
show you, materially as to the mode of action. Theirs was a secret conspiracy — ours is a public one. They had not learned the
charm of open, honest, outspoken resistance to oppression and through their secret organization you wrought their ruin — we defy
you, and all the informers and detectives that British corruption ever bred. No espionage can tell you more than we will proclaim
once a week on the house-tops. If you desire to have a Castle detective employed about the United Irishman office in
Trinity Street I shall make no objection, provided the man be sober and honest. If Sir George Grey or Sir William Somerville would like to read our correspondence, we make
him welcome for the present — only let the letters be forwarded without losing a post. So that you see we get rid of the whole
crew of informers at once.
Upon the question of Mitchel desired to bring about a conflict, and bring it into the open, between the Irish people and the
English soldiers, Mitchel has made clear. He knew open war was the end to which his policy must ultimately lead, but he did no
wish to “precipitate a general collision; on the contrary, he wished to wait for a favourable opportunity.” He also knew that
this policy of passive resistance to “so-called law” could not be effectively carried out without occasional outbreaks between
the people and the police or soldiers. Mitchel knew that any fighting that there was, should be street-fighting in cities rather
than in the open fields. In the field the police and soldiers had superior arms and were better trained but this advantage could
be countered in the cities and towns. Opportunities for such conditions would arise, in particular, whenever the Government
attempted to arrest any of the popular leaders and the Government “went through the farce of trying him with a packed jury.”
[13]
Charged with sedition
Such an opportunity arose when on 15 April, 1848, legal
proceedings were instigated against John Mitchel. The grand jury were called on to find against him for “seditious libels,” and
also against O’Brien and Meagher
for seditious speeches.[11]
Isaac Butt acted on behalf of both O’Brien and
Meagher,[14] and in both cases the Juries were not sufficiently Packed to secure a conviction against
them.[15] Mitchel’s trial still
remained though, and there was to be no mistake in his case. Mitchel’s defence had entered a “dilatory plea” and this technical
delay was seized upon by the Government.[15] The charges of sedition against him were to be replaced, with the newly enacted charge of
Treason Felony.
Jury-Packing
In a letter to Lord Clarendon, John Mitchel addressed the issue of Jury Packing, and made the following observations:
For the full text of Letter see. [3]
"If the cause do come to be tried before a jury, there is one stipulation I would make: — your lordship already guesses it;
need I repeat it? Why should you pack a jury against us? Remember, my lord, you belong to that liberal and truly
enlightened party called ‘Whigs;’ it is only a ‘Tory,’ you know, who packs;—and remember, also, that although I deny the
lawfulness of your ‘law’ and your law-courts altogether, and hold a trial for sedition before a packed jury in Ireland quite as
constitutional a proceeding as a trial before an unpacked one, yet your lordship cannot take this view of the matter. Your case
is that there is law in the land—that we have broken that law, and are to be tried by that law. Remember, therefore, all the fine
things that your jurists and statesmen have said and written about the great palladium of British liberty and so forth:
remember how the learned Sir William Blackstone hath delivered himself on this point;—how that ‘the founders of the English laws
have with excellent forecast contrived that the truth of every accusation, whether preferred in the shape of indictment,
information, or appeal, should be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his (the accused person’s) equals and
neighbours, indifferently chosen, and superior to all suspicion.’ A trial for ‘sedition’ here is a mere political voting,
and as your faction (that is, the English faction,) have held the sole appointment of all the officers and clerks employed in
that business, they have always been able by stealing lists, or juggling and falsifying cards, and numbers, to secure twelve men
who will vote for the Castle, and find anyone guilty whom the Castle does not love..."[11]
"...First, then, you are to suppose that the list of names has been delivered safely by the Recorder to the Sheriff, and been
by him duly numbered, and the number of each name written on a separate card—that the list, in fact, the whole list, and nothing
but the list, is now actually in the ballot-box, faithfully numbered to correspond with the Sheriff’s book—you must
suppose all this, albeit I know a rather violent supposition;—and then, in presence of the attorneys for the Crown and for
the accused criminal, forty-eight cards are to be taken out of the box. On one side of a table stands a grave-looking elderly
gentleman with the ballot-box before him; on the other side sits a second still more grave, with an open book; in the book is
written, each several number, on the margin, and opposite the number the name of the juror thereby denoted. The first grave
gentleman shakes the box, puts in his hand, and takes out a card, from which he reads the number—then the other grave gentleman
turns to that number in the book, and pronounces the name of the juror so numbered, whose name and address are then taken down as
one of the forty-eight; and this process is repeated forty-eight times."[11]
"Now it is painful to harbour any suspicions of such grave-looking elderly gentlemen: but you know juries are packed;
that is an absolute truth; and somebody must be the villain. Well, then, it is said—I say nothing, but it is said—that those two
gentlemen know each juror just as well by his number as by his name: and so, when the first takes out a card and
finds 253, for example, written on it—if he knows that 253 would vote for the people, and against the Crown, it is said he gives
out (as solemn as he looks), not 253, but, say, 255, or some loyal number; and thus a safe man is put on the list. Or, if
anyone is standing by, and has an opportunity of seeing the card, he cries 253, and winks, or otherwise telegraphs to this other
grave gentleman. Then the onus is upon the man with the book, who has nothing to do but call out a loyal man for the disloyal
number, and so you have safe voters still. They never make the mistake, these elderly gentlemen, of turning out the whole
forty-eight all of the right sort there is no need: there is a margin to the extent of twelve: and so they generally leave
about nine or ten dubious names amongst the forty-eight. The Crown has afterwards the right to strike off twelve peremptorily,
without reason assigned, and always gets rid of the men who would vote for the people. Thus, my lord, your jury is safely packed,
and your verdict, or rather vote, is sure. They poll to a man for the Crown."[11]
Thomas Langlois Lefroy 1855 by W.H.Mote
The Spectator (an English Journal) referring to the approaching trial of John Mitchel and addressing the issue of Jury
Packing thus wrote: “Ministers were bound to take that course [Packing the Jury]. We see its inconvenience and risks,—the
additional inflation of the notoriety-hunting men in buckram; the chances of an adverse verdict from an Irish Jury; the
possible tarnish on Whig popularity.” P. A. Sillard, one of Mitchel’s biographers says that “In its burning hatred against the
Irish the grave Spectator let out its fears of an acquittal, its fears that the jury might not be sufficiently well packed; but
it might depend on Lord Clarendon that this latter all important point would not be forgotten.” [11] Freeman’s Journal (an Irish Newspaper) which advocated
the cause of Repeal, commenting itself on the pending trial wrote: “The bar has been absolutely gutted of all its professional
worth, and every popular man has been tempted with the bribe—and all this before a single information was sworn! All the
distinguished men who defended the State prisoners in ‘43 have been gained over to the side of the Crown. Even the junior men
were sought to be drawn off from the accused, which proves the malicious littleness of the entire transaction.”[11] "The sneer about the
“notoriety-hunting men” was also in English good taste, Sillard suggests commenting on the Spectator; “so accustomed are they to
the like that they imagine everyone as base as themselves.”[11]
“To suppress plain-speaking in the press and at public meetings, the Government proposed a new and stringent law, by which
what was only sedition, punishable by a brief imprisonment, became treason-felony, punishable by transportation for life.”
[16] This is
how Charles Gavan Duffy described the introduction of this new law. To justify his
proposal for a fundamental alteration in the right of free meeting and free publication of opinion, the Home Secretary read only
extracts from two or three articles and speeches, but the House found them sufficient. On its third reading, on the 18 April,
1848, the Prime minister Lord John Russell, said “as long as he had any breath in him he would oppose the Repeal of the
Legislative Union”, [16] which clearly shows the motivation behind the new act. John Mitchel in a
published letter to Lord John Russell made the following observation,
For the full text of Letter see. [4]
“My Lord,—The Crown and Government of your Gracious Sovereign Lady are, it seems, in danger, and want ‘further security.’
Security against her own beloved, highly-favoured, too-indulgently used, but ungrateful subjects! What is more wonderful, the
danger arises not in the administration of those wicked Tories—wretches obstructive of ‘human progress,’ enemies of the human
race—but while you, even you, rule her Majesty’s Councils; you the very high-priest of Liberality and Concession; you, who were
to have ruled by justice, not coercion—opinion, not bayonets; whose thoughts were for ever intent on commercial reform, or
municipal reform, or sanitary reform. What could a conciliatory Premier do (or promise) that you have not done (or promised)?
[11]
Yet the very Crown and Constitution are in danger. May God be between us and harm!
And, what is strangest than all, it seems to be from the Irish that you fear this danger most; the people whom you have been
nourishing, cherishing and spoon-feeding, by means of so many kind and well-paid British nurses, for two years—on whom you have
lavished so many tons of printed paper, so many millions of cooked rations—these are the people who plot ‘treason,’ and eagerly
flock to hear ‘open and advised speaking,’ eagerly devour ‘published, printed, and written’ language all urging them to arm for
the overthrow of British rule in Ireland! It is a bad world! But you, the ‘Government’ will not endure this! You will check it at
all hazards—if it cannot be stopped as a misdemeanor, [sic] you will make it ‘felony.’...[11]
On the 13 May, while having dinner with his family, Mitchel was served a warrant for his arrest upon two charges of “felony”
under this new Act of Parliament. He was accompanied to the Police office by both his brother William and Thomas Devin Reilly. As if by previous arraignment, the chief Police Magistrate Mr. Porter, Mr.
Kemmis the crown solicitor and Mr. Perrin, the crown council were in attendance. Mr. Porter handed Mitchel the following warrant
for his committal, [11]
Newgate Prison were John Mitchel was detained 1848
Police District of Dublin Metropolis, To wit.
By Frank Thorpe Porter, Esq.,
one of the Magistrates of the Head Police-Office, in said district.
You are here by required to detain in your custody the body of John Mitchel, of no.12 Trinity-street, in the said district, who
stands charged before me, upon Oath, for that the said John Mitchel, on the sixth (day of May, instant, at Trinity-street,
aforesaid, did wilfully and feloniously compass, imagine, invent, devise, and intend to deprive and depose our most Gracious Lady
the Queen, from the style, honour, and royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, and levy war against her Majesty,
in order, by force and constraint, to compel her to change her measures and counsels ; and such compassings, imaginations,
inventions, devices, and intentions, did, at such times respectively, at the place last-aforesaid, express, utter and declare, by
publishing certain printings in a certain news paper called The United Irishman, of which said newspaper, the said John Mitchel
was, at the time aforesaid, and at the place last-aforesaid, the sole and only proprietor, contrary to the form of the statute in
each case, made and provided. “Therefore, the said John Mitchel, you are in safe custody to keep until legally discharged; and
for so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant. “Given under my hand and seal, this 13th day of May, 1848. “F. T. PORTER.
(Seal.)
“To the Keeper of Newgate, Dublin, at City of Dublin Commission.
“(Keeper’s seal.)”[11]
Trial and sentence
Trial of John Mitchel in Green Street Courthouse
The Commission Court opened on 20 May, and Baron Lefroy proceeded to charge the grand jury. On Monday the foreman handed down
a true bill against Mitchel. The Clerk of the Crown asked for what the bill was. To illustrate the rapidity with which the whole
case was despatched; and the absolute indifference “whether there was justice done or not,” P.A Sillard one of Mitchel’s
biographers quoted from the speech of Mitchel’s defence Council Robert Holms,
“The foreman of the Grand Jury, gentlemen, having been asked if the jury had found bills against the prisoner—replied— ‘Oh yes,
we find him guilty of sedition.’ ‘Gentlemen,’ said the officer of the court, ‘he is not
indicted for sedition.’ ‘Well,’ said the fore man, ‘we find him guilty of treason.’ ‘But,
gentlemen,’ again interrupted the officer, ‘the charge against Mr. Mitchel is for felony.’ ‘Oh,
no matter!’ said the foreman, ‘sedition, treason, or felony, it is all the same to us.” Sillard concluded, “Justice! the thing is
not to be had in British law courts. The petty jury having been sworn, the remaining portion of this awful scene was very quickly
gone through.” [11]
The Attorney-General stated the case and endeavoured to defend himself against the accusation of having tampered with the
jury-list. The witnesses were then examined, and at a 12.15pm, Robert Holmes, a veteran Republican of ‘98, and the brother-in-law
of Robert Emmet, rose to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. This was to be his last ever speech, and in it took the
views of the prisoner and made them his own. It was according to Sillard “the grand old Republican of ‘98 resolved to attest the justice of the Republican of a later day, and hurl defiance in the
face of English “law.” [11]
See full text of speech here [5]
Holmes having concluded his speech, the counsel for the Crown, Mr. Henn, replied. Judge Moore then charged the jury, who
retired to consider their verdict, which after some time they brought in and handed down to the clerk of the Crown. That verdict
was “Guilty.” [11]
On the following morning at the sitting of the court, the clerk of the Crown went through formality of asking if Mitchel had
anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him? “I have,” answered Mitchel, and continued, “I have to say that I have
been found guilty by a packed jury—by the jury of a partisan sheriff—by a jury not empannelled even according to the law of
England. That is the reason I object to the sentence being passed upon me.” [11]
Baron Lefroy then proceeded to pass sentence. He commenced by denying that the
jury had been packed, reiterate all the offences mentioned in the indictment, and concluded by saying:— “I wish you to understand
[addressing Mitchel] that we have, with the utmost anxiety, and with a view to come to a decision upon the measure of punishment
which it would be our duty to impose, postponed the passing of sentence upon you till this morning. We have with the utmost
deliberation, examined the matter, with an anxiety to duly discharge the duty which we owe on all hands— the duty which we owe
the prisoner of not meting out punishment beyond the just measure of the offence, and the duty we owe to the public that the
degree of punishment will be such as to carry out the object of all punishment, which is not the mere infliction of the penalty
upon the person convicted, but the prevention of crime—that that punishment should carry with it a security to the country, as
far as possible, that one who has offended so perseveringly—that so deliberate a violator of the law shall not be permitted to
continue his course of conduct to the disturbance of its peace and prosperity. We had to consider all this—to look at the
magnitude of the crime, and to look also at the consideration that if this were not the first case brought under the Act, our
duty might have obliged us to carry out the penalty it awards to the utmost extent; but taking into consideration that this is
the first conviction under the Act—though the offence has been as clearly proved
as any offence of the kind could be—the sentence of the court is that you, John Mitchel, be transported beyond the seas for the
term of fourteen years.” [11]
There was an eruption of indignation followed upon the delivering of this sentence and as soon as silence had been restored,
Mitchel delivered his opinion.
Speech from the Dock
“The law has now done its part, and the Queen of England, her crown and Government in Ireland, are now secure pursuant to
Act of Parliament. I have done my part also. Three months ago I promised
Lord Clarendon, and his government, in this country, that I would provoke him into his
courts of justice, as places of this kind are called, and that I would force him publicly and notoriously to pack a Jury against
me to convict me, or else that if I would walk out a free man from this dock, to meet him in another field. My lord, I knew I was
setting my life on that cast; but I warned him that in either event the victory would be with me, and the victory is with me.
Neither the jury, nor the judges, nor any other man in this court, presumes to imagine that it is a criminal who stands in this
dock. I have kept my word. “I have shown what the law is made of In Ireland. I have shown that her Majesty’s Government sustains
itself in Ireland by packed juries by partisan judges, by perjured sheriffs. I have acted all through this business, from the
first, under a strong sense of duty. I do not repent anything I have done: and I believe that the course which I have opened is
only commenced, The Roman who saw his hand burning to ashes before the tyrant, promised that three hundred should follow out his
enterprise, Can I not promise [Mitchel looking at Martin, Reilly, and Meagher, who stood round the dock] for
one, for two, for three, aye, for hundreds.” [11]
According to Mitchel’s biographers, an outburst of passion followed this speech, and several voices exclaimed, “Yes, Mitchel, for
thousands.” “And promise for me,” as Mitchel was lead away. [11]
Deportation and the Jail Journal
He was transported to the Ireland Island, Bermuda, where the Royal Navy was notoriously using convict labour to carve out a dockyard and naval
base. Bermuda had long been used as a destination for transporting
troublesome native peoples. In the 17th Century, many Algonquian peoples were sent
there following English expansion in North America, and numerous Irish Prisoners-of-War
(POW) and ethnically-cleansed civilians were sent to Bermuda and sold into servitude following Cromwell's invasion of Ireland (Bermuda would
be used as late as the Second Boer War as a place to which Boer POWs were removed). In the 19th Century, owing to a lack of manual labourers in Bermuda, the Royal Navy had
begun using convicts from British and Irish prisons to build its dockyard. These men were housed in prison hulks, where many succumbed to disease, particularly yellow
fever. Convicts were treated harshly, and worked hard. Conditions were severe enough to lead to prison revolts, and the
exectutions of rioters. There is a popular belief, in Bermuda, that Ireland, the western-most island in the archipelago, takes
its name from the number of Irish prisoners who laboured and died there in the 19th Century. In fact, the Island has borne that
name since the 17th Century, and the reason is unclear, today. Surviving his time in Bermuda, Mitchel was then sent to the penal
colony of Van Diemen's Land. It was during this journey he wrote his Jail
Journal, in which he expressed his hatred of British
policy in Ireland and advocated a more radical brand of nationalism.
The United States
John Mitchel, Last portrait 1875
Mitchel escaped from the colony in 1853 and settled in America where he edited the collections of the poetry of Mangan and
Davis,[17] He established the radical Irish nationalist
newspaper The Citizen in New York, as an expression of radical Irish-American anti-British opinion.[citation needed] The paper, however, became
controversial for its defence of slavery by highlighting the hypocrisy of the abolitionists in
the debate. Mitchel was a critic of international capitalism, which he blamed for both the pending Civil War and the Great Hunger.[citation needed] Mitchel resigned from the paper and
toured as a spokesman for the South, founding a new paper, the Southern Citizen. As a
spokesman for the cause of the South, he was the first to point out that slavery and
abolition were not the cause of the conflict but simply used as a pretence. He lost two of
his sons to the war, in which another was badly wounded. Mitchel fell out with Jefferson
Davis, who he regarded as too moderate. Mitchel ended up back in prison, for a short time, after the Civil War, but was
released with the assistance of the Fenians in 1865. With the ending of the war and
the victory for the Union side, Mitchel returned his focus to the issue of Ireland. He founded his third American newspaper, the
Irish Citizen but the paper failed to attract readers and folded in 1872. Mitchel worked for
a time in Paris as financial agent for the Fenians before again returning to the States.
Elected an MP
Mitchel returned to Ireland where in 1875 he was elected in a by-election to be an MP in
the British parliament representing the Tipperary constituency.
However his election was invalidated on the grounds that he was a convicted felon. He contested the seat again in the resulting
by-election, again being elected, this time with an increased vote. However his sudden death avoided a constitutional crisis,
with his opponent being returned unopposed in the third by-election.
Miscellaneous
A number of Gaelic Athletic Association Clubs Gaelic Athletic Association
are named in his honour:
- Newry Mitchel's GFC in his home town.
- John Mitchel's of Birmingham
- John Mitchel's of Liverpool
- John Mitchel's of Belfast
- John Mitchel's of Claudy, County Londonderry
- John Mitchel's of Glenullin, County Londonderry
- John Mitchel's of Tralee
- John Mitchel's of County Waterford
- John Mitchel's of Dromskin, County Louth
- Castlebar Mitchel's of Dromskin, County Louth
A statue to Mitchel was also erected by the people of Newry, County Down and is located at John Mitchel Place, an extension of
Newry's main street, Hill Street.
Mitchell County, Iowa, is named in his honor.
Mitchel remains an important figure in Irish history for his involvement in radical nationalism, and in particular for
writings such as Jail Journal, "The Last Conquest Of Ireland (Perhaps)", "The History of Ireland", "An Apology for the
British Government in Ireland", and the less well known "The Life of Hugh O'Neill". He was described by Charles Gavin Duffy as "a trumpet to awake the slothful to the call of duty; and the Irish people".[11]
Additional Sources
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Books by John Mitchel
- An Apology for the British Government in Ireland, John Mitchel, O Donoghue & Company. 1905
- Jail Journal, John Mitchel, M.H. Gill & Sons, LTD 1914
- Jail Journal: with continuation in New York & Paris, John Mitchel, M.H. Gill & Son, Ltd
- The Crusade of the Period, John Mitchel, Lynch, Cole & Meehan 1873
- Last Conquest Of Ireland (Perhaps)], John Mitchel, Lynch, Cole & Meehan 1873
- History of Ireland, from the Treaty of Limerick to the Present Time, John Mitchel, Cameron & Ferguson
- History of Ireland, from the Treaty of Limerick to the Present Time (2 Vol),John Mitchel,James Duffy 1869
- Life of Hugh O'Neil John Mitchel P.M. Haverty 1868
- The Last
Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), John Mitchell, (Glasgow, 1876 - reprinted University College Dublin Press, 2005) ISBN
I-905558-36-4
- Davis, Poem’s and Essays Complete, Introduction by John Mitchel, P. M. Haverty, P.J. Kenedy, 9/5 Barclay St. New York,
1876.
Books by Young Irelanders (Irish Confederation)
- The Felon's Track, By Micheal Doheny, M.H. Gill &Sons, LTD 1951 (Text at Project Gutenberg)
- The Volunteers of 1782,By Thomas Mac Nevin, James Duffy & Sons. Centenary Edition
- Thomas Davis, Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd 1890
- My Life In Two Hemispheres (2Vol), Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, T.Fisher Unwin. 1898
- Young Ireland, Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. 1880
- Four Years of Irish History 1845-1849, Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. 1888
- A Popular History of Ireland: from the Earliest Period to the Emancipation of the Catholics,Thomas D'Arcy McGee,
Cameron & Ferguson (Text at Project Gutenberg)
- The Patriot Parliament of 1689, Thomas Davis, (Third Edition), T. Fisher Unwin, MDCCCXCIII
- Charles Gavan Duffy: Conversations With Carlyle (1892)
Biographies
- The life of John Mitchel,William Dillon, (London, 1888) 2 Vols.
- Life of John Mitchel, P. A. Sillard, James Duffy and Co., Ltd 1908
- John Mitchel, P. S. O'Hegarty, Maunsel & Company, Ltd 1917
- Irish Mitchel, Seamus MacCall, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd 1938
- John Mitchel First Felon for Ireland, Edited By Brian O'Higgins, Brian O'Higgins 1947
- John Mitchel Noted Irish Lives, Louis J. Walsh, The Talbot Press Ltd 1934
- John Mitchel, A Cause Too Many, Aidan Hegarty, Camlane Press
Additional reading
- Life of John Martin, P. A. Sillard, James Duffy & Co., Ltd 1901.
- The Politics
of Irish Literature: from Thomas Davis to W.B. Yeats, Malcolm Brown, Allen & Unwin, 1973.
- Thomas Davis, The Thinker and Teacher, Arthur Griffith, M.H. Gill & Son 1922.
- Brigadier-General Thomas Francis Meagher His Political and Military Career,Capt. W. F. Lyons, Burns Oates &
Washbourne Limited 1869
- Young Ireland and 1848, Dennis Gwynn, Cork University Press 1949.
- Daniel O'Connell The Irish Liberator, Dennis Gwynn, Hutchinson & Co, Ltd.
- O'Connell Davis and the Collages Bill, Dennis Gwynn, Cork University Press 1948.
- Smith O’Brien And The “Secession”, Dennis Gwynn, Cork University Press
- Meagher of The Sword, Edited By Arthur Griffith, M. H. Gill & Son, Ltd. 1916.
- Young Irelander Abroad The Diary of Charles Hart, Edited by Brendan O'Cathaoir, University Press.
- Rossa's Recollections 1838 to 1898, Intro by Sean O'Luing, The Lyons Press 2004.
- Labour in Ireland, James Connolly, Fleet Street 1910.
- The Re-Conquest of Ireland, James Connolly, Fleet Street 1915.
- Thomas Davis: Essays and Poems, Centenary Memoir, M. H Gill, M.H. Gill & Son, Ltd MCMXLV.
- The Fenians in Context Irish Politics & Society 1848-82, R. V. Comerford, Wolfhound Press 1998
- William Smith O'Brien and the Young Ireland Rebellion of 1848, Robert Sloan, Four Courts Press 2000
- Ireland Her Own, T. A. Jackson, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd 1976.
- Life and Times of Daniel O'Connell, T. C. Luby, Cameron & Ferguson.
- Young Ireland, T. F. O'Sullivan, The Kerryman Ltd. 1945.
- Irish Rebel John Devoy and America's Fight for Irish Freedom, Terry Golway, St. Martin's Griffin 1998.
- Paddy's Lament Ireland 1846-1847 Prelude to Hatred, Thomas Gallagher, Poolbeg 1994.
- The Great Shame, Thomas Keneally, Anchor Books 1999.
- James Fintan Lalor, Thomas, P. O'Neill, Golden Publications 2003.
- Charles Gavan Duffy: Conversations With Carlyle (1892),with Introduction, Stray Thoughts On Young Ireland, by
Brendan Clifford, Athol Books, Belfast, ISBN 0 85034 1140. (Pg. 32 Titled, Foster’s account Of Young Ireland.)
- Envoi, Taking Leave Of Roy Foster, by Brendan Clifford and Julianne Herlihy, Aubane Historical Society, Cork.
- The Falcon Family, or, Young Ireland, by M. W. Savage, London, 1845. (An Gorta
Mor)Quinnipiac University
- James F. Donnelly Jr, 'The Great Famine: Its interpreters old and new', History
