Poland in the 18th century was in decline. The first partition of the country among its three neighbouring powers occurred in 1772 without contradiction on the part of Europe and with England’s acquiescence. Thomas Paine could have been aware of this because the  English press published information about it and even satirical  engravings appeared illustrative of this unprecedented event which violated the principle of the balance of power (equilibre European).  

However, the first partition gave rise to the awakening of the Polish  nation. In order to save the state and its endangered independence  fundamental reforms were to be undertaken and all social power and  activities activated. The privileges and habits of magnates had to be  curbed and parliamentary anarchy overcome. In Poland in the last quarter  of the 18th century the splendour of the enlightenment was glorified in  an attempt to overcome the country’s backwardness in comparison to  Western Europe.  

The reforms of the Four Years Diet (1788-1792), which is called the  Great Diet, amongst the best known being the Constitution of May 3,  1791, were a result of these endeavours. Next to the Constitution of the  United States, the Polish Constitution was in advance of even the  French Constitution of September 1791. The most important article of  the May Constitution was the law of towns which gave civil rights to the  burghers. This gave birth to the Tiers Etat in Poland where the nobility  voluntarily renounced part of their privileges and the peasants given the  protection of the law. In place of an hereditary monarchy an elective monarchy was introduced and the elector of Saxony, Frederick Augustus was elected heir to the Polish throne with his daughter having  the possibility of becoming his successor.  

Decisions were taken concerning the security of the state and  financial measures adopted to pay for the defence forces. The  Constitution was for the most part based upon Anglo-American models  which aroused admiration although it also roused doubts and  opposition. The Polish court was following European attitudes and  attitudes resultant upon the publicity changes had brought, as are  recorded in newspapers as well as diplomatic and private correspondence.  

Amongst English politicians it was Edmund Burke’s eulogy which  resounded the loudest and was included in his pamphlet Appeal to the  New Whigs, a polemic against Thomas Paine and his radical supporters.  Within the context of polemics Paine’s name appears for the first time in Poland, where his ideas soon gained support. During his time in the United States, Paine had met Tadeusz Kosciuszko and it may be he also met other Polish volunteers taking part in the War of Independence, although no information on this reached Poland, where lengthy extracts from Paine’s, Common Sense, were published in translation in the Polish press (Gozeta Warszawska, May 25, 1776), although it was wrongly ascribed to John Adams’ Manifesto. Large parts from Common Sense also appeared in the Polish translation of Abbe Raynal’s work (1783). It can be presumed that the Polish press also reprinted excerpts from the Crisis papers, although these are not easy to identify as the Polish press printed many comments and opinions about the American Revolution.  

Following his return to Europe, Paine travelled between France and England. In Paris he associated with a circle of friends which included  Jefferson and La Fayette and through these he came into contact with  the Polish Princess Lubomirska, S. Potoki and S. Piattoli. He also became  acquainted with American agents working for the Polish king, Stanislaw Augustus Poniatowski such as Lewis Littlepage and Philip Mazzei. He was also familiar with John Adams’ Defence… (1784), which has a critical chapter dedicated to Poland. Paine also took an interest in the Polish monarch, Stanislaw Augustus, described as ‘le Roi Philosophe’ or  `Citizen King’, and told Thomas Christi that although being an enemy of monarchy he would like to take away much of the power from existing  kings and hand it over to Stanislaw Augustus (T. Christi to the Polish king, May 22, 1791. Ms. Czart, Krakow, No.938 – pp.633-655). To judge by this letter, Christi not only told the king about Paine’s Rights of Man but also included a copy along with his own pamphlet replying to Burke. S. Piatolli purchased a copy of Rights of Man for the library of Ingnatius Potocki the leader of the Polish Patriots. There is, however, no reference to Polish changes in the first part of Rights of Man, although the Diet was in full session when it was written.  

In England news about the new Polish Constitution was well received, and because of the events in France excited much interest. To conservatives the Polish Law of Government was considered a different reform to what was taking place in France and was considered to be based on the British parliamentary monarchy (Burke), while the left Whigs as well as the radicals considered it as a revolutionary step and another step in the process began by the French Revolution.  

The Polish ambassador in England, Francis Bukaty, reported that Paine was unpopular with the English government and steps had been taken not to ban any celebration of the anniversary of the outbreak of the French Revolution, festivities for which had been announced for July  14, 1791 and in which Paine was to have participated. Despite government hostility around 900 supporters of the Revolution gathered together at the Crown and Anchor tavern to celebrate. Amongst the many toasts proposed was one expressing ‘good wishes to the Polish revolution’.  

Paine does not refer directly to changes in Poland in Part Two of Rights of Man, but he does state that in contradiction to a hereditary monarchy ‘Poland, through an elective monarchy, has had fewer wars than those which are hereditary’, adding, ‘and it is the only government that has made a voluntary essay, though a small one, to reform the condition of the country’. A few pages further he characterises features of a republic and considers Poland a country which have effected to style themselves a republic. ‘Poland called itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy’. And  that is all which was written about Poland in transition.  

Although Thomas Paine did not say much about Poland he was regarded there as a supporter of the Polish Constitution, probably because of the words of praise for it from his circle of friends. Paine’s name was also associated with celebrations and demonstrations commemorating the Polish Constitution. When the first anniversary of the Constitution was celebrated in London on May 3, 1792, the participants were supporters of Paine, though the Polish ambassador, who was invited to the gathering at the Mitre Court tavern, anxious not to upset  the court and the government, apologised for not attending because of  official duties. The meeting also supported the notion of universal revolution and Burke came in for condemnation for his political blindness. Revolutionary songs were sung and the author of Rights of Man toasted. The last demonstration at which such slogans were expressed occurred when the third anniversary of the French Revolution was celebrated at a time of Russian military intervention in Poland was occurring and war was taking place with France. The demonstration was supported by the extreme radicals and Thomas Paine cheered and the desire expressed that the ‘Revolution in France and Poland be a challenge to all despots on earth’. 

The last gesture of friendship of the English nation towards Poland was a goodwill subscription with support from representatives of governmental and parliamentary circles, merchants and businessmen as well as the radical opposition (letter of T. Christi to the Polish king, AGAD Warsow. 2b. Popiel Coll. 206. 3 August 1792), as the latter were supporters of Thomas Paine they preferred anonymity in order not to evoke the animosity of the bitter enemies of the French Revolution. In a long letter to Stanislaw Augustus, Thomas Christi characterised the feeling at the celebration as being of general sympathy for the Polish cause and the wish to help it (August 3. 1792. AGAD Warsaw. Popiel Coll. 206). The May 3 Constitution was abolished in Poland following the second partition of the country by victorious despots. 

Thadeus Kosciuszko, who took part in the American War of Independence and, like Paine, an honorary citizen of France, did not give up the struggle for independence. With the support of the then Girondistic legislature he set off the insurrection as a last fight to save, if not the country, then at least its honour and dignity. 

In the days when Thomas Paine fell victim to Jacobinic terrorism the Polish people struggling for their rights had recourse to his ideas. This idea came from “Polish Jacobins” and from the leaders of the insurrection and, one can suggest, from Kosciuszko himself. A German edition of Rights of Man had been prepared in Poland. The editor of The Free Warsaw Gazette (Gazeta Wolna Warszawska), the newspaper of the insurrection, stated that: ‘The work of Thomas Paine Rights of Man had reached in a short space of time nine editions, 50,000 copies of which had been bought with enthusiasm in England alone, it will always remain for mankind of inestimable value and for despots a fearful act’. 

Paine’s later works, The Age of Reason and Agrarian Justice also found their way to the libraries of Polish statesmen. Paine’s close friendship with Kosciuszko was renewed after his captivity. R.R. Palmer, the author of the fundamental work, The Age of Democratic Revolution, says Paine considered the possibility of applying for Polish citizenship, although no confirmation of this can be found.

The post Thomas Paine And The Polish Revolution   appeared first on .

It gives me the greatest pleasure to pen an article for the Bulletin  of the society dedicated to honouring one of England’s finest radicals.  Although not necessarily to be accredited with being the first to question religious privilege and accepted wisdom in spiritual affairs, Paine was undoubtedly their most fierce critic in his day and The Age of Reason articulates the disdain for and the contempt in which he held all-powerful religion, in both the constitutional and rational sense. I  believe this was meant to complement his thinking on the subjects for  which he normally receives more credit and recognition for today,  namely popular rights and government. However, admirers of Paine  often choose to revere these two concepts and ignore or give  diminished consideration to his thinking on religion. It would be folly  somewhat to imagine or argue that Paine’s radicalism and life trajectory  followed some conscious logical progression and applied this to his output – Paine was not a scholar, nor did he enjoy the privileged  upbringing of most seminal theorists of his day and nor did he hold any  great public office. His works were, in the main, written to contend with  contemporaneous events. However, it can be argued that in retrospect  we can view Paine’s collective output as being consistent. He did not  vacillate in his opinions during his life (unlike Locke for instance), the  themes of each work corresponding with the others. Therefore,  religious privilege can be viewed as deserving the same consideration as  representative government and political liberty, the three having the  same effect on man’s progress – this being as significant upon the  politics of spirituality in the late eighteenth century as the publication  of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and J.S.Mill’s On Liberty in 1859 was  in the mid-nineteenth century. Whilst Mill and Darwin’s work ushered  in an age of active nonconformism, anti-state church agitation and a  belief that man’s progress and social reform lay in the hands of man  himself and not the Christian church, Paine’s publication of The Age of  Reason was met with the derision and fury of Christian both in Britain  and America that would suggest that it was Paine himself that nailed  Christ to the cross! To criticise the actions of men in their earthly affairs  and dealings with one another was one thing but to challenge the  accepted wisdom and belief of the Christian view of the world was above  mere reproach.  

Paine’s sane and rational perception of the unchallenged tenets of  Christianity, as startling as their originality in his time remains, offers us  little in an age where even the Papacy accepts evolution, over  one-hundred years after Darwin and where the empirical work of  scientists reduces the bible to a superstitious document of mythical  events. However removed from the misconception of Paine being an  atheist, his deism can be seen as perhaps an attempt for religion to  circumvent the growing anti-clericalism and antipathy towards the  church and was something of a precursor to Unitarianism. However,  somewhat redolent of our own age perhaps, the prevailing view on  Christianity and how the church should conduct itself was that  articulated by the arrogant and sanctimonious forces of conservatism.  We all know how Paine wrote Rights of Man as a spirited defence of the  French revolution and the common liberty immediately after reading  Burke’s, Reflections on the Revolution in France Thus it has been and  remains so to some extent, that Burke and Paine are viewed as being  the antithesis of one another – the advocate of the wisdom of the ages,  reverence of the preceding order and of the stabilizing virtues of  aristocracy, versus that of reason, the rationalism of man and society’s  progress and revolutionary zeal. Indeed Burke in the Reflections wrote: 

‘To them (the citizens), therefore, a religion connected with the  state, and with their duty toward it, become even more necessary than in  such societies where the people, by the terms of their subjection, are  confined to private sentiments and the management of their own family  concerns’.  

Let there be no doubt or scope for misapprehension, Paine would  disapprove of the established Church of England as much today as  when he conceived an “age of reason” should prevail, perhaps more so  given the length of time we in Britain have had at our leisure, and in  much more tolerant times, to contemplate and resolve to liberate the  Anglican faith from its stately captor. Whilst many a Tory could quote  Burke verbatim and the publications offered for sale by Labour include  Paine’s first two works, it is Burke’s view that prevails as rigidly and  virtually unchallenged now as in 1789 as far as the established church is  concerned. As asserted earlier, the pursuit of true representative  government and the common liberty of all is bound to the belief in man  and society’s progress alone, free from the dogmatic intrusion of either  the superstition and myths of Christianity or the Burkian conservative  and arbitrary national religion of the established church. However, to  agitate for this is not to deny either Christians or their Protestant  adherents the right to enjoy and practice their faith, it is merely to  defend it whilst giving it parity with other denominations and faiths that  they rightly deserve, altogether free of state involvement. The right to  the free exercise of religion and worship, to to refrain from doing so  altogether, is sine quo non in a representative democracy based upon the  principle of liberty. As progressive democrats we possess the humility,  something Christianity stresses so much, to allow others to advocate the  curtailment of liberty, even though fundamentalist Christians would  gladly snatch that very right alone from under our noses!  

As the Thomas Paine Society we are dedicated to both constructing a  perspective on the problems and issues we face in our own time and  towards honouring Paine’s great work and memory. However, whilst  Burke stressed the importance of ‘the three prejudices’ which today  could be construed as monarchy, parliamentary government and  established church, as opposed to Paine’s common sense, the rights of  man and the age of reason, it is Burke’s view of which that our Labour  Prime Minister believes in so strongly. Thus, whilst in our age Paine  would not have effigies burned in his absence nor condemned to an  undignified existence during the rest of his days for articulating such  anti-established church sentiments; the chances are that they would fall  upon the deaf ears of the unaware, unconcerned public (Burke’s  ‘swinish multitude’) and a muted political reform movement that once sought to challenge vested interests and arrogant assumed wisdom with  such unfaltering recidivist conviction. Whilst Paine is not with us today  (unless you are a Buddhist perhaps), his words resonate so clearly and  audibly that he might as well be: let every man follow, as he has a right  to do, the religion and the worship he prefers’. 

The post Church Disestablishment – Paine’s View   appeared first on .

Beyond The Call Of Duty, Memoirs Of An Excise Man.  Horace Sheppard, M.B.E. Illustrated. 424pp, Brighton, The Old  Museum Press, 1998. ISBN 1 84042 012 X. £15.99  

ALTHOUGH this is not a work about, Thomas Paine, or specifically associated with him, not that he goes unnoticed by the author, it is written by an individual who has a connection with him by virtue of having been an excise officer, al though unlike Paine he remained in the excise for the better part of his career. The author was born in Chatham in 1906 and accepted into the Customs and Excise as an `Unattached Officer’ in 1927 at the age of twenty-one, retiring in 1969 after having served forty-two years. This book is essentially a record of his life and experiences in the excise, though well larded with reminiscences of his family and social  activities, which seem to have included collecting antiques and  antiquarian books, whether these included books on Paine is, however,  not stated.

Thomas Paine accompanied by Robert Burns turns up in chapter  twenty, the four and a half pages making up this part of the book being  devoted exclusively to them. It rapidly becomes clear from what the  author writes that he holds both men in very high esteem. It has to be  said there is nothing new in this chapter, but Mr.Sheppard does repeat the all too common error about Paine having been charged with  treason, whereas in actual fact it was one of seditious libel. Burns, of  course, was an admirer of Paine, although he tended to be rather  circumspect in regard to the radical ideas he shared in with him; his  personal copies of Rights of Man and The Age of Reason, which he would  have had to conceal, are still extant.  

There are many fascinating and amusing incidents recorded in the pages of this book and though tempted to mention some I will resist  doing so, leaving the reader to find these for themselves (it is a great  pity there is no index). If pressed to identify any feature giving the book a degree of importance which removes it from simply being a recreational read, I would point to material in it which social historians will find of great value, although this is expressed in an entertaining  manner rather than in terms of what one would expect in a scholarly treatise. Whether it was the intention of the author to give his work this  measure of importance is doubtful, but whatever be the case he has  done so in the most pleasurable manner.  

This is a book to be taken to bed, but be warned, once you start  reading it you may find it difficult to put down and become so absorbed  in it that you will suddenly discover it is time to get up!

The post BOOK REVIEW: Beyond The Call Of Duty, Memoirs Of An Excise Man appeared first on .

Thomas Paine: The Case Of The King Of England And His Officers Of Excise. George Hindmarch. 95pp. Paperback. Purley,  published by the author, 1998. ISBN 0 9531981. Unpriced.

This short essay is unquestionably a major contribution to Paine studies, though likely to be considered rather on the controversial side in that it casts Paine in a role few, if any, of his admirers would have thought even remotely possible, for it is the belief of the author that Paine was ‘an undercover agent’ for George III (p.56) and wrote his  Case of the Officers of Excise in support of him as well as on behalf of his  excise colleagues (p.51). This was his first political publication, the  promotion of which ‘was the apprenticeship Paine served as a political  propagandist’ (p.3’7), however, those who he believes were behind  Paine, or as he puts it, ‘the high dignitaries who stood in the obscurity  of Paine’s shadow’, had no intention of revealing to ‘the majority of the  readers to whom it was selectively addressed’ the pamphlet’s ‘main purpose’ (p.11). And this ‘purpose’? According to Mr. Hindmarch it was  to promote the king’s case for an increase in the Civil List, which had  been set at £8000,000 annually when he came to the throne in 1750, but  because of inflation it had become insufficient to cover his expenses,  which included paying the salaries of excise officers.  

Mr. Hindmarch draws upon many sources for evidence to support his  thesis, including the archives of the Customs and Excise Department,  which most Paine scholars have curiously tended to neglect, numerous  economic and historic studies and, of course, Paine’s own works, in  particular his excise essay. Taken as a whole this impressive volume of  material provides him with a solid foundation from which to work. He is  the first researcher to recognise the difficulties Paine would have had to  overcome had he been alone in attempting to mobilise support amongst  the nation’s 3000 riding officers as well as collecting the three shilling  voluntary donation each had been asked to give. The author rightly  refers to ‘undistinguished writers’ (on Thomas Paine) who fail ‘to  research into his background’ thus perpetuating ‘a number of serious  misrepresentations’ (p.9), a point also made by the late Audrey  Williamson (cf. Thomas Paine, His Life, Work and Times. Allen &  Unwin, 1973. chapter 3). 

Working alone Paine would have been unable  to overcome these problems, however, he had the active backing of a  recently appointed Excise Commissioner, George Lewis Scott, who was  supported by his fellow commissioners (the author rejects the claim of  previous biographers about the Excise Board being hostile to Paine’s  activities (p.36)), and it was Scott who co-ordinated the circulation of  officers and arranged the collection of their ‘donations’, for unlike  Paine he would have had access to the essential address list and the  authority to apply pressure on subordinates (p.38). It is not without  significance that Scott was an intimate of the king, having been his tutor  in his youth. Mr.Hindmarch contends it was Scott’s role ‘to persuade  Parliament that changes in the king’s static civil list arrangements were  necessary in the national interest’, using a ‘forceful cogent argument  from the principal fundraising Department – the Excise. The much hated excisemen were to lead the campaign…’ (p.30).  

On the debit side is the fact that Paine never acknowledged publicly  or privately any involvement in a scheme to help the king, which would  have made him, in effect, ‘an undercover agent of the king’, or that  such a scheme was part of his brief when writing his Case of the Officers  of Excise. It is difficult to understand why he remained silent if he had  been caught up in the operation of a hidden agenda. After he was  outlawed he had nothing to lose by keeping silent. The same is true of  the government, once Paine was known as being the author of Common Sense, to have revealed him as having acted as an agent for George III may well have  created suspicions amongst his revolutionary colleagues about his trustworthiness and  reliability, thus politically harming the colonial cause. Then there is George Chalmers,  author of the first attempt at the character  assassination of Paine, which he wrote  under the fictitious name Francis Oldys. He  could have used the information in his  book, published in 1791, which would  undoubtedly make Paine suspect by his  French as being a potential agent for the  English government, in other words, it  would have paid the English authorities a  dividend to have revealed the secret if there had been one. But Chalmers, who Mr.Hind march believes to have known all the details, remained silent. This is explained away by the author as being due to him not wishing to embarrass the  king and government, the latter having not only paid him £500 to write the book but also accorded him maximum assistance to gather information.  

There is what may be a reference by Paine to his involvement in a scheme such as postulated by the author. It occurs in his letter to Oliver Goldsmith, which accompanied a copy of The Case of the Officers of Excise he sent unsolicited to the playwright. Although he reproduces the letter in its entirety Mr. Hindmarch appears to have overlooked this comment, perhaps because of its ambiguity. However, it might (my  emphasis) constitute evidence. Paine writes of George Chalmers (”Francis  Oldys”) Portrait by H. Edridge acting in the humble station of an officer of excise, adding, ‘though  somewhat differently circumstanced to what many of them are…’ A strange  comment indeed, but it could just provide an important missing piece  of the jigsaw. For the present it would be premature to draw any firm conclusions  one way or another in respect of Mr.Hindmarch’s thesis, even though  there is much to be said in its favour, as I have sought to show.  Considerable further research and discussion is certainly required so what I would suggest is that anyone with a serious interest in Thomas  Paine obtain a copy, assuming any are available, for I understand it was  issued in a limited edition primarily for private circulation, to enable  them to study the author’s thesis in detail.

The post BOOK REVIEW: Thomas Paine: The Case Of The King Of England And His Officers Of Excise appeared first on .

This year sees the bicentenary of the Irish rebellion, part of a world historic process which started in America in 1776, continued in France  and included such events as the slave revolt in San Domingo and the struggle of Paine’s colonies in the South American struggles for independence. Starting with high hopes of uniting a Protestant middle  class in search of political rights and a land hungry Catholic peasantry,  breaking the connection with England, emulating America and France  and establishing a republic of liberty, equality and fraternity, it ended  with the rebels being shot down with musket and cannon and slashed  down with yeomanry sabres in unequal battles such as that at Vinegar  Hill in Wexford. Pikes and courage were no match for the redcoats  fire-power. To their cost. The Scots had discovered that at Culloden. For  the Scots the price of rebellion was the Highland clearances, for the  Irish it was An Gorta Mor, which English history calls the famine.  

The influence of Paine’s political thought on the Irish rebels cannot be underestimated. In the Ireland of 1790 many minds were fixed upon the French Revolution. For Burke, Ireland was either a strong dike to keep Jacobinism out or a broken bank to let it in. It was in reply to  Burke that Paine wrote Rights of Man, a work which many in Ireland  read with enthusiasm. For Protestant Dissenters in Belfast, Rights of Man  became their Koran. Influenced by their fellows who had been in the  forefront of the American War of Independence in which Paine himself  played a major role, they formed, in Wolfe Tone’s words, ‘…the flower  of the famous volunteer army of 1782 which extorted from the English  minister the restoration of which is affected to be called the constitution  of Ireland’. At a time when the nation was fairly divided into two  great parties, the Aristocrats and the Democrats, Rights of Man not only  influenced the middle class Dissenters but also the Catholic peasantry;  indeed it sold more copies in Ireland than in England and Wales  together. From Connaught to Wexford, peasants in market places and  taverns discussed Rights of Man. A teacher was exposed as a rebel spy  when a copy of The Age of Reason was found on him and there were  reports of the book being sold in Mayo. For many inspired by Paine  liberty and equality were no mere slogans and the republic more than  an end to rents and taxes. What they wanted was a social revolution.  

Wolfe Tone, the son of a coachmaker, had studied law. Despite  obtaining a degree, he claimed he knew as much about law as he knew  about necromancy and turned his hand to political pamphleteering.  Tone’s work struck a chord and after a celebration of the French Revolution, a Society of United Irishmen was formed in Belfast to be  quickly followed by a Dublin society. Paine was made an honorary  member. The United Irishmen complained that at a time when ‘…the  Rights of Man are ascertained in Theory and that theory substantiated  in practice…when unjust governments are falling in every quarter of  Europe… we are ruled by Englishmen and the servants of Englishmen…’  Their remedy was ‘…an equal Representation of all the people in  Parliament’. It was proposed that the country be divided into 300  constituencies with a vote for every man. There was even a proposal that  women be given the vote. Other proposals included annual parliaments,  no property qualification for public representatives and payment for  members of parliament. Thus the United Irishmen anticipated the  demands of the Peoples’ Charter by nearly half a century.  

Echoing Paine, Tone wrote, ‘The greatest happiness of the greatest  number. On the rock of this principle let this society rest; by this let it  judge and determine every political question, and whatever is necessary  for this end let it not be accounted hazardous, but rather our interest,  our duty, our glory and our common religion. The Rights of Man are  the Rights of God and to vindicate the one is to maintain the other’.  

The United Irishmen maintained contact with similar radical  societies in England and Scotland. In Margate, Arthur O’Connor and  Father Quigley were arrested in possession of a large sum of money and  incriminating documents, one of which was allegedly an invitation from  English Jacobins in France to stage an invasion. It was thought they were  en route to a meeting with the United Britons. At their trial O’Connor  was acquitted, Quigley was sentenced to death. He was hung and then  beheaded. Among the literature being distributed by English Jacobins at  this time was Paine’s Agrarian Justice. When the Irish rebellion broke  out, the London Corresponding Society issued a supporting address  which called upon British soldiers to refuse to act against the Irish. The  authorities ordered a general crackdown and in 1799 most leading  English Jacobins were behind bars, often being held in the most  appalling conditions.  

In Scotland the government had struck much earlier. Thomas Muir,  a young advocate, received fourteen years’ transportation for participating in a convention of Scottish reform societies. His “crimes” were  circulating Paine’s works and reading an address from the United  Irishmen. T.F.Palmer received seven years for encouraging the reading  of Paine and membership of a Dundee society. Back in England,  Thomas Hardy of the London Corresponding Society had been luckier.  Charged with high treason in that he had expressed sympathy with the  French revolution and distributed Paine’s works, he was found not guilty. Everywhere Rights of Man struck terror into the ruling class and it  reacted accordingly.  

In Ireland repression drove the United Irishmen underground,  transforming it from a society of constitutional reformers into a  revolutionary movement and Tone went into exile. He first went to  America and then to France. In Paris he met Paine, who was already on  friendly terms with James Napper Tandy of the Dublin United Irishmen.  While describing Paine as vain and critical of his drinking habits, Tone  wrote of Paine, ‘He has done wonders for the cause of liberty, both in  America and Europe, and I believe him conscientiously to be an honest  man’.  

Tone managed to enlist the aid of the French for a landing in  Ireland. A first attempt in 1796 had to be aborted when foul weather  scattered the ships and prevented the troops getting ashore. Paine, who  was still advocating a French invasion of England as late as 1806, noted.  `The suspicion that England governs Ireland for the purpose of keeping  her low…will always operate to hold Ireland in a state of sentimental  hostility with England’. Paine commented on Irish events in Le Bein  inform’, one issue of which detailed his friendship with Thomas Muir.  

In Ireland the authorities had unleashed a reign of terror. Martial  law had been proclaimed and the yeomanry, a kind of territorial army  in which many members of the sectarian Orange Order had been  enrolled, on the pretence of searching for arms wrecked and burned  homes and carried out floggings and even hangings.  

In Dublin in May 1798 despite the loss of many arms, the arrest of leaders such as Edward Fitzgerald and a disrupted organisation riddled  with informers, the United Irishmen decided to rise. The signal for the  rising was to be the interception and burning of the mail coaches. This  went off at half cock. In many areas the rebels failed to muster and  where they did often had not a clear plan of action.  

In some areas the people were panicked into rising. The activities of  the yeomanry who flogged, tortured and even murdered anyone  thought to be a rebel spread fear of an Orange pogrom. A desperate  people, sometimes led by their priests, resisted with scythes, spades and  stones, anything that came to hand. Atrocity was answered with atrocity.  

Where the rebels managed to form something like an army, they  marched to the tune of the Marseillaise. Officers wore a green cockade  on red regimentals and other ranks a green or white hatband.  

In Wexford Ireland’s first republic was set up. Liberty and equality as  well as Erin go Bragh were the watchwords. Officers were elected, a  committee of public safety established, food rationed and paper money  put to practical use as pipe lighters and musket wadding. A new anthem, Cod Save The Rights of Man replaced God Save the King. Many  politically minded artisans looked to the abolition of a ruling class who `consider the people an inferior and degraded mass’.  

In August, a small French force led by General Humbert had landed  in Mayo. By September it had surrendered. It was in Mayo that month  that the last battle of the rising was fought. By October 2nd., the English  were celebrating victory.  

Tone himself had again set sail for Ireland but after a hard fought  sea battle in which he commanded a battery of guns, he was captured by  the English. Back in Dublin he was sentenced to be hanged despite  requests to be shot. History records that he took his own life, many  think he was murdered.  

Irish history since 1798 is well known – failed risings, civil war,  partition and a thirty year struggle in the six counties. At the time of  writing,* a fragile peace has been broken by riots in Portadown  triggered by an Orange march. Sectarianism has mostly been triumphant, Protestant and Catholic only rarely uniting in a common cause.  Ireland, it seems, has a long way to go before the democratic,  republican ideas of Paine and Tone are realised.  

*The manuscript was received in June.  

The post Thomas Paine, Wolfe Tone And Ireland appeared first on .