their arriving in the colonies to any extent during colonial times, while there are quite complete records as to other nationalities. Mr. O'Brien, the latest Irish writer on the subject, estimates that from 1767 to 1774 some 63,360 Irish emigrants came in from southern Ireland.1 Even so, they came late and 63,360 men, women, and children cut little figure with 2,600,000 colonists on the eve of Revolution.

And there was good reason for all this. The Irish were almost exclusively Catholics, and as stated above all thirteen of the American colonies were intolerant of the Catholic religion. Even in Maryland the Catholics were less than one-twelfth of the population and severe laws against them were finally passed. Channing, in his "History of the United States," says that Charles Carroll, father of the first Roman Catholic Bishop in the United States and uncle of Charles Carroll, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, applied to the King of France for land in Louisiana, to which he wished to remove the Roman Catholics from Maryland, but the French Government refused on account of the English nationality of the Maryland Catholics.2 Moreover, America was the favorite home of principles which Catholics held in abhorrence, and the Irish Catholic would have none of them. Fisher says, "Catholics were to be allowed to inhabit the country without deprivation of life or property; but they were not to be allowed any share in the government, or to have any influence in it which might be the entering wedge for attaining complete control; and they must keep their religion to themselves, not parade it in public or in any way attempt to proselyte or add to their members."3 Hence the real Irish did not come to America, although thousands of them emigrated from Ireland to the Continent of Europe and were found in the European armies. The Irish (always excepting the Scotch-Irish) were not even in sympathy with the American Revolution. The Irish Parliament by a vote of 103 to 58 passed resolutions sustaining the British cause. It is true, as claimed by the Irish historians,

that the Irish Parliament was controlled by the English government, and it is true also that the Irish people were at that time opposed to the English government and were in sympathy with any movement anywhere in opposition to the English government, but this does not prove that the Irish were in America to any extent in 1776, or that they formed any substantial part of the American Revolutionary army, or that they had any real sympathy with colonies which practically discredited the Catholic religion their religion. Lecky states that "the Irish Catholics do not appear to have shown any of that sympathy with the Americans which was evident among the Presbyterians";1 in other words, the Scotch-Irish. Lecky also says, "Among the Irish Catholics there appears to have been absolutely no sympathy with the American cause." 19 2 Irish regiments served in the British army against the American Revolutionary army. Roosevelt says: "It is a curious fact that in the Revolutionary War the Germans and Catholic Irish should have furnished the bulk of the auxiliaries to the regular English soldiers. . . . The fiercest and most ardent Americans of all, however, were the Presbyterian Irish settlers and their descendants." In short, the historical evidence is overwhelming that it was not until America separated the state from the church and tolerated all religions, socially and politically, that the real Irish — the Irish Catholics - began that vast immigration to America in the nineteenth century that continues to this day, so far as the law allows. Henry Cabot Lodge, in speaking of immigrants to the Colonies, said: "A large part of these settlers were Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, valuable and good colonists; but there were also many others of Irish race, who were, as a rule, a very undesirable addition at that period. Scarcely more than a third of the latter succeeded as farmers; and they were a hard-drinking, idle, quarrelsome, and disorderly class, always at odds with the government, and did much to give to that government and to politics the character for weakness and turbulence, which, beginning

before the Revolution, has broken out at intervals down to the present day." 1

The Irishman is an uncertain quantity as to the future institutions of America. To be sure, he is always hostile to tyranny and in fact to restraint in any way, and he is naturally sociable and amiable if approached in the right way, but he is highly emotional and his loyalty is often misplaced. His nature is to boss or be bossed and generally he has not the qualities of a great leader. If enlisted in a cause, it is his cause and he will die for it, but abstract great principles are beyond his ken. The "man on horseback," the product of factions, is more apt to captivate him than the far-seeing statesman. He hardly adds to the safety of the republic. About five-sixths of the Irish are in the cities and that adds to the uncertainty. There is much truth in what Robinson says, "It should not be necessary to say (except that Irish-American susceptibilities are sometimes extraordinarily sensitive) that I share to the full that admiration which all people feel for the best traits in the Irish character; but, in spite of individual exceptions, I urge that it is not in the nature of the race to become good and helpful citizens according to Anglo-Saxon ideals, and that, as far as those qualities are concerned which have made the greatness of the United States, the contribution from the Irish element has been inconsiderable. The deftness of the Irishman in political organization and his lack of desire for individual independence, as a result of which he turns either to the organizing of a governing machine or to some form of personal service (in either case merging his own individuality) is as much foreign to the American spirit as is the docility of the less intelligent class of Germans under their political leaders - a docility which, until very recently, has caused the German voters in America to be used in masses almost without protest.' Professor Ross, on the other hand, says "the rocketlike rise of the children and grandchildren of Hibernian immigrants proves how much ability was smothered in the humble classes of the Old

World from sheer lack of opportunity. They shine at the bar, in teaching, in journalism, on the stage, in public life, and in all manner of executive positions. Their great gift is the knack of handling men. Thanks to this and to their clannishness, the Irish captured control of the great Northern cities a generation ago and, despite their own fine personal qualities, soon gave these cities the reputation of being the worst-governed ones in the civilized world. There are, however, no better fighters for higher civic ideals than some of the third-generation Irish."1

Republican institutions hardly fit the Irish nature, but equality of opportunity is their opportunity. "Wherever the human touch is the essential of success," writes Orth, "there you find the Irish. That is why in some cities one-half the teachers are Irish; why salesmanship lures them; why they are the most successful walking delegates, solicitors, agents, foremen, and contractors. In the higher walks of life you find them where dash, brilliance, cleverness, and emotion are demanded. The law and the priesthood utilize their eloquence, journalism their keen insight into the human side of news, and literature their imagination and humor. They possess a positive genius for organization and management. The labor unions are led by them; and what would municipal politics be without them? The list of eminent names which they have contributed to these callings will increase as their generations multiply in the favorable American environment. But remote indeed is the day and complex must be the experience that will erase the memory of the ancient Erse proverb, which their racial temperament evoked: 'Contention is better than loneliness."" 2 Professor Bogardus says, "The Irishman has lent a greatly needed optimistic quality to American life. His lively good nature, quick wit, and illogical humor have given a wholesome tone to otherwise a too serious Americanism. The Irish immigrant has shown his strongest mental characteristic to be a striking disregard for circumstances. Anything or anybody, who arouses his wrath,

feels his oncoming rush. He is a fighter, but he is far better on an offensive than on a prolonged defensive. Quick in action, he lands, if tripped, on his feet. His ability is available at the moment, wherever he is. His main gifts to Americanism are his generosity, joviality, quickness in wit and action.” 1