The Irish Race in the Past and the Present

, to establish her spiritual supremacy in Ireland; and yet, when, at her death, Mountjoy received orders to conclude p

ed amnesty for the past, restored to his rank, notwithstanding his attainder and outlawry, and reinstated in his dignity of Earl of Tyrone. Himself and his people were to enjoy the "fu

t, was to renounce

English law to prev

gion, the treaty did not explain; but it is evident that the new acts of Parliament resp

he south, Munster having been devastated, and the Geraldines utterly destroyed. Yet,

results which attended the declaration of t

shed under Edward had been completely swept away during Mary's short reign. Could Elizabeth only have hoped to be acknowledged queen by the Pope, there can be little doubt that, e

r allegiance to Rome, in order to please the sovereign; all the bishops of Mary's nomination remained faithful to Rome; and so difficult was it to find somebody who should

bt that the English people, with a few individual exceptions,

and his officers made a show of their prisoners to the multitude, and the sight of the priests in the hands of the constables was a matter of mockery to the unwise multitude. This was a frequent occurrence in conveying captured priests from one jail to another

ation of the contumely and violence is easy: it was an English and not an Irish populace. The first had altogether forgotten the faith of their childhood, the second could not be brought

cement of the last chapter, they would as soon have turned Mussulmen as Calvinists. The lower classes, at first merely passive, became afterward possessed by a genuine fanaticism for the new creed established by the Thirty-nine Articles; so

he Catholic faith did not possess a firm hold upon the English mind and heart, whatever may have been the case in previous a

nation would have been ready to submit to any sacrifice rather than surrender their religion, she would at least have been more cautious in the promulgation of her measures, even though she had d

was absolutely impossible in Ireland, was so easily effected in the other country? Or, to generalize the question: How is it that, to speak generally, the nations of Northern Europe embraced Protestantism so readily, while those of Southern Europe refused to recei

gher civilization, and other very fine and very easily-quoted things of the same kind, which, at the present moment, are admitted as truths by many, and esteemed as unanswerable explanations of the phenomenon.

n their belief of what has been so often refuted. It would be presumptuous and probably quite useless, on our part, to enter into a lengthened discussion of the question. But, when confined to England, it is a kind of test to be applied to all those

m than the southern. The general fickleness of the human mind, which is so well brought out by the great Spanish writer, does not strike u

the latter, although, geographically, they belong to the former, and, indee

facts for which we wish to ass

had invaded the three Scandinavian kingdoms, to the almost total exclusion of Catholicism, to such an extent, indeed, that

religious peace" toward 1608. Saxony, whence the heresy sprang, was its centre and stronghold in Germany; and the Saxons were Scandinavians, having c

h century, almost entirely Protestant, and the persecution of the co

ly known as Holland, which was first invaded and peopled by the Northmen of Walcheren, becam

ivided between Protestantism and Catholic

was found to have embraced the new doctrines, which were repudiated by the people of Celtic origin. It is true that, later on, the Cevennes mountaineers received

ew rigorist prelates and monks, showed a

conclude that the Scandinavian m

and German Ocean; through Holland by Walcheren; through a portion of Central and Southern Germany, as far down as Switzerland, which was invaded by Saxons at the t

have originally belonged to the same parent stock; but, specifically, differences of so striking a nature present themselves in that immense branch of

ith the greater part of European nations, may belong to the same parent stock? In like manner, the Germanic tr

etained in its purity in Iceland to this day, soon became mixed up with German proper in Denmark, Sweden, and even in Norway to a great extent. The languages differed therefore originally, as did,

Hertha, according to Tacitus, was the supreme goddess of the Germans. She had no place in Scandinavian mythology. Ipsambul, so renowned among the Teutons, was quite unknown in Scandinavia. The Germans, in common with the Celts,

n kings loved to dwell in the country. The Scandinavians only cared for the sea, and manifested by their skill in na

of positive amounting to demonstration, of the real diffe

Scandinavian mind? This second question is

e exception of the Finns, who dwelt along the eastern coast; and, grounding our opinion on unquestionable authorities, we foun

ly people lived among them, some of whom the Church has numbered among the saints. But the conquest of

ual matters to individual reason, and the great among them to interfere and meddle with religious affairs. The Dukes of Normandy, the Kings of England, and the Saxon Emperors of Germany, seldom ceased disputing the rights of spiritual authority; and the learned among them were forward to question the supremacy of Rome in many things, and to argue against wha

he avaricious longings of the courtiers of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth. The confiscation of ecclesiastical property and its distribution among the great of the nation was the chief incentive which moved them to adopt the convenient doctrines of the new order, and subvert the old religion of the country. This

esort to the petty subterfuge of retorting that the great English radical was a mere partisan, who never spoke sincerely, but always supported the theory he happened to take u

the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in England particularly, which all impartial men are bound to respect, and not attribute to any unworth

ho inveighed publicly against the superfluity of episcopal habits, the expense of vestments and surpl

a short time, not only the property of churches, but the possession of rich bishopries and sees, were shared among the favorites of Cranmer and the protector (Somerset): as were those of the See of Lincoln, 'with all its manors, save

ls are to be found in the

s of gold, or silver crosses, candlesticks, censers, chalices, copes, and other vestments, were then remaining in any of the cathedral or parochial churches, or, otherwise, had been embezzled or taken away? '. . . The leaving," adds Dr. Heylin, "of one chalice to

lices, as once Belshazzar celebrated his drunken feasts in the sanctified vessels of the Temple. It was a sorry house, not worth the naming, which had not something of this furniture

et, from a piratical excursion into Southern Europe, when the spoils of many a Christian church and wealthy house went to adorn the savage dwellings or those barbarians? Adam of Bremen relates how he saw, with h

cussed spiritual matters in all their material aspects, and thus gave rise to those speculations which soon became the source of heresy. Hence, in England and the north of Germany, the power of Rome was always called in question; and as the English mind was altogether Scandinavian, while that of the Germans w

le nation that it was restricted to no class, churchmen and monks being as loud in their denunciations of Rome as the king and the nobles; and thus the theological questions of the papal supremacy and of ecclesiastical authority generally took with them quite a material form. The diatribes of th

ully granted by other nations to aid the Father of the Faithful, the result was to be regretted; but, after all, Christendom would not have suffered in a much more sensib

private purse. In such a state of public opinion, respect for spiritual authority could not fail to diminish and finally die out altogether; and, when the voice of the Pontiff was heard on important subjects in which the best interests of the nation

cting the soul, every supernatural aspiration of the Christian, every emotion of a living conscience, appears to be altogether absent from all those English nobles, prelates, theologians, learned university men, even simple priests and monks often, save a very few who, with the noble Thomas More, thought that "twenty

; but our space forbids us to go into them. After what has been said, however, it is easy to see ho

gan. "Various commotions," says Dr. Madden, "took place in consequence of the reviling of the sacrament, the casting it out of the churches in some places, the

ieged Devon; a noble lord was sent against them, and, being, reenforced by the Walloons-a set of German mercenaries brought over

converted to the new doctrines. At the very coronation of Mary, a Catholic clergyman having prayed for the dead and denounced the persecutions of the previous reign,

often strengthened our faith and drawn tears of sorrow from our eyes. At this moment, particularly when so many details, hitherto hidden, of the lives of Catholics, religious, secular priests, laymen, women, during those times, are coming to light in manuscripts religiously preserved by private families, and at last being published for the edification of all, the story is moving as well as inspiring of the heroism displayed by them, not only on the publ

ich cannot be doubted. Those noble exceptions only prove that the promptings of ra

beth, scarcely sixty Irishmen, take them all in all, had professed the new doctrines-in order at once to comprehend the steady tendency toward the path of duty imparted by true nobility of blood. Nor did the Irish stand alone in this steadfastness; it is needl

egion peopled with races better disposed for civilization, if not taking the lead already in that respect, and men ardent for freedom and impatient of servitude of any kind. We stated that the solution of this q

even in its consequences, can Protestantism be esteemed as in any s

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries may give a coloring to the statement of a partisan writer, desirous of explaining in these modern times the greater amount of freedom really enjoyed in England, and the advanced material prosperity visible generally among Prot

a particle of it left in England when Protestantism commenced; and it were easy t

great political rulers. In the very highest of the aristocracy, there lingered not a spark of the old brave spirit which wrung Magna Charta from the heart of a weak sovereign. The king or queen could fearlessly trample on every privilege of the nobility, send the proudest lords of the nation to the block, almost without trial, and confiscate to the swelling of the royal purse the immense estates of the first Engl

ligion, which, up to that time, had been the only religion of the country, anything to do with the matter? These questions might furnish material for a very anima

ive rise to a dissertation too long for us to enter upon. We merely offer a few suggestions,

s of the day, in England as on the Continent, St. Thomas was the great authority, and his work, "De Re

king is best," in the opinion of the author, "that of a tyrant is the worst." And a tyra

s farther from the common weal in an oligarchy, in which the welfare of a few is sought, than in a democracy, whose object is the good of

hat, "if a ruler governs a multitude of freemen for the common good of

the sixteenth century; but, in all probability, this golden work, "De Regimine Princ

trast the contrary effects produced by freedom and despotism on a nation, ho

hich is proved by the conduct of countries which have been long subjected to a despotic government. Solomon says: 'When the imperious are in power, men hide away' in order to escape the cruelty of tyrants, nor

is liable to degenerate into tyranny-which has been proved to be the worst - hence, the most diligent care i

inistered, not for the common good, but for the private good of the ruler; therefore, its overthrow is not sedition, unless when the subv

t theologians of the middle ages; but what we have said is enough for our purpose. It is man

ollowing: it certainly was not the Catholic hierarchy,

ilization in Europe," namely, that the kingdom of France was created by Christian bishops. Since that first admission, other non-Catholic writers have gone further, and have felt compelled to admit that, as a general rule, the modern European nations have all been created, nurtured, fostered, by Catholic bishops,

ople, the voice of religion is listened to before all others. And is it not to-day a well-ascertained fact that, in the main, the influence exerted by the clergy on the formation of modern European kingdoms was in favor of a well- regulated freedom based on the first law-the l

e general tenor and tendency of the history of those times is now admitted to be ample refutation of such accusations, and impartial writers confess that the ecclesiastical influence, during those ages, was clearly set against the oppression of the people, and finally resulted in the formation of those representative and moderate governments which are the boast of the present age; an

years ago, were looked upon, even by Catholic writers, as the embodiment of supercilious arrogance and sacrilegious presumption, namely, Gregory VII., Innoc

in particular, had, during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, merged into complete and unalloyed despotism? As our present i

since the establishment of the Norman line of kings, the authority of Rome, which formed the only great counterpoise to kingly power at the time, ha

also reduced to a money difficulty. It was seen that the monks and the people sided generally with the kings, and gradually took a dislike and mistrust to every thing coming from Rome; the authority of the monarch, though not precisely strength

extraordinary successes which attended the English arms, led by their warrior kings in France, and the frightful convulsions subsequently arising from

olute than ever by its predominance, and by the first principle which it laid down, that the king was supreme in Church as well as in state. Can its origin in England,

rning and civilization, ranked far beyond the Northern nations, where heresy so early found a permanent footing, and that in the South also the tendencies toward a higher civi

barbarism, and in fact was the last of the European nations to adopt civiliz

he most appalling of all Christendom. In social habits, she had scarcely been able to retain a few precious fragments of good old Catholic times; and the fearful scenes through which the nation had passed, which, according to J. J. Rousseau, for once expressi

how could England compare at the time with Italy, Flanders, Spain, France, all Latin or Celtic nations? How can it be pretende

sions used are harsh and ill-founded-Shakespeare and Milton; a th

y of plot and adventures, which would have rendered barbarous a poet less naturally gifted. And, although the question has never been definitely settled, it is probable that he was born and lived a Catholic; and it is strange how Elizabeth, who, tradition tells us, was present at some of his plays, could endure his faithful portrayal of f

hat would not be a queen, that would she not,

d for a toy. And some critics can only find a reason for the composition of the "Merry Wives of

s, all his cultivation and taste came from Italy. The poets of that really civilized country had polished his uncouth nature, as it were in spite of itself,

edom and of a higher civilization? Is it not true that to-day Protestant nations are in advance of others in both these respects? And to what other cause can such advancement be ascribed than to the "reformed religion?" Is i

dmit, is not so easy of solution as the first, and might, indeed, without suspicion of evasion, be discarded as not coming under the head of this chapter, wh

ar rulers were not only freed from pontifical control, but were themselves invested with supreme ecclesiastical power. The effective check which the paternal and bold voice issuing from the Vatican had exercised on kings and princes was in a

Pontiff; and the new errors which so suddenly appeared in France and elsewhere, during the prevalence and at the extinction of the great schism, limiting the power of the Popes in many matters where it had been considered binding, broke out again, in France principally, under t

of the disastrous imprudence with which those blind rulers and so- called theologians took away the key-stone o

ater personal power was transferred to the hands of the sovereign than he had ever before held, and it

, the world saw absolute rule established in England, France, Spain, and Germany. Previous to the sixteenth century, the word 'absolutis

ections more striking, would require an unravelling of

n really emancipate modern nations, and gradually bring about the whole system of representative govern

in our days; but such liberalism is very far from bestowing on nations true liberty and stability; hence their constant agi

monwealth" in England, and the subsequent Revolution of 1688

been the first openly to shake off from a great nation the wise and beneficent yoke of Rome. At all events, one thing is certain, that unde

his scornful order to "take away that bawble," though the "bawble" immediately referred to was the Speaker's mace, the word meant the freedom of the nation. He was as absolute a monarch as ever ruled England. The liber

le at his death-the dread of a government of rival soldiers-which rendered so easy the triumphant

evolution of 1688. It was the work of the whole eighteenth century, in fact, and was grounded on the fragments of old Cathol

quick to draw all the consequences of the principle of entire independence in religious matters. Tindal, Collins, Hobbes, Shaftesbury, and other philosophers, had openly denounced revelation, and that portion of the nation which esteemed itself enlightened embraced their new doctrines. It would be false to im

r their want of real faith. The influence of Wesley and his fellow- workers on the English mind, and the dread of the spread of French infidelity and jacobinism, were more extensive

me of Christian, what are we to think of those who had to profess no outward faith in Christianity, because of ministe

utional liberty in England has no connection whatever with religion. The English, left to their own ingenuity and skill, displayed a vast amount of statesmanlike qualities in devising for themselves a system of check and counter-check, which protected the su

er nations, we should find that, instead of spreading liberty, it was the

ubjection to the ruling classes, and the latter finding it to their interest to preserve order and

es which, when kept within due bounds, may be promotive of exterior prosperity, but which, pushed to

d England is now experiencing the recoil of those convulsions, and seems on the eve o

esent scope. But now comes the question, Why was Ireland unprepared for the

e contrary characteristics should distinguish those nations which remained faithful to the Church, and particularly the Irish. Was the lack of a higher civ

are confident that a detailed survey of both would result in a glorious vindication of the Irish character, although, owing to six hundred years of cruel wars

ill of supremacy. "Five or six changes of religion in twelve years were too much for conscientious people." Such was the answer sent back to Elizabeth, and spoken a

civilized members of the English Parliament-those ardent lovers of freedom-when applied to by a new En

whole history of the period bears out this general observation. The subserviency of the proud English aristocracy, of those pretended statesmen and legislators, in matters so intimately connected with the soul, its convictions and its morality, shows conc

treme penal laws rather than disobey their sense of right, proves too well that they possessed a conscience, knew what it meant, and resolved to follow it. There is not a single fact of their, history, general or particular, taking them collectively as a nation, when, by

can a nation which possesses it be considered barbarous? The answer cannot be d

s true? From the landing of the first invasion, the Norman nobles and prelates looked down on the invaded people as barbarous and uncouth, as they previously

her Hugh O'Donnell and O'Sullivan Beare, one of whom went to Spain, and the other to Portugal-and the second, Philip II. commanded to be treated as a Spanish grandee -were not as courteous and dignified as Cecil or Walsingham, or Essex or Raleigh, at the court of Elizabeth. And, if we take the case of the descendants of Strongbow's warriors, who became "more Irish than the Irish," there is

ings which exalt a nation; and, after the "conscience" of which we have spoken, nothing

, chiefly as regards their execution. Nothing can be mo

rite, and to be illustrated with learned notes. From all accounts given by competent reviewers, it is clear that wisdom, sound judgment, equity, and Christian feeling, constitute the essence

of the English legislation executed at the same period? What, for instance, were the

anded down by barbarous ancestors, the relics of Scandinavian cruelty for the most part, added to the Roman slave penalties, which were the remnants of pagan inhumanity. This answer would be insufficient when comparing the English with the Brehon law, but it

olesale executions of conventional times; to find the mob insulting the victims, and the exec

e dynastic revolutions which preceded the Tudors in England, and which the Tudors only put an end to by the completest despotism, and by shedding the best blood of the country in torrents? The Irish feuds never depopulated the country. It is even admitted by most reliable historians that, while those dissensions were rifest,

ternal nation. She could not even afford to send any reenforcements to the English Pale in Ireland-not even a few hundred which at times would have proved so s

ts, when Danes, Anglo-Saxons and Normans, in turn, invariably adopted Irish manners in preference to their own, af

special aptness and fitness for it, but also say that it was due to the greater love for freedom which possessed t

pon. But in Ireland the whole resistance of the Irish people to the change of religion i

ned faithfully devoted to their spiritual guides, and protected them at cost of life and limb against the exe

of the English mobs from Elizabeth's reign to Victoria's-or because they could not find the courage in their hearts to mock a mart

rendered them naked and defenceless, and removed from their reach every weapon of defence. And th

tanding of the present question. It may now be said that the Irish were not prepa

ssessed a

in holy truth a simple doubt, a simple hesitating surmise, calculated to make them waver in the least in what had previously been a solid and well-grounded faith. But to consider that crime carried to the extent of so sapping the foundation of Christian belief as to bring about the inevitable consequence of opening under nations the fearful abyss of atheism and despair-there is no word sufficiently strong to express the indignation which such a course of action must naturally exc

erwhelm us to-day, the religious abuses existing at the time can offer no excuse for their

t even a pretext for the introduction of Protestantism, and by the very re

d to them, for they constituted in fact the only important and useful establishments which their country possessed; they had been consecrated by the lives and deaths of a thousand saints within their walls; and they suddenly beheld pretended ministers of a new religion of which they knew nothing, backed by ferocious Walloon or English troopers, turn out or slay their inmates, close them, set them on fire, pillage them,

nury and want, persecuted, declared outcasts, hunted down, insulted by the soldiery, arrested, cruelly beaten, bound hand and foot, and hung up either be

irected against religious of both sexes; and, as in Ireland no class of persons was more justly and dea

ng article with article of the new and old beliefs, this single feature of the case alo

viously been outraged themselves, and in such cases they are the first to repent of their action in their cooler moments. On the other hand, the men who first set all these outrages going never find reason to accuse themselves of any thing, are even perfectly satisfied with and convinced of their o

shedding of blood, and this formed another strong reason for their opposi

to embrace Protestantism lies in their traditional spirit, of which we ha

Would it not have been better for mankind to have stood by the time-honored traditions of former ages, independently of the strong and convincing claims which Catholicity offers to all? This is said without in the least attributing the fault to sound philosophy, without