Books: Irish Race in the Past and the Present

A >> Aug. J. Thebaud >> Irish Race in the Past and the Present

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57

According to the theorists who attribute the success of
Protestantism in the North of Europe to a higher civilization
and a more ardent love of freedom, the contrary characteristics
should distinguish those nations which remained faithful to the
Church, and particularly the Irish. Was the lack of a higher
civilization and more ardent love for freedom really the cause,
then, for Ireland's undergoing so many fearful sacrifices merely
for the sake of her religion?

We should not dread entering upon a comparison of the
Scandinavian and Celtic races in these two articular points, as
they existed at the time of the Tudors. We 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 with Dane and Anglo-Norman, the actual prosperity of
the country was far inferior to that of England. But the outline
of so vast a subject must content us here.

In judging of the elevation of a nation's sentiments, the first
thing that strikes us is the motive assigned by the Irish
representatives for refusing to pass the bill 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 as though easy of comprehension. Had they
deemed that their language could have been misunderstood, they
would undoubtedly have expressed themselves in stronger terms.

Strange that such an obvious and common-sense remark had never
occurred to the intelligent and highly-civilized members of the
English Parliament--those ardent lovers of freedom--when applied
to by a new English monarch to acknowledge and confirm, as law,
the religious system he had determined to establish!

Apparently, then, at this time, Ireland possessed a conscience
which England either laid no claim on, or made no pretensions to;
and it might not be too much to lay this down as the first
reason why Ireland remained faithful to her religion. In fact,
the 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 conclusively that the word "conscience" had no
meaning for them, or that, if they were aware of the existence
of such a thing, they made so little account of it that they
were ready at all times to barter it for position, what they
considered honor, and wealth.

On the other hand, the constant, unshaken, and emphatic refusal
of the Irish to renounce their religion for the novel
"speculations" of pretended theologians-- in reality, heretical
teachers --at the beck of king or queen; their willingness to
submit to all the rigor of extreme 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
their actions, they spoke as one people or individually, when
priest and friar, great man or mean man, chose to lose position,
property, name--life itself--rather than be false to their
religion and God--which does not prove that they owned a
conscience and obeyed its voice.

Can a nation, deprived of this, be esteemed really free and
truly civilized? and can a nation which possesses it be
considered barbarous? The answer cannot be doubtful, and is of
itself a sufficient solution of the question under examination.

But, to come to more special details. The Irish idea of
civilization was certainly of a very different character from
that of the English; but was it the less 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 looked down upon the Anglo-Saxons. Later on, they
spoke of the Irish customs as "lewd;" and, later still, the
majority of them adopted those "lewd customs."

If the question be merely one of refinement of outward manners,
and aquaintance with the artificial code established by a
society with which the Irish, up to that time, had never come in
contact, the Normans may be granted whatever benefit may accrue
to them from such, though, even here, the Irish chieftains might
later on compare favorably with their foes. For instance, if is
doubtful whether 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 no reason why we should not
prefer the manners and bearing of young Gerald Desmond, when,
after leaving Rome, he appeared at the court of Tuscany, to
those of the young lords who danced at Windsor, under the eyes
of Henry, with Anne Boleyn. But, treating the subject seriously,
and examining it more closely, we may find a necessity for
reversing the opinion which is too commonly entertained.

Civilization does not consist only, or chiefly, in refinement of
manners, but in all things which exalt a nation; and, after the
"conscience" of which we have spoken, nothing is so important in
making a nation civilized as the institutions under which it
lives.

The laws are the great index of a people's civilization, chiefly
as regards their execution. Nothing can be more indicative of it
than the criminal code of a people.

The law of England at that time compares poorly with the Irish
compilation known as the "Senchus Mor," which scholars have only
recently been able to study, and which is being printed as we
write, 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 those laws which Edmund Campian found the young
Irishmen of his day studying under such strange circumstances
and with such ardor and application as to spend sixteen or
eighteen years at it.

And in what manner were those very Christian enactments which
lay at the foundation of the English legislation executed at the
same period? What, for instance, were the features of its
criminal code? It is unnecessary to depict what all the world
knows.

In extenuation of the barbarous blood-thirstiness which
characterized it, it may be said that torture, cruel punishments,
and fearful chastisement for slight offences, formed the
general features of the criminal code of most Christian nations.
They had been handed 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 does not hold good even with reference to
other Continental nations. In no country at that time was
punishment so pitiless as in England. The details, now well
known, can only be published for exceptional readers; to find a
comparison for them Dr. Madden says:

"We must come down to the reign of terror in France, to the
massacres of September, to the wholesale executions of
conventional times; to find the mob insulting the victims, and
the executioner himself adding personal affront to the
disgusting fulfilment of his horrible office."

Passing from the laws to the usages of warfare, and chiefy to
domestic strife, here the most vulnerable point in the Irish
character shows itself. The constant feuds resulting from the
clan system furnish a never-failing theme to those who accuse
the Irish of barbarism. Yet is there no parallel to them in the
horrors of those 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, the land was really teeming
with a happy people, and rich in every thing which an
agricultural country can enjoy. The great battles of the various
clans resulted often in the killing of a few dozen warriors.
Such, in fact, was the manner in which chroniclers estimated the
gains or losses of each of those victories or defeats.

But, in the Wars of the Roses, England lost a great part of her
adult population; so much so, that she was altogether
incapacitated from waging war with any external 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 serviceable. It was in fact high time and almost
a happy thing for England that the crushing despotism of the
Tudors came in to save the nation from total ruin.

Finally, can it be said that the Irish were inferior in
civilization to the English by reason of their social habits,
when Danes, Anglo-Saxons and Normans, in turn, invariably
adopted Irish manners in preference to their own, after living a
sufficient time in the country to be able to appreciate the
difference between the one and the other?

The writers of whom we speak ascribe the spread of Protestantism
not only to a higher civilization, or at least a special aptness
and fitness for it, but also say that it was due to the greater
love for freedom which possessed those who accepted it; whereas
the Irish, as they allege, have been forever priest-ridden and
cowered under the lash.

The connection between English Protestantism and freedom has
been sufficiently touched upon. But in Ireland the whole
resistance of the Irish people to the change of religion is the
most conspicuous proof which could be advanced of their inherent
love for freedom.

What is the meaning of this word "priest-ridden?" If, as
attached to the Irish, it means that they have remained
faithfully devoted to their spiritual guides, and protected them
at cost of life and limb against the execution of barbarous laws,
this epithet which is flung at them as a reproach is a glory to
them, and a true one.

Are they to be accused of cowardice because they were never bold
enough to demolish a single Catholic chapel--a favorite
amusement 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 martyr at the stake, or imbrue their hands in
his blood, as did the nation of a higher civilization and a more
ardent love for freedom?

The Irish cower under the lash! It could never be applied, until
calculating treachery had first rendered them naked and
defenceless, and removed from their reach every weapon of
defence. And the man who in such a case receives the lash is a
coward, while he who safely applies it is a hero!

Our observations so far have cleared the ground for the right
solution and understanding of the present question. It may now
be said that the Irish were not prepared for the reception of
Protestantism, and remained firm in their faith because--

1. They possessed a conscience.

2. There had existed no religious abuses, worthy of the name, in
their country which called for reform. Such abuses had in
England and Germany furnished the pretext for a change of
religion. It was a mere pretext, for the alleged abuses might
all be remedied without intrenching on the domain of faith, and
unsettling the religious convictions of the whole nation. There
is no greater crime possible than to introduce among people
enjoying all the benefits resulting from a firm belief 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 excite. And that the ultimate
result of the new heresy was to carry men to the very brink of
the abyss is plain enough to-day, and was foreseen by Luther
himself. In all probability he had a clear perception of it,
since the latter half of his life was devoted to propping up the
crumbling walls of his hastily-erected edifice by whatever
supports he could steal from the old faith, and fighting hard
against all those who had already drawn the ultimate conclusions
of his own principles.

For those, then, who in the sixteenth century set in motion the
chaos which threatens to overwhelm us to-day, the religious
abuses existing at the time can offer no excuse for their
destruction of Religion, because stains happened to sully the
purity of her outward garment.

But in Ireland no such abuses existed; and consequently there
was there not even a pretext for the introduction of
Protestantism, and by the very reason of their sense of good and
right the Irish were unprepared for heresy.

3. Even had it entered into their minds to wish for a
reformation of some kind, they were certainly unprepared for the
one offered them. The first reform of the new order was to close
the religious houses which the people loved, which were the
seats of learning, holiness, and education. Their Catholic
ancestors had founded those religious houses; they themselves
enjoyed the spiritual and even temporal advantages attached 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, or convert them into
private dwellings for the convenience of an imported aristocracy.
This was the first act of the "introduction " of the
"Reformation " into Ireland. The people were enabled to judge of
the sanctity of the new creed at its first appearance among them.
And this alone, apart from their firm adherence to the faith of
their fathers, was quite enough to justify them in their
resistance to such a substitute.

But, above all, when they beheld how the inmates of those holy-
houses were treated, when they saw them cast out into the world,
penniless, reduced to penury and want, persecuted, declared
outcasts, hunted down, insulted by the soldiery, arrested,
cruelly beaten, bound hand and foot, and hung up either before
the door of their burning monastery, or even in the church
itself before the altar--what wonder that they were unprepared
to receive the new religion?

The barbarity displayed throughout England and Ireland toward
Catholicism was specially fiendish when directed against
religious of both sexes; and, as in Ireland no class of persons
was more justly and dearly loved, what wonder that the Irish
literally hated the religion that came to them from beyond the
sea?

Without going over the other aspects of the religious question
of the time, and comparing article with article of the new and
old beliefs, this single feature of the case alone is sufficient.
The process might be carried out with advantage, but is not
necessary.

4. The new order of things, in one word, resolved itself into
rapacity and wanton bloodshed. And, despite whatever may be said
of Irish outrages by those who are never tired of alluding to
them, Irish nature is opposed to such excesses. If they are ever
guilty of such, it is only when they have previously 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 own perfection; and, as
from the first they acted coolly and systematically, their self-
equanimity is never disturbed, they continue unshaken in the
calm conviction that they have always been in the right,
whatever may have been the consequences of the initiative
movement and its steady continuance.

But we repeat advisedly--the Irish nature is opposed to rapacity
and wanton shedding of blood, and this formed another strong
reason for their opposition to the religious revolution which
immersed them in so bloody a baptism.

5. Yet perhaps the most radical and real cause of their
persistent refusal to embrace Protestantism lies in their
traditional spirit, of which we have previously spoken. There is
no rationalistic tendency in their character.

And all the points well considered, which, after all, is the
better, the simply traditional or strictly rationalistic nature?
What has been the result of those philosophical speculations
from which Protestantism sprang? Whither are men tending to-day
in consequence of it? 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 casting the
slightest slur on those truly great and illustrious men who have
widened the limits of the human intellect, and deserved well of
mankind by the solid truths they have opened up in their works
for the benefit and instruction of minds less gifted than their
own.

CHAPTER XI.

THE IRISH AND THE STUARTS.--LOYALTY AND CONFISCATION.

Upon the death of Elizabeth, in 1603, the son of the unfortunate
Mary Stuart was called to the throne of England, and for the
first time in their history the Irish people accepted English
rule, gave their willing submission to an English dynasty, and
afterward displayed as great devotedness in supporting the
falling cause of their new monarchs, as in defending their
religion and nationality.

This feeling of allegiance, born so suddenly and strangely in
the Irish breast, cherished so ardently and at the price of so
many sacrifices, finally raising the nation to the highest pitch
of heroism, is worth studying and investigating its true cause.

What ought to have been the natural effect produced on the Irish
people by the arrival of the news that James of Scotland had
succeeded to Elizabeth? The first feeling must have been one of
deep relief that the hateful tyranny of the Tudors had passed
away, to be supplanted by the rule of their kinsmen the Stuarts--
kinsmen, because the Scottish line of kings was directly
descended from that Dal Riada colony which Ireland had sent so
long ago to the shores of Albania, to a branch of which
Columbkill belonged.

For those who were not sufficiently versed in antiquarian
genealogy to trace his descent so far back, the thought that
James was the son of Mary Stuart was sufficient. If any people
could sympathize with the ill-starred Queen of Scots, that
people was the Irish. It could not enter into their ideas that
the son of the murdered Catholic queen, should have feelings
uncongenial to their own. It is easy, then, to understand how,
when the news of Elizabeth's death and of the accession of James
arrived, the sanguine Irish heart leaped with a new hope and
joyful expectation.

As for the real disposition of that strangest of monarchs, James
I,, writers are at variance. Matthew O'Connor, the elder, who
had in his hands the books and manuscripts of Charles O'Connor
of Bellingary, is very positive in his assertions on his side of
the question:

"James was a determined and implacable enemy to the Catholic
religion; he alienated his professors from all attachment to his
government by the virulence of his antipathy. One of his first
gracious proclamations imported a general jail-delivery, except
for 'murderers and papists.' By another proclamation he pledged
himself 'never to grant any toleration to the Catholics,' and
entailed a curse on his posterity if they granted any."

Turning now to Dr. Madden's "History of the Penal Laws," we
shall feel disposed to modify so positive an opinion. There we
read:

"It is very evident that his zeal for the Protestant Church had
more to do with a hatred of the Puritans than of popery, and
that he had a hankering, after all, for the old religion which
his mother belonged to, and for which she had been persecuted by
the fanatics of Scotland."

Hume seems to support this judgment of Dr. Madden when he says
that "the principles of James would have led him to earnestly
desire a unity of faith of the Churches which had been separated."

Both opinions, however, agree in the long-run, since Dr. Madden
is obliged to confess that "new measures of severity, as the
bigotry of the times became urgent, were wrung from the timid
king. He had neither moral nor political courage."

Still, on the day of his coronation, the Irish could little
imagine what was in store for them at the hands of the son of
Mary Stuart; hence their great rejoicing, till the first stroke
of bitter disappointment came to open their eyes, and awaken
them to the hard reality. This was the flight of Tyrone and
Tyrconnell, which had been brought about by treachery and low
cunning. These chieftains were, as they deserved to be, the
idols of the nation. They were compelled to fly because, as Dr.
Anderson, a Protestant minister, says, "artful Cecil had
employed one St. Lawrence to entrap the Earls of Tyrone and
Tyrconnell, the Lord of Devlin, and other Irish chiefs, into a
sham plot which had no evidence but his."

The real cause of their flight was that adventurers and
"undertakers" desired to "plant" Ulster, though the final treaty
with Mountjoy had left both earls in possession of their lands.
That treaty yielded not an acre of plunder, and was consequently
in English eyes a failure. The long, bloody, and promising wars
of Elizabeth's reign had ended, after all, in forcing coronets on
the brows of O'Neill and O'Donnell, with a royal deed added, securing
to them their lands, and freedom of worship to all the north.

James was met by the importunate demand for land. O'Neill,
O'Donnell, and several other Irish chieftains, were sacrificed
to meet this demand; they were compelled to fly; and they had
scarcely gone when millions of acres in Ulster were declared to
be forfeited to the crown, and thrown open for "planting."

And here a new feature in confiscation presents itself, which
was introduced by the first of the Stuart dynasty, and proved
far more galling to Irishmen than any thing they had yet
encountered in this shape.

In the invasion led by Strongbow, in the absorption of the
Kildare estates by Henry VIII., in the annexation of King's and
Queen's Counties under Philip and Mary, even in the last
"plantation" of Munster by Elizabeth's myrmidons at the end of
the Desmond war, the land had been immediately distributed among
the chief officers of the victorious armies. The conquered knew
that such would be the law of war; the great generals and
courtiers who came into possession scarcely disturbed the
tenants. A few of the great native and Anglo-Irish families
suffered sorely from the spoliation; the people at large
scarcely felt it, except by the destruction of clanship and the
introduction of feudal grievances. Moreover, the new proprietors
were interested in making their tenants happy, and not
unfrequently identified themselves with the people--becoming in
course of time true Irishmen.

But, with the accession of the first of the Stuarts to the
English throne, a great alteration took place in the disposal of
the land throughout Ireland.

The Tyrone war had ended five years before, and those who had
taken part in the conflict had already received their portion;
the vanquished, of misfortune--the conquerors, of gain. James
brought in with him from Scotland a host of greedy followers;
and all, from first to last, expected to rise with their king
into wealth and honor. England was not wide enough to hold them,
nor rich enough to satiate their appetites. The puzzled but
crafty king saw a way out of his difficulties in Ireland. He no
longer limited the distribution of land in that country to
soldiers and officers of rank chiefly. He gave it to Scotch
adventurers, to London trades companies. He settled it on
Protestant colonies whose first use of their power was to evict
the former tenants or clansmen, and thus effect a complete
change in the social aspect of the north.