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

But it is alleged that the Irish Legislature, as framed by the
Constitution of 1782, gave to the country an uninterrupted flow
of prosperity for eighteen years, and hence the volunteer
movement was of great benefit to the race, at least temporarily.
We will present the case in the strongest light possible
contrary to our own opinion, and for this we can do no better
than borrow the arguments of Mr. W.J. O'N. Daunt, in his
pamphlet on the "Irish Question" (1869):

"Accustomed as we are," he says, "since the Union-in 1800-to the
national distress and chronic disturbance attested by the Devon
Commissions, Famine Reports, and other official sources of
information, there seems something scarcely credible in the
account of Irish pre-Union prosperity-a prosperity which
contrasted so strongly with the condition of Ireland under a
Parliament which is called 'Imperial,' but which is essentially
and overwhelmingly English. But the accounts are given on
unimpeachable authority.

"Mr. Jebb, member for Callan in the Irish Parliament, thus
speaks of the advance of the country in prosperity, in a
pamphlet published in 1798:

"'In the course of fifteen years, our commerce, our agriculture,
and our manufactures, have swelled to an amount that the most
sanguine friends of Ireland would not have dared to
prognosticate.'

"The bankers of Dublin, tolerably competent witnesses, held a
meeting on the 18th of December, 1798, at which they resolved,
'that, since the renunciation of Great Britain, in 1782, to
legislate for Ireland, the commerce and prosperity of this
kingdom have eminently increased.'

"The Dublin Guild of Merchants did the same on the 14th of
January, 1797."

But this testimony and that of others whom we could quote was
the testimony of men opposed to the "Union." Let us look at a
few admissions made by the supporters of that measure:

"First comes its author, Mr. Pitt, who, in his speech in the
English House of Commons, January 31, 1799, having alluded to
the prosperous condition of Irish commerce in 1785, goes on to
say: 'But how stands the case now? The trade is at this time
infinitely more advantageous to Ireland.'

"Lord Clare, one of Mr. Pitt's chief instruments in effecting
the Union, published, in 1798, a pamphlet containing, as quoted
by Grattan, the following account of Irish progress subsequently
to 1782: 'There is not a nation on the habitable globe which has
advanced in cultivation and commerce, in agriculture and
manufactures, with the same rapidity in the same period.'

"Finally, Mr. Secretary Coke, in a Unionist pamphlet, said at
that time: 'We have had the experience of these twenty years;
for it is universally admitted that no country in the world ever
made such rapid advances as Ireland has done in these respects.'"

All this was undoubtedly true; and it is not our intention to
admire what was called the Union, nor to advocate it. Those of
the various writers cited, who spoke so dogmatically in the
above passages, had in their minds only material and external
prosperity, and that even of only one class of citizens. Those
who wish well to Ireland cannot be satisfied with this.

Not a single name of the favorers or opposers of the Union, here
quoted as witnesses, is Celtic. It would be interesting to know
what the Celts of the island, that is, the greater part of its
inhabitants, thought at the time, not of the Union, but of their
own Parliament, and how much of this great material prosperity
fell to their portion.

Surely they were all opposed to a Union which for a variety of
reasons had grown odious in their sight; but, did they, could
they, approve of the acts of their Legislature prior to the
Union with England? Were they satisfied with those tokens of
prosperity in favor of a class which had systematically
oppressed them? Even granting that they were Christian enough
not to feel envy at the success of their Protestant fellow-
countrymen, did they not, and were they not right to, rue the
day which, by an act of that same Legislature, shut them off as
a body from all those advantages.

For it must be remembered that it was at the instigation of many
of those volunteers who had been so ready to receive the muskets
from their Catholic neighbors, for the purpose of striking a
blow for liberty, that none of the penal statutes were repealed,
and the Irish Catholics continued to groan, at least as far as
the law went, under the fearful oppressions of which the last
chapter furnished a feeble sketch. Hence, to speak in their
presence of their commerce, of their manufactures, of their
agriculture, of the increase of their wealth, and so on, was a
bitter mockery, which they could not but resent in their inmost
soul.

Was the cause of all their miseries removed by such a free and
independent Parliament? Where could be the agricultural
prosperity of a people which was not entitled, legally, to own
an inch of their soil, or lease more than two acres of it? How
could they engage in prosperous trade when, at the suit of a
"discoverer," they were liable to be compelled to hand over to
him the surplus of a paltry income? How could they even
contemplate engaging in any manufactures, when the laws reduced
them to the frightful state of pauperism which we have
shudderingly glanced at? And those laws were preserved, and
retained on the statute-book, by the very men who vaunted of the
prosperity of Ireland!

It cannot, then, be too strongly reasserted that the social
position of Ireland had experienced no change whatever, and that
the separation of classes, spoken of with such well-merited
rebuke by Edmund Burke, still stood unaltered:

"They divided the nation into two distinct parties, without
common interest, sympathy, or connection. One of these bodies
was to possess all the franchises, all the property, all the
education; the other was to be composed of drawers of water and
cutters of turf for them.

Every measure was pleasing and popular just in proportion as it
tended to harass and ruin a set of people who were looked upon
as enemies to God and man; and, indeed, as a race of bigoted
savages, who were a disgrace to human nature itself.

"To render humanity fit to be insulted, it was fit that it
should be degraded."

And, even supposing the prosperity of which so much talk was
made to have been universal, so that all had a real share in it,
how long would it have remained so, if the Irish Parliament had
continued to exist, and not become merged in the English, or, as
it was termed, Imperial Legislature? How long could the two
separated bodies, sitting, the one in Dublin, the other in
Westminster, have acted in concert, without breaking out into
violent and mutual recrimination, with all its attendant evils?

The difficulty showed itself at the very outset, and when the
first question of the relative status of both Legislatures arose.

Mr. Fox, the great Liberal minister of the king, endeavored to
solve this difficulty by making a distinction between internal
and external legislation: Ireland was never to be interfered
with in her Parliament, with respect to her internal questions,
while the English legislative body possessed the right to step
in in all measures regarding external legislation. This seems
very much like what is now proposed by home-rule.

Here is the answer given to this in the tribune of Dublin by Mr.
Walsh: "With respect to the fine-spun distinction of the English
minister between the internal and external legislation, it seems
to me the most absurd position, and at the same time the most
ridiculous one, that possibly could be laid down, when applied
to an independent people.

"Ireland is independent, or she is not; if she is independent,
no power on earth can make laws to bind her, internally or
externally, but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland."

Mr. Walsh, a very influential member of the Irish House of
Commons, saw, as doubtless did many others, cause of disturbance
already for the mutual tranquillity of the two nations. And,
indeed, his fears soon showed themselves only too well grounded.
Dr. Madden tells the story;

"A month had scarcely elapsed since the opening of the new Irish
Parliament in 1782, before Lord Abingdon, in the British House
of Peers, moved for leave to bring in a declaratory bill, to
reassert the right of England to legislate externally for
Ireland, in matters appertaining to the commerce of the latter.
A similar motion was made in the British House of Commons by Sir
George Young.

"One clause of Lord Abingdon's bill stated that Queen Elizabeth,
having formerly forbade the King of France to build more ships
than he then had, without her leave first obtained, it is
enacted that no kingdoms, as above stated, Ireland as well as
others, should presume to build a navy or any ships-of-war,
without leave from the Lord High Admiral of England."

It is easy to foresee the pretty quarrel preparing. Once again,
then, it may be asserted that the record of Irish Parliaments is
a sad one.

But could more have been expected of it? Is the scope of
measures, within the capabilities of any legislative assembly of
modern times, comprehensive enough to embrace every thing of
importance to a Catholic people, such as the Irish nation has
ever been?

The general question of parliamentary rule is a very complicated
one. The modern Parliament is a very different thing from the
old assemblies of the representatives of various orders in any
state. With the Church originated those ancient institutions,
which in certain parts of Europe partook at once of the twofold
nature of councils and political assemblies.

This order has passed away, and no one thinks to-day of reviving
those time-honored institutions, however much political writers
may be inclined to favor despotism on the one hand, or anarchy
on the other. What, then, is the origin of the modern
Parliament? It grew into being in England during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, emanating as it were, slowly, out of
the decomposition of the old Parliaments; the aristocracy, and
the Church chiefly, losing more and more the influence once
belonging to them, which, in old times, made them paramount in
those state deliberations. This is one of the chief features of
the newly-modelled British Constitution, which is of very recent
growth, and became fixed and settled only after the downfall of
the Stuart dynasty, receiving additional modifications in the
contest of parties under the Brunswick and Hanover lines of
kings.

It is, consequently, an altogether British growth of recent date,
particularly well adapted for England, whose prosperity since
its establishment has ever been on the increase. But it is very
doubtful whether other countries have derived equal benefit from
its adoption.

Toward the end of last century, some few Frenchmen of note
attempted, with Mounier at their head, to reproduce a feeble
copy of it in France. Their failure is too well known to the
world: how their English ideas were scouted by the people, while
a far more radical revolution swept away every vestige of the
old French Constitution, without substituting in its stead any
thing save crude and infidel ideas, which resulted in anarchy.

The lamentable failure of the first attempt was no
discouragement to other political theorists; and the century has
witnessed and still witnesses every day essays at English
legislation, as embodied in the constitution of its Parliaments
chiefly, all over Europe; and all, as sanguine writers would
have us believe, to serve as the stepping-stone for the
"Universal Republic," which is to regenerate the world.

The great questions in all those assemblies are of material
interests, material prosperity, material projects. Of the moral
well-being of the people seldom or never a word is heard; and,
whenever a moral question does come up for discussion, the
vagueness of the theories advanced and discussed, the indecision
of the measures proposed, the want of unity in the views
developed, show how unfit are modern legislators for even
touching on what concerns the soul of man. The legislators
themselves feel that their character is far from being a sacred
one, and that the spiritual element is not comprehended in their
world. And they are certainly right.

Even the measures of external policy are not universally
successful in securing the material well-being of the people. In
France, at least, the various legislatures which have succeeded
one another have perhaps been productive of as much harm in that
regard as the liberty of the press and freedom of public
discussion, which have always had and always will have their
ardent advocates, and the existence of which is compatible with
public order in some countries, but not in others.

The same, with certain reservations, is true of the Spanish-
American republics, Brazil, and now of Spain, Italy, and other
European nations. The legislative machine which is found to work
so well in England, and what were or still are her colonies,
seems to get out of order in climates and among nations
unaccustomed to it, even as far as material prosperity is
concerned.

But it is neither our object to write a history of Parliaments,
nor absolutely to condemn those modern institutions by the few
words devoted to them. All we wish to insist upon is, that all
the evils of nations are not cured by them, and that they should
not be taken as in themselves absolutely desirable and all-
sufficient.

As to their probable fate in the future, their modern dress is
not yet two centuries old, and the seeds of decay already appear
in many places. A few questions are sufficient to demonstrate
this: Can a Parliament, as understood to-day, last for any
length of time and work successfully, when composed for a great
part of corrupt legislators who have been returned by corrupt
electors? Has not the progress of corruption on both sides,
elected and electors, been of late alarmingly on the increase?
What space of time is requisite for legislation to come to a
stand-still, and prove to modern nations the impossibility of
carrying on even material affairs with such corrupt machinery?
It requires no great foresight to reply to these questions.

And yet it is on this tottering institution that the Ireland of
our days has set her hope. She imagines that, this once gained,
prosperity and happiness are insure; that, without it, she
cannot but be discontented, as she is and must be if she
possesses any feeling. And such is the anomaly of her position
that, with this conviction firmly set before us, we believe she
is right in demanding home-rule, and that by insisting upon it
she will eventually attain it; yet are we convinced that, having
obtained it, her evils will not be cured, nor her happiness
served. We prize her highly enough to think her worthy of
something better, which "something" we are sure God keeps in
reserve for her.

Suppose her earnest wish granted, and a home Parliament given
her. Suppose even the old question of her relations with the
English Legislature determined. A great difficulty has been
settled satisfactorily, though it is difficult to see how this
may come about. But supposing the questions for her discussion
and free-determination being clearly defined, home-rule becomes
possible without exciting the opposition of the rival Parliament
of Great Britain.

What is likely to be the composition of her state institution?
and what the programme of its labors?

In the composition of her two Houses, if she have two, the
Catholics will not be excluded as they were in 1782; a great
change certainly, and fraught no doubt with great benefit to the
country. But will the English element cease to predominate? The
native race has been kept so long in a state of bondage that few
members of it certainly will take a leading part in the
discussions. How many even will be allowed to influence the
election of members by their votes or their capacity? Universal
suffrage can scarcely be anticipated, perhaps even it would not
be desirable. The question is certainly a doubtful one. Of one
thing are we certain regarding the composition of an Irish
Parliament: it would not really represent the nation.

For the nation is Catholic to the core; the sufferings of more
than two centuries have made religion dearer to her than life;
all she has been, all she is to-day, may be summed up in one
word--Catholic. Nothing has been left her but this proud and
noble title, which of all others her enemies would have wrested
from her. The nation exists to-day, independently of
parliamentary enactments, in spite of the numberless
parliamentary decrees of former times; she is living, active,
working, and doing wonders, which shall come under notice. See
how busy she has been since first allowed to do. Her altars, her
religious houses, her asylums, every thing holy that was in
ruins--all have been restored.

Not satisfied with working so energetically on her own soil, she
has crossed over to England, where the great and unexpected
Catholic revival, which has struck such awe and fear into the
hearts of sectarians, is in great measure due to her.

Cross the broad Atlantic, and even the vast Southern Ocean, and
the contemplation of Irish activity in North America, Australia,
and all the English colonies, the intense vitality displayed by
this so long down-trodden people is amazing. But all this
activity, all this vitality, is employed in establishing on a
firm and indestructible basis everywhere the holy Catholic
Church.

Looking on all this, say then whether Ireland is truly Catholic,
whether the nation is any thing but Catholic.

But can her new Parliament be Catholic?

No! No one imagines such a thing possible; no one thinks, no one
dreams of it. It is clear, then, that it cannot represent the
nation.

Who will go to compose it? Men who will discard-such is the
modern expression-discard their creed, and leave it at the door.
Nothing better can be expected. It is true that the bitter
feeling engendered for so long a time by religious questions is
not likely to show itself again; or though, to speak more
correctly, a religious question never was raised in Ireland, the
whole people being one on that subject; but it may be hoped that
the bitter persecution against every thing Catholic is not
likely to recur, whatever may be the composing elements of the
new Houses of Parliament.

In the impossibility of even guessing at the probable opinions
of the men who are to have the future fate of Ireland in their
hands, it may be fairly predicted that, within their legislative
halls, religious and consequently moral questions will only be
approached in the spirit of liberalism. Probably, the only thing
attempted will be the rendering of the people externally happy
and prosperous, supposing the majority of the members animated
by true patriotic principles; and indeed the aspirations of all
who wish well to Ireland are limited to external or material
prosperity; and, for our own part, we do not consider this of
slight moment. But is this all that the Irish people require?

They have been brought so low in the scale of humanity that
every thing has to be accomplished to bring about their
resurrection; and the "every thing" is comprised in substituting
flesh-meat for potatoes and good warm clothing for rags. Whoever
says that the Irish people can be contented with such a
restoration as this, knows little of their noble nature, and has
never read their heart.

Assuredly, they have a right to those worldly blessings of which
they have been so long deprived; and we would not be understood
as saying that one of the primary objects of good government is
not to confer those material blessings on the people; nay, it is
our belief that, when a whole nation has been so long subjected
to all the evils which not only render this life miserable, but
absolutely intolerable, it is incumbent on those intrusted with
the direction of affairs to remedy those evils instantly, and
endeavor to make the people forget their misfortunes by, at
least, the enjoyments of this life's ordinary comforts.
Forgetfulness of the past can be obtained by no other means. And
this is a very simple, but, at the same time, very satisfactory
answer to the question so often put and so often replied to in
such a variety of ways, "Why is Ireland discontented?"

But, while admitting the truth, nay, the necessity of all this,
the government of a Catholic people has not fulfilled its whole
duty when it has exerted itself to the utmost to procure, and
finally succeeded in procuring, the temporal happiness of the
nation. In addition to this, it must consult its moral and
religious wants, or a great part of its duty remains neglected.

This, indeed, does not nowadays occur to the minds of the
majority of men, who have, it would appear, agreed among
themselves to consider it an axiom of government that the rulers
of a people should have no other object in view than the
material comfort and welfare of the masses. They do not reflect
that the wants of a nation must be satisfied in their entirety,
and that its moral and religious needs are of no less importance,
to say the least, than the temporal. This is evident in all
those countries where, in imitation of England, or at her
instigation, parliamentary governments are now in operation--
countries which include not only Europe, without excepting
Greece and her chief islands, but Southern Africa at the Cape,
America, North and South, Australia, and the, large islands of
Jamaica, Tasmania, New Zealand, and several groups of Polynesia,
preparing Asia for the boon which, probably, is destined to show
itself in Japan first, spreading thence all over the largest
continent of the world.

Wherever modern Parliaments flourish, there material interests
alone are consulted. This is a new feature of Japhetism; and God
alone knows how long nations will be satisfied with such a state
of things!

But if non-Catholic nations thus limit their aspirations, there
is all the more reason why a Catholic people cannot imitate them
in such a course, particularly if that people has for centuries
submitted to every evil of this life in order to preserve its
religion, showing that, in its eyes, religious blessings rank
far above all imaginable material advantages; and we all know
such to be the case for Ireland.

But, it may be asked, what are those religious wants which must
be satisfied, and how are we to know them? The answer, to a
Catholic, is plain, and nothing is easier of recognition. What
the spiritual guides of the nation consider of paramount
importance and of absolute necessity, is of that character, and
the government which neglects to listen to remonstrances coming
from such a quarter, shows thereby that it is ignorant of, or
slights, its plain duty. Ever since the load of tyranny, which
weighed down the Irish people, has been removed, if not entirely,
at least suffered a very appreciable reduction, since the
rulers of the Church in that unhappy country have been able to
lift up their voice, and proclaimed what they considered of
supreme importance to those under their charge, is it not a
strange truth that their voice has never ceased remonstrating,
and that, at this very moment, it is as loud in protestation as
ever? When has it been listened to as it should be? Is it likely
to meet more regard if Ireland obtains home-rule? It grieves us
to say that the only answer which can be given to this last
question is still an emphatic "No!"

And for the very simple reason, already given, that Ireland
cannot have a truly Catholic Parliament, and that all the great
measures which would occupy the attention of the Catholic
members, in the event of their meeting at Dublin, would be
shemes for the advancement of manufactures, trade, the
construction of ships, tenant-right laws, etc.; all very
excellent things in their way, and to which Ireland has an
undoubted right, which will be strongly contested, and in the
struggle for which she may again be worsted; which, even if she
obtains, will not enable her to compete with England, and which,
after and above all, do not correspond to the heart-beat of the
nation--the restoration complete and entire of the Catholic
Church all over her broad land.

It may be well to remark that the broad assertion just laid down
involves no reprisals against the rights of the minority. That
minority, backed by the English Government, has enjoyed nearly
three centuries of oppression and tyranny, has taxed human
ingenuity to the utmost for the purpose of concocting schemes of
destruction against the majority: it has failed. The majority,
which at last breathes freely, can well afford not to raise a
finger in retaliation, and to leave what is called freedom of
conscience to those who so long refused it. The result may be
left to the operation of natural laws and the holy workings of
Providence. But their religious rights ought, at east, to be
secured to them entire; the rights of their Church to be left
forever perfectly free and untrammelled.