_Historical Apology for The Irish Catholics_. By WILLIAM PARNELL,
Esquire. Fitzpatrick, Dublin. 1807.
* * * * *
IF ever a nation exhibited symptoms of downright madness, or utter
stupidity, we conceive these symptoms may be easily recognised in the
conduct of this country upon the Catholic question. A man has a wound in
his great toe, and a violent and perilous fever at the same time; and he
refuses to take the medicines for the fever because it will disconcert
the toe! The mournful and folly-stricken blockhead forgets that his toe
cannot survive him; that if he dies, there can be no digital life apart
from him: yet he lingers and fondles over this last part of his body,
soothing it madly with little plasters, and anile fomentations, while the
neglected fever rages in his entrails, and burns away his whole life. If
the comparatively little questions of Establishment are all that this
country is capable of discussing or regarding, for God’s sake let us
remember that the foreign conquest, which destroys all, destroys this
beloved _toe_ also. Pass over freedom, industry, and science—and look
upon this great empire, by which we are about to be swallowed up, only as
it affects the manner of collecting tithes, and of reading the
liturgy—still, if all goes, these must go too; and even, for their
interests, it is worth while to conciliate Ireland, to avert the
hostility, and to employ the strength of the Catholic population. We
plead the question as the sincerest friends to the Establishment;—as
wishing to it all the prosperity and duration its warmest advocates can
desire,—but remembering always what these advocates seem to forget, that
the Establishment cannot be threatened by any danger so great as the
perdition of the kingdom in which it is established.
We are truly glad to agree so entirely with Mr. Parnell upon this great
question; we admire his way of thinking, and most cordially recommend his
work to the attention of the public. The general conclusion which he
attempts to prove is this: that religious sentiment, however perverted by
bigotry or fanaticism, has always a _tendency_ to moderation; that it
seldom assumes any great portion of activity or enthusiasm, except from
novelty of opinion, or from opposition, contumely, and persecution, when
novelty ceases; that a Government has little to fear from any religious
sect, except while that sect is new. Give a Government only time, and,
provided it has the good sense to treat folly with forbearance, it must
ultimately prevail. When, therefore, a sect is found, after a lapse of
years, to be ill-disposed to the Government, we may be certain that
Government has widened its separation by marked distinctions, roused its
resentment by contumely, or supported its enthusiasm by persecution.
The _particular_ conclusion Mr. Parnell attempts to prove is, that the
Catholic religion in Ireland had sunk into torpor and inactivity, till
Government roused it with the lash: that even then, from the respect and
attachment which men are always inclined to show towards government,
there still remained a large body of loyal Catholics; that these only
decreased in number from the rapid increase of persecution; and that,
after all, the effects which the resentment of the Roman Catholics had in
creating rebellions had been very much exaggerated.
In support of these two conclusions, Mr. Parnell takes a survey of the
history of Ireland, from the conquest under Henry to the rebellion under
Charles I., passing very rapidly over the period which preceded the
Reformation, and dwelling principally upon the various rebellions which
broke out in Ireland between the Reformation and the grand rebellion in
the reign of Charles I. The celebrated conquest of Ireland by Henry II.
extended only to a very few counties in Leinster; nine-tenths of the
whole kingdom were left, as he found them, under the dominion of their
native princes. The influence of example was as strong in this as in
most other instances; and great numbers of the English settlers who came
over under various adventures resigned their pretensions to superior
civilisation, cast off their lower garments, and lapsed into the nudity
and barbarism of the Irish. The limit which divided the possessions of
the English settler from those of the native Irish was called _the pale_;
and the expressions of inhabitants _within the pale_, and _without the
pale_, were the terms by which the two nations were distinguished. It is
almost superfluous to state, that the most bloody and pernicious warfare
was carried on upon the borders—sometimes for something, sometimes for
nothing—most commonly for cows. The Irish, over whom the sovereigns of
England affected a sort of nominal dominion, were entirely governed by
their own laws, and so very little connection had they with the justice
of the invading country, that it was as lawful to kill an Irishman as it
was to kill a badger or a fox. The instances are innumerable, where the
defendant has pleaded that the deceased was an Irishman, and that
therefore defendant had a right to kill him—and upon the proof of
Hibernicism, acquittal followed of course.
When the English army mustered in any great strength, the Irish
chieftains would do exterior homage to the English Crown; and they very
frequently, by this artifice, averted from their country the miseries of
invasion: but they remained completely unsubdued, till the rebellion
which took place in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, of which that politic
woman availed herself to the complete subjugation of Ireland. In
speaking of the Irish about the reign of Elizabeth or James I., we must
not draw our comparisons from England, but from New Zealand; they were
not civilised men, but savages; and if we reason about their conduct, we
must reason of them as savages.
“After reading every account of Irish history,” says Mr. Parnell,
“one great perplexity appears to remain: How does it happen, that,
from the first invasion of the English till the reign of James I.,
Ireland seems not to have made the smallest progress in civilisation
or wealth?
“That it was divided into a number of small principalities, which
waged constant war on each other—or that the appointment of the
chieftains was elective—do not appear sufficient reasons, although
these are the only ones assigned by those who have been at the
trouble of considering the subject: neither are the confiscations of
property quite sufficient to account for the effect. There have been
great confiscations in other countries, and still they have
flourished; the petty states of Greece were quite analogous to the
chiefries, as they were called, in Ireland; and yet they seemed to
flourish almost in proportion to their dissensions. Poland felt the
bad effects of an elective monarchy more than any other country; and
yet, in point of civilisation, it maintained a very respectable rank
among the nations of Europe; but Ireland never, for an instant, made
any progress in improvement, till the reign of James I.
“It is scarcely credible, that in a climate like that of Ireland, and
at a period so far advanced in civilisation as the end of Elizabeth’s
reign, the greater part of the natives should go naked. Yet this is
rendered certain by the testimony of an eye-witness, Fynes Moryson.
‘In the remote parts,’ he says, ‘where the English laws and manners
are unknown, the very chief of the Irish, as well men as women, go
naked in the winter time, only having their privy parts covered with
a rag of linen, and their bodies with a loose mantle. This I speak
of my own experience; yet remember that a Bohemian baron coming out
of Scotland to us by the north parts of the wild Irish, told me in
great earnestness, that he, coming to the house of O’Kane, a great
lord amongst them, was met at the door by sixteen women, all naked,
excepting their loose mantles, whereof eight or ten were very fair;
with which strange sight his eyes being dazzled, they led him into
the house, and then sitting down by the fire, with crossed legs, like
tailors, and so low as could not but offend chaste eyes, desired him
to sit down with them. Soon after, O’Kane, the lord of the country,
came in all naked, except a loose mantle and shoes, which he put off
as soon as he came in; and, entertaining the Baron after his best
manner in the Latin tongue, desired him to put off his apparel, which
he thought to be a burden to him, and to sit naked.
“‘To conclude, men and women at night going to sleep, he thus naked
in a round circle about the fire, with their feet towards it. They
fold their heads and their upper parts in woollen mantles, first
steeped in water to keep them warm; for they say, that woollen cloth,
wetted, preserves heat (as linen, wetted, preserves cold), when the
smoke of their bodies has warmed the woollen cloth.’
“The cause of this extreme poverty, and of its long continuance, we
must conclude, arose from the peculiar laws of property which were in
force under the Irish dynasties. These laws have been described by
most writers as similar to the Kentish custom of gavelkind; and,
indeed, so little attention was paid to the subject, that were it not
for the researches of Sir J. Davis, the knowledge of this singular
usage would have been entirely lost.
“The Brehon law of property, he tells us, was similar to the custom
(as the English lawyers term it) of hodge-podge. When any one of the
sept died, his lands did not descend to his sons, but were divided
among the whole sept: and, for this purpose, the chief of the sept
made a new division of the whole lands belonging to the sept, and
gave every one his part according to seniority. So that no man had a
property which could descend to his children; and even during his own
life his possession of any particular spot was quite uncertain, being
liable to be constantly shuffled and changed by new partitions. The
consequence of this was that there was not a house of brick or stone
among the Irish down to the reign of Henry VII.; not even a garden or
orchard, or well-fenced or improved field; neither village or town,
or in any respect the least provision for posterity. This monstrous
custom, so opposite to the natural feelings of mankind, was probably
perpetuated by the policy of the chiefs. In the first place the
power of partitioning being lodged in their hands, made them the most
absolute of tyrants, being the dispensers of the property as well as
of the liberty of their subjects. In the second place, it had the
appearance of adding to the number of their savage armies; for where
there was no improvement or tillage, war was pursued as an
occupation.
“In the early history of Ireland, we find several instances of
chieftains discountenancing tillage; and so late as Elizabeth’s
reign, Moryson says, that ‘Sir Neal Garve restrained his people from
ploughing, that they might assist him to do any mischief.’”—(pp.
99–102).
These quotations and observations will enable us to state a few plain
facts for the recollection of our English readers:—1st, Ireland was never
subdued till the rebellion in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 2nd, For
four hundred years before that period the two nations had been almost
constantly at war; and in consequence of this, a deep and irreconcilable
hatred existed between the people within and without the pale. 3rd, The
Irish, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth, were unquestionably the most
barbarous people in Europe. So much for what had happened previous to
the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and let any man, who has the most
superficial knowledge of human affairs, determine whether national
hatred, proceeding from such powerful causes, could possibly have been
kept under by the defeat of one single rebellion—whether it would not
have been easy to have foreseen, at that period, that a proud, brave,
half-savage people, would cherish the memory of their wrongs for
centuries to come, and break forth into arms at every period when they
were particularly exasperated by oppression, or invited by opportunity.
If the Protestant religion had spread in Ireland as it did in England,
and if there had never been any difference of faith between the two
countries—can it be believed that the Irish, ill-treated and infamously
governed as they have been, would never have made any efforts to shake
off the yoke of England? Surely there are causes enough to account for
their impatience of that yoke, without endeavouring to inflame the zeal
of ignorant people against the Catholic religion, and to make that mode
of faith responsible for all the butchery which the Irish and English for
these last two centuries have exercised upon each other. Everybody, of
course, must admit, that if to the causes of hatred already specified
there be added the additional cause of religious distinction, this last
will give greater force (and what is of more consequence to observe, give
a _name_) to the whole aggregate motive. But what Mr. Parnell contends
for, and clearly and decisively proves, is that many of those sanguinary
scenes attributed to the Catholic religion are to be partly imputed to
causes totally disconnected from religion; that the unjust invasion, and
the tyrannical, infamous policy of the English, are to take their full
share of blame with the sophisms and plots of Catholic priests. In the
reign of Henry VIII., Mr. Parnell shows that feudal submission was
readily paid to him by all the Irish chiefs; that the Reformation was
received without the slightest opposition; and that the troubles which
took place at that period in Ireland are to be entirely attributed to the
ambition and injustice of Henry. In the reign of Queen Mary there was no
recrimination upon the Protestants—a striking proof that the bigotry of
the Catholic religion had not at that period risen to any great height in
Ireland. The insurrections of the various Irish princes were as numerous
during this reign as they had been in the two preceding reigns—a
circumstance rather difficult of explanation, if, as is commonly
believed, the Catholic religion was at that period the main-spring of
men’s actions.
In the reign of Elizabeth, the Catholic in the pale regularly fought
against the Catholic out of the pale. O’Sullivan, a bigoted Papist,
reproaches them with doing so. Speaking of the reign of James I., he
says, “And now the eyes even of the English Irish (the Catholics of the
pale) were opened; and they cursed their former folly for helping the
heretic.” The English Government were so sensible of the loyalty of the
Irish English Catholics that they entrusted them with the most
confidential services. The Earl of Kildare was the principal instrument
in waging war against the chieftains of Leix and Offal. William
O’Bourge, another Catholic, was created Lord Castle Connel for his
eminent services; and MacGully Patrick, a priest, was the State spy. We
presume that this wise and _manly_ conduct of Queen Elizabeth was utterly
unknown both to the Pastrycook and the Secretary of State, who have
published upon the dangers of employing Catholics even against foreign
enemies; and in those publications have said a great deal about the
wisdom of our ancestors—the usual topic whenever the folly of their
descendants is to be defended. To whatever other of our ancestors they
may allude, they may spare all compliments to this illustrious Princess,
who would certainly have kept the worthy confectioner to the composition
of tarts, and most probably furnished him with the productions of the
Right Honourable Secretary as the means of conveying those juicy
delicacies to a hungry and discerning public.
In the next two reigns, Mr. Parnell shows by what injudicious measures of
the English Government the spirit of Catholic opposition was gradually
formed; for that it did produce powerful effects at a subsequent period
he does not deny; but contends only (as we have before stated) that these
effects have been much overrated, and ascribed _solely_ to the Catholic
religion when other causes have at least had an equal agency in bringing
them about. He concludes with some general remarks on the dreadful state
of Ireland, and the contemptible folly and bigotry of the English—remarks
full of truth, of good sense, and of political courage. How melancholy
to reflect, that there would be still some chance of saving England from
the general wreck of empires, but that it may not be saved, because one
politician will lose two thousand a year by it, and another three
thousand—a third a place in reversion, and a fourth a pension for his
aunt! Alas! these are the powerful causes which have always settled the
destiny of great kingdoms, and which may level Old England, with all its
boasted freedom, and boasted wisdom, to the dust. Nor is it the least
singular, among the political phenomena of the present day, that the sole
consideration which seems to influence the unbigoted part of the English
people, in this great question of Ireland, is a regard for the personal
feelings of the Monarch. Nothing is said or thought of the enormous risk
to which Ireland is exposed—nothing of the gross injustice with which the
Catholics are treated—nothing of the lucrative apostasy of those from
whom they experience this treatment: but the only concern by which we all
seem to be agitated is, that the King must not be vexed in his old age.
We have a great respect for the King; and wish him all the happiness
compatible with the happiness of his people. But these are not times to
pay foolish compliments to kings, or the sons of kings, or to anybody
else; this journal (the _Edinburgh Review_) has always preserved its
character for courage and honesty; and it shall do so to the last. If
the people of this country are solely occupied in considering what is
personally agreeable to the King, without considering what is for his
permanent good, and for the safety of his dominions; if all public men,
quitting the common vulgar scramble for emolument, do not concur in
conciliating the people of Ireland; if the unfounded alarms, and the
comparatively trifling interests of the clergy, are to supersede the
great question of freedom or slavery, it does appear to us quite
impossible that so mean and so foolish a people can escape that
destruction which is ready to burst upon them—a destruction so imminent
that it can only be averted by arming all in our defence who would
evidently be sharers in our ruin—and by such a change of system as may
save us from the hazard of being ruined by the ignorance and cowardice of
any general, by the bigotry or the ambition of any minister, or by the
well-meaning scruples of any human being, let his dignity be what it may.
These minor and domestic dangers we must endeavour firmly and temperately
to avert as we best can; but at all hazards we must keep out the
destroyer from among us, or perish like wise and brave men in the
attempt.