The Irish Race in the Past and the Present Part 44

a.s.suredly, 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 inc.u.mbent 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 ma.s.ses. 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 j.a.pan 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 j.a.phetism; and G.o.d 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 a.s.sertion 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.

But, how much has been done against this, even of late? Why has a Protestant university so many privileges, while a similar Catholic inst.i.tution is refused recognition? To answer what purpose have the Queen's Colleges been established? The Catholic bishops certainly possess rights with regard to the education of their flocks; with what persistence have not those rights been either attacked or circ.u.mvented! If the Protestant Establishment has been finally abolished, have not its ministers obtained by the very act of abolition concessions which give them still great weight, morally and materially, in the scale opposed to Catholic proselytism, nay, preservation? Is it not a stain even yet, if not in the eye of the law, at least in that of the English colonized in Ireland, to be a "Roman Catholic?" Is "souperism" so completely dead that it never can revive? How many means are still left in the hands of the Protestant minority to vex, annoy, and impoverish the supposed free majority?

Whoever considers the matter seriously cannot but acknowledge that in Ireland there exists still a vast amount of open or silent opposition to the Church of the majority, and a Church which the majority loves with such deep affection that, so long as the least remnant of the old oppression remains, so long must Ireland remain discontented.

And it is more than doubtful whether home-rule would be a sufficient remedy for such a state of things, owing to the fact, already insisted upon, that the new Parliament could not be a Catholic Parliament.

The reader may easily perceive what was meant by saying that the entire restoration of the Catholic Church in the island does not suppose the consequent extirpation of heresy; but it clearly supposes the perfectly free exercise of all her rights by the Church. Nothing short of this can satisfy the Irish people.

III. We pa.s.s on to the consideration of a third delusive hope, that of the people regaining all their rights by the overwhelming force of numbers and armed resistance to tyranny-- the advocacy of physical force, as it is called; in other words, the right and necessity of open insurrection, or underhand and secret a.s.sociations, evidently requiring for success the cooperation of the numerous revolutionary societies of Europe: a criminal delusion, which has brought many evils upon the country, and which is still cherished by too many of her sons. Though we purpose speaking freely on this subject, we hope that our language may be that of moderation and justice.

To a Catholic, who has either witnessed or heard of the frightful evils brought on modern nations by the doctrine of the right of insurrection, of armed force, of open rebellion, against real or fancied wrong, that doctrine cannot but be loathsome and detestable.

True, there is for nations, as for individuals, something resembling the right of self-defence. No Catholic theologian can a.s.sert that a people is bound to bow under the yoke of tyranny, when it can shake that tyranny off; and it is this truth which affords a pretext to many advocates of what is called the right of insurrection. Moreover, there is no doubt that, in the case of Ireland particularly, the Irish had for many centuries a legitimate government of their own, and when attacked by foreigners, who landed on their sh.o.r.es under whatever pretext, they had a perfect right, nay, it was the duty of the heads of clans, the provincial kings and princes, to protect the whole nation, and the part of it intrusted to their special care in particular, against open or covert foes. The name of "rebels"

was given them by the invaders, with no shadow of possible pretext, and the name was as justly resented as it was unjustly applied.

Under the Stuart dynasty the state of the case is still more clear: for then they were fighting on the side of the English sovereigns to whom they had submitted; and, in waging war against the enemies of their king and country, they were not only enforcing their right, but performing a highly-meritorious and in some cases heroic duty. Yet the name of "rebels" was again applied to them, and its penalty inflicted upon them, as has been seen.

After their complete subjugation, the right of retaliating on their oppressors, even if justifiable in theory, was often illusory and indefensible in fact, because of the impossibility of successful resistance; and the secret a.s.sociations known under the names of "Tories," "Rapparees," "White Boys,"

"Ribbonmen," were, with the exception of the first, condemned by the Church.

But in modern times the right of insurrection cannot possibly be defended, if, as can scarcely be avoided, the cause of a Catholic nation is linked with the various revolutionary societies and conspiracies which disgrace modern Europe, endanger society, and have all been condemned by the sovereign Pontiff.

An extensive discussion of both cases--the stubborn resistance made after the fall of the Stuarts, and some of the attempts at independence of later times--would show at once the difference between the two cases, and prevent thinking men from ranking the "Tories" of ancient times with the avowed revolutionists of our days. Mr. Prendergast has given a fair sketch of the former in the second edition of his "Cromwellian Settlement."

The reader who may peruse this very interesting account can notice a remarkable coincidence; one, however, which to our knowledge has not yet been pointed out: the very scenes enacted in Ireland, during the long resistance offered to oppression after the downfall of the Stuart dynasty, were reenacted in France during the Reign of Terror, and for some time after, throughout the districts which had risen in insurrection against the tyranny of the Convention, and both cases were certainly examples of right warring against might.

In fact, to a person acquainted with the history of the violent changes which, during the last century, modern theories, metaphysical systems, and, above all, the working of secret societies, have caused, the reading of the history of England and Ireland, from the Reformation down, offers new sources of interest, by showing how the last frightful convulsion in France was merely a copy of the first in England, at least as far as the means employed in each go, if not in the ultimate object.

In England the revolution was begun by the monarch himself, with a view of rendering his power more absolute and universal by the rejection of the papal supremacy, and, consequently, the destruction of the Catholic Church. In France the revolution was begun by the leaders of the middle cla.s.ses, who made use of the immense power given them by the secret societies which then flourished, and the influence of an unbridled press, to destroy royalty and aristocracy, that they might themselves obtain the supreme power and rule the country. The object of the two revolutions was therefore widely different; but the means employed in bringing them about, when considered in detail, are found to have been perfectly identical.

In both countries, on the side of the revolutionary party or of the National a.s.sembly, various oaths were imposed and enforced, troops dispatched, battles fought, devastating bands ravaged the country while in a state of insurrection, the same barbarous orders in La Vendee as in Ireland, so that the language even employed in the second case is an exact counterpart of that in the first. There is destruction resolved upon; then the authorities desisting and resolving on a change of policy, though with a rigid continuance of the police measures, including in both cases "domiciliary visits," inquests by commissioners, courts-martial in the first case, revolutionary tribunals in the second--consequent wholesale executions on both sides. There were the decrees of confiscation carried out with the utmost barbarity, resulting in sudden changes of fortune, the cla.s.s that was aristocratic being often reduced to beggary, while its wealth was enjoyed by the new men of the middle cla.s.ses. The peasants derive very little benefit from the revolution in France--none whatever, or rather the very reverse of benefit, in Ireland. And, to go into the minutest details, there are the same informers, spies, troops of armed police, or adventurers on the hunt to discover, prosecute, and destroy the last remnants of the insurgents in France as well as in Ireland.

In considering the religious side of the question, the parallel would be found still more striking, as the proscribed ministers of religion were of the same faith in France as in the British Isles, while the means adopted for their destruction were exactly similar.

On the side of the insurgents the same comparison holds good. In both cases there is the first refusal to obey unjust decrees, the same stubborn opposition to more stringent acts of legislature, the emigration of the aristocratic cla.s.ses, the devotedness of the clergy, with here and there an unfortunate exception, the same mode of concealment resorted to--false doors, traps, secret closets, disguise, etc.; the flying to the country and concealment in woods, caves, hills, or mountains; and, when the burden grows intolerable, and open resistance, even without hope of success, becomes inevitable, there are the same resources, method of organization, attack, call to arms, call to Heaven, the same heroism: yes, and the same approval of religion and admiration of all n.o.ble hearts throughout the world.

The only difference consists in the fact that in France the struggle lasted a few years only; in Ireland, centuries. In France the fury of the revolution soon spent itself in horrors; in Ireland the sternness of the persecuting power stood grim and unrelaxing for ages, adding decree to decree, army to army. In France, numerous hunters of priests and of "brigands," as they were called, flourished only for a short decade of years; in Ireland similar hunters of priests and of "Tories" carried on their infamous trade for more than a century.

In the case of the latter country, too, the confiscation was much more thorough and permanent, the emigration complete and final; but, in both cases, the Catholic religion outlived the storm, and lifted up her head more gloriously than ever as soon as its fury had abated.

Finally, to come to the point, which calls now more immediately for attention, if the campaigns of Owen Roe O'Neill, of Brunswick, and Sarsfield, were the models of the great insurrection of La Vendee and Brittany, the bands of "Tories"

and "rebels," scattered through Ireland at the time of the Cromwellian settlement, gave an example for the "Chouan" raids which in France followed the blasted hopes of the royalists.

How ought both cases to be considered with reference to the general rules of morality? How were they considered at the time by religious and conscientious men?

There is no doubt that excesses were committed by Tories in Ireland, and Chouans in France, which every Christian must condemn; but there can also be little doubt that such of them as were not deranged by pa.s.sion, but allowed their inborn religious feelings to speak even in those dreadful times, were restrained, either by their own consciences or by the advice of the men of G.o.d whom they consulted, from committing many crimes which would otherwise have resulted from their unfortunate position. All this, however, resolves itself into a consideration of individual cases which cannot here be taken into account.

Our only question is the cause of both Tories and Chouans in the abstract. From the beginning it was clearly a desperate cause, and, admitting that the motive which prompted it was generous, honorable, and praiseworthy, nothing could be expected to ensue from its advocacy but acc.u.mulated disaster and greater misfortunes still. Of either case, then, abstractly considered, religion cannot speak with favor.

But, when an impartial and fair-minded man takes into consideration all the circ.u.mstances of both cases, particularly of that presented in Ireland, as given by Mr. Prendergast, with all the glaring injustice, atrocious proceedings, and barbarous cruelty of the opposing party taken into account, who will dare say that men, driven to madness by such an acc.u.mulation of misery and torture, were really accountable before G.o.d for all the consequences resulting from their wretched position?

In the words quoted by the author of the "Cromwellian Settlement:"

"Had they not a right to live on their own soil? were they obliged in conscience to go to a foreign country, with the indelible mark left on them by an atrocious and originally illegitimate government?" And, if the simple act of remaining in their country, to which they had undoubtedly a right, forced them to live as outlaws, and adopt a course of predatory warfare, otherwise unjustifiable, but in their circ.u.mstances the only one possible for them, to whom could the fault be ascribed? Are they to be judged harshly as criminals and felons, worthy only of the miserable end to which all of them, sooner or later, were doomed? Is all the reproach and abuse to be lavished on them, and not a breath of it to fall on those who made them what they were? Who of us could say whether, if placed in the same position, he would not have considered the life they led, and the inevitable death they faced, as the only path of duty and honor?

We are thoroughly convinced that the first Irish "Tories" deemed it their right to make themselves the avengers of Ireland's wrongs, and consider themselves as true patriots and the heroic defenders of their country, and that many honorable and conscientious men then living agreed with them. And the people, who always sided with and aided them, had after all certainly a right to their opinion as the only true representatives of the country left in those unfortunate times.

Thus far we have considered the right of resistance on the part of the old "Tories;" we now come to what has been called the second case--the right of insurrection advocated by modern revolutionists, chiefly when connected with the unlawful organizations so widely spread to-day. This, indeed, is the great delusive hope of to-day, which must be gone into more thoroughly, in order to show that Ireland, instead of encouraging among her children the slightest attachment to the modern revolutionary spirit, ought to insist on their all, if faithful to the n.o.ble principles of their forefathers, opposing it, as indeed the great ma.s.s of the nation has opposed it, strenuously, though it has met with the almost constant support of England, who has spread it broadcast to suit her own purposes.

Ireland's hope must come from another quarter.

Let us look clearly at the origin and nature of this revolutionary spirit, so different from the lawful right of resistance always advocated by the great Catholic theologians.

The nature of this spirit is to produce violent changes in government and society by violent means; and it originated in first weakening and then destroying the power of the Popes over Christendom. Two words only need be said on both these interesting topics--words which, we hope, may be clear and convincing.

The very word revolutionary indicates violence; and it is so understood by all who use it with a knowledge of its meaning. A revolutionary proceeding in a state, is one which is sanctioned neither by the law nor the const.i.tution, but is rapidly carried on for any purpose whatever. Violence has always been used in the various revolutions of modern times, and, when people talk of a peaceful revolution, it is at once understood that the term is not used in its ordinary significance.

On this point, probably, all are agreed; and, therefore, there is no need of further explanation. On the other hand, many will be inclined to controvert the second proposition; and, therefore, its unquestionable truth must be shown.

That the position held by the Popes at the head of Christendom for many ages was of paramount influence, and that to them, in fact, is due the existence of the state of Europe, known as Christendom, is now admitted almost by all since the investigations of learned and painstaking historians, Protestants as well Catholics, have been given to the world. But had the Popes any particular line of policy, and did they favor one kind of government more than another? This is a very fair question, and well worthy of consideration.

Any kind of government is good only according to the circ.u.mstances of the nation subjected to it. What may suit one people would not give happiness to another, and democratic, aristocratic, or monarchical governments, have each their respective uses, so that none of them can be condemned or approved absolutely. No one will ever be able to show that the Roman Pontiffs held any exclusive theory on this subject, and adopted a stern policy from which they did not recede.

But a positive line of policy they did hold to, namely, the insuring the stability of society by securing the stability of governments.

Whoever reads the life of Gregory VII side by side with that of William the Conqueror, is at first astonished to find Hildebrand, who, though not yet Pope, was already powerful in the counsels of the Papacy, favoring the Norman king, although William eventually proved far from grateful. But, when the reader comes to inquire what can have moved the great monk to take up this line of action, he will find that a deep political motive lay at the bottom of it, which throws a flood of light over the policy of the Popes and the history of Europe during the middle ages.

He finds Hildebrand persuaded that William of Normandy possessed the true hereditary right to the crown of England, and the policy of the Popes was already in favor of hereditary right in kingdoms, thereby to insure the stability of dynasties, and consequently that of society itself.

Harold, son of G.o.dwin, belonged in no way to the royal race of Anglo-Saxon kings. The Dukes of Normandy had contracted alliances by marriage with the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, and were thought to be more nearly related to Edward the Confessor than Harold, whose only t.i.tle was derived from his sister.

What had been the state of Europe up to that time? Since the establishment and conversion of the northern races, a constant change of rulers, an ever-recurring moving of territorial limit, and consequently an endless disturbance in all that secures the stability of rights, was common everywhere: in England, under the heptarchy; in France, under the Carlovingians; in the various states of Germany; everywhere, except, perhaps, in a part of Italy, where small republics were springing up from munic.i.p.al communes, which were better adapted to the wants of the people.

The great evils of those times were owing to these perpetual changes, which all came from the undefined rights of succession to power, as left by Charlemagne; a striking proof that a monarch may be a man of genius, a great and acceptable ruler, and still fail to see the consequences to future times of the legacy he leaves them in the incomplete inst.i.tutions of his own time. Well has Bossuet said, that "human wisdom is always short of something."