« PreviousContinue »
apostates from the faith, [i.e. the Reformed Catholics of Ireland]) were found arrayed on the side of loyalty and the Queen. The facility indeed with which some of the great Irish lords, O'Neill
, O'Brien, and others, acquiesced in the first steps of the Reformation, had set an example. which though not very orthodox or dignified, continued for a long time its calming influence; nor was it till the period we have now reached, that religious strife began to extend its rage to Ireland, or first kindled up that war of creeds between the two races, by which both have been almost equally disgraced and demoralised."
One more passage from our author, chiefly for the sake of noticing a strange error which occurs in it, and we shall have done :
Mr. Moore's (p. 168.).“ To this measure, [the attainder of H. notice of the O'Neill and his confederates] much to their shame, the Attainder of whole of the [R.] Catholic party gave their assent; thus 1. O'Neill, sacrificing to an unworthy compromise all those national
hopes and sympathies with which for upwards of thirty years, the name of Tyrone had been deeply associated. Still more faithless was it in those spiritual lords who had hailed this chief as the chosen champion of the (R.) Catholic church, to forsake him now in his fallen condition. Yet such was ultimately the result of this hollow and timeserving coalition. In the commons the bill was moved by Sir J. Everard, a recusant knight, and passed unanimously; while in the upper house, only one courageous prelate, the titular archbishop of Tuam, [!] gave his vote against the attainder."
How “the titular archbishop of Tuam " [i.e. Florence Conroy, vid. pp. 890, 910, not. sup.)
could contrive to give a vote in the Lords, and on such an occasion, astonishing and perplexing as it may seem to the reader, Mr. M. leaves entirely unexplained. I suppose the vote in question was given in the recusant Council of war, which preceded, and led to, the change of policy on the part of the Irish Romanists, mentioned at p. 884 sup. (Vid. Phelan, Policy, &c. p. 270, note.)
SOME ALLEGED EVIDENCES OF THE BARBARITY OF THE AXCIESZ
were & wild
Mr. Wright, author of the Literature and Super- Whether the stitions of England in the Middle Ages, has made
ancient Irish free to introduce into that work some very ill- and barbar
ous people. judged observations on the character of the ancient Irish people, which it may not be amiss to notice here; as our doing so may help in some quarters to guard unwary readers against allowing themselves to be misled by such erroneous reasoning as this author alleges in support of his conclusions.
In vol. ii. pp. 216, 217, he writes thus :
"In spite of all that has been advanced to the con
That they trary, we still continue to look upon the ancient Irish as were such,
a wild and barbarous people. Such were they found when author at
the Romans entered Britain ; such were they in the time tempts to of the Saxons; and their character was not changed for prove. the better when the Anglo Normans succeeded in estab
lishing themselves in the isle. For ages they had infested by their piratical depredations the coasts of England and Wales. When during the days of Saxon rule a rebellious noble had been defeated in his projects, he fled immediately to Ireland to recruit his strength; and at its conquest at the end of the twelfth century, the country was full of English slaves, who had been purloined from their homes. Such being the case, we need not wonder if our kings sometimes contemplated the conquest of Ireland as a matter of policy; and it appears from the Saxon chronicle, that William the Conqueror had himself formed the design of reducing it to a dependence on the British crown."
Dermot Mac Again, (at p. 228 ib.) “Giraldus has preserved an Murrough anecdote, strikingly characteristic of the savage manners adduced as of the Irish of this period. Among the heads which were tion. thrown on the ground before him, Dermod [Mac Mur
rough] recognised one as that of a person who had been peculiarly obnoxious to him: as he danced exultingly among the heads of his foes, he suddenly seized upon this one, raised it by the ears to his mouth, and with a
barbarous joy, bit off the nose and part of the lips.". Alleged And at p. 255, “ The chronicles of the time tell us effects of
how the barbarous manners of the natives were sudthe Conquest.
denly improved and polished by the more vigorous government under which they were placed'
["* after the Conquest.
Note, ib._"*All the documents of the period agree in representing Ireland as not only a land of savages, but as a den of thieves. William of Newbury, (lib. 3. c. 9,)
speaking of the manners of the people of Ulster at the time of their conquest by De Courcy, says, ' The people of this province, &c., as at p. 524 sup.
Now it is not denied, that, by the dreadful The exis
tence in Irevisitation of the Danish wars, civilization and
land of improvement of every kind were greatly reduced, much that and brought to a very wretched and pitiable rous justicondition in Ireland, or that various disorderly tone of the and criminal practices were lamentably preva- above exlent in the country at the period of the Conquest. But to exaggerate these unhappy circumstances in such a tissue of reckless and mischievous misrepresentation as developes itself in the above extracts, is a course, to say the least of it, altogether unworthy of a respectable and intelligent writer, and one deserving the reprobation of every well-minded and honest individual.
For let us but look these statements in the The repreface. “The Irish were barbarous when the sentations
they convey Romans invaded Britain.” They were, and so examined. were the people of Britain likewise.
- Such were the Irish in the time of the Saxons.” Nay, Whether the this is utterly false, as every smatterer in his- barbarous in tory may know that the Irish were then distin- the Saxon guished for their learning at home and abroad, and their bishops and other teachers, colleges, and schools, were the means of converting and
enlightening the Saxons themselves, as they gratefully acknowledged in many ways, and as their own historian Bede fully records. Nor was any barbarous act of the Irish in the Saxon age so flagrant, as that which the venerable Saxon historian tells of some of his own people,
(1. iv. c. 26,) that “in the year of our Lord's inEgfrid more carnation 684, Egfrid, king of the Northumbarbarous. brians, despatched his general Berct, with an
army, into Ireland, and miserably wasted an inoffensive people, who had ever shewn the most friendly feeling to the English nation ; insomuch that in the violence of their onslaught, they spared not even the churches and monasteries;" for which impiety, as the same writer
supposes, they were visited the next year with The slave
judgments from heaven. “ But the Irish used dealing of to invade other countries, bring away captives, the old Irish considered, and keep them for slaves.” The heathen Irish
certainly did undertake predatory expeditions out of their own land, as did also the ancient Chaldeans, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans, who are not generally regarded as having been “barbarous ;” and the Saxons themselves, and Normans likewise, who should otherwise never have taken England from its earlier owners for themselv “ But even the Christi Irish kept slaves." To be regretted, certainly: although we do not read that they encouraged people to