LECTURES ON IRISH HISTORY.

Second Series.

LECTURE I.

STATE OF IRELAND IN 1535.

A FORMER series of lectures brought down the history of the Anglo-Norman colony to the year 1534, the date of the lowest depression of English influence. The Celtic tribes had long since thrown off even a nominal submission to the English Crown; the Anglo-Norman lords had become either avowedly or practically independent; the English Pale itself was in the power of an insurgent deputy, and, save in some few seaboard municipalities, the King of England neither exercised authority nor commanded respect.

This state of things at last forced the English government to elect whether it would abandon Ireland for ever, or seriously attempt to assert the rights and fulfil the duties of sovereignty.

At this period, the political opinions and desires of the English people, the character of the king, and the necessities arising from internal and foreign difficulties, forced the English Crown to adopt the latter course.

The end of the 15th century is ordinarily considered in the history of Europe as marking the passage from mediæval

B

to modern society, but in no country was the change of political and social ideas so profound as in England.

In the civil wars of the Roses, the ancient nobility had been almost exterminated; in their stead there had sprung up a new nobility, creatures and adherents of the Crown. The trading classes were rapidly rising in wealth and importance. The new aristocracy and the bourgeoisie were alike influenced by the recollections of a period of licence and disorder; to them civil war and a disputed succession appeared the greatest of evils, and law and order the supreme object of government. For law and order they were willing to make any sacrifice; for those who disturbed society they had no mercy. They rallied to the Crown, as the representative of civil power, on every occasion, and against all disturbers of the peace; they put down alike Catholic rebels and Protestant insurgents; they approved of the execution of Catholics and the burning of Protestants; at all risks they maintained the regular succession of a series of strong-willed and despotic severities, and in so doing almost established a despotism upon the ruins of the old Constitution.

The popular estimate of the character of Henry VIII, is formed with reference to particular acts of his reign, and the mode in which such specific acts were done, not from a fair consideration of the whole course of his policy, and a comprehension of the peculiar difficulties or necessities of his position. He is believed to have been a self-willed, overbearing, and rapacious ruler. It is, perhaps, impossible to rehabilitate his reputation, as has by some been lately attempted; but it must by all serious students of history be admitted that the shades of his character have been deepened, and his many noble and generous qualities have been forgotten. The study of his official correspondence,

especially the letters and instructions relative to Irish affairs, gives a much more favourable impression not only of his abilities, but also of his moral character. Like all his contemporaries, he was impressed with the paramount necessity of maintaining law and order; he had a high opinion of the power and position of the Crown; he had a not unjust confidence in his own abilities; at the same time, he had a deep sense of his duties and responsibilities, a sympathy for the poor and weak, who were exposed to the oppression of the powerful or insolent, and a sincere dislike to shed the blood of, or use mere violence toward, the masses of the people. He independently formed his own opinions upon social and religious questions; he deliberately selected the course of policy to be pursued; the views he had once adopted he carried out unhesitatingly, and overbore all opposition to his will. Although generous in his confidence to those whose abilities or honesty he respected, he was an overbearing master to the secondary agents of the government. Towards traitors, properly socalled, and unfaithful servants, he was mercilessly just; he smote, often perhaps on insufficient grounds, all those who seemed to dispute his power or thwart his plans, but in so doing he was supported by a belief in the correctness of his own views, and the consciousness of his own honesty of purpose. His own subjects understood him better than his historians. He was all through supported by the masses of the people. The violent and despotic acts of which he is accused, were done by a monarch who had no standing army, scarcely even a body-guard, and who resided close beside, almost within, the powerful and turbulent city of London. As regards his Irish policy, his state papers disclose a moderation, a conciliatory spirit, a respect for the feelings of the Celtic population, a sympathy with

the poor, which no subsequent English ruler has ever displayed.

Among such a people, and under such a sovereign, there arose a class of statesmen almost unique. Most of the great Englishmen of the Tudor period were employed in the affairs of Ireland, and it is necessary to form some estimate of their general character. They were filled with the duty of maintaining law, of administering justice, and repressing disorder; they had lofty conceptions of the duty of the State, but they scrupled not to commit any act in the service of the Crown, and conducted themselves towards the government as if they had been mere court favourites and minions. They were inspired with a love of all that was grand and beautiful, and yet were capable of inexpressible baseness, rapacity, and intrigue. They all repeated religious sentiments-many of them in private were profoundly religious-yet they were guilty of iniquities which cannot and should not be palliated. To us their character is a metaphysical puzzle; we find ourselves unable to harmonise qualities so discordant. In the government of Ireland these good and evil qualities were equally exhibited; unfortunately their ill deeds lived in the memory of the people their great and noble qualities were speedily forgotten.

In 1534, Henry VIII. had lately divorced his first wife, and, by his breach with the Holy See, had accomplished one of the most daring political acts ever attempted by a sovereign. By this course of policy, which he had deliberately adopted, he had excited the minds of the reforming party, and had incurred the hostility of the Church, and of all sincere lay members of the Catholic body. He was beset with dangers on every side. A less resolute king might have attempted to play off the opposing factions

against each other, or been forced definitively to place himself at the head of one or other; but Henry saw that even the temporary supremacy of either party would entail disorder, possibly cause a civil war; that, as the events of the two succeeding reigns proved, the reformers would drift into religious and social revolution, and the Catholics aimed at reaction, persecution, and a change in the succession to the Crown. Confident in his own power, he declared how far, and no farther, the Reformation should proceed; he relied upon the mass of the nation to support him against the fanatics of either party, and he succeeded in his policy. He checked on one hand the Reformers, on the other hand he crushed the Catholics, and, firmly holding on his course, maintained the supremacy of the civil government.

If the internal state of England was perilous, its foreign relations involved greater dangers. By the consolidation of France, and the rise of the monarchy of Charles V., the political condition of Europe was altogether changed. The kings of France and the house of Hapsburg struggled for supremacy of Europe; the power of all other European states was relatively diminished. Such was notably the case with England. Its policy had ceased to be a protracted duel with France, in which England was more frequently the aggressor. Henry VIII. was unable successfully to cope with either Francis or Charles; by their united force he might have been utterly overpowered. Thus his only foreign policy consisted in an attempt to preserve the balance of power by siding alternately with France and Spain, and, as opportunity offered, mediating between them. In this policy he had been assisted by the Pope, whose interests coincided with his own. By the divorce of his wife and his breach with the Holy See, his foreign difficulties were aggravated. The personal hostility of