Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση


insubordination," &c. &c. &c.-Irish Poor Laws, Reports, pp. 160 see Nicholls' History of Poor Laws.

The changes are rung over and over again upon these charges throughout his early Reports, and no opportunity is lost for disparaging remark upon the country and its people.

In the work before us, he takes a larger field, and reviews the past history, or what he assumes to be the history of Ireland and her people. With the same fearless and off-hand audacity that he displayed in treating, and at the first glance and first essay, resolving, (to his own satisfaction and that of his employers, whatever may have been the case with Ireland, and whatever the consequences to her) the difficult and complicated social problems of her condition, he now takes up, decides upon the most contested points of Ireland's history, and enunciates his opinion and decision with the same imperturbable and magnificent self-conceit!

Having first established in the space of one short sentence the origin of our people, and thus set at rest for ever the speculations, and rendered nugatory the labours of all preceding writers and enquirers on the subject, he proceeds to correct their subsequent errors and similarly lay down the law on other points. We are informed that it is a mistake to suppose that the light of learning in Ireland in early times, which attract-ed such crowds of students from other parts of Europe, was other than "faint and partial," or that its establishments were more than "specks of civilisation," and "oases in the desert of bar-barism"!!!

Passing from these "specks" and "oases" he next informs the world that "it is CERTAIN" that the Irish were Protes-tants! Never until the reign and invasion of Henry the I1. did they acknowledge the Pope's supremacy, and thus they anticipated by several centuries the establishment of Protestantism in England and in other arts of Europe! There can no longer be any question of the fact on the part of ignorant Papists. Sir George Nicholls has declared it certain that we rejected the Pope and all his works and pomps up to and until four centuries before Martin Luther appeared. The cause is endedthe oracle has spoken!

We are next informed or instructed on the same infallible authority, that the four centuries intervening between our apostacy from Protestantism, and the establishment of the latter in

England, were marked by "treachery and murder everywhere prevailing" amongst the Irish; and that the English Government "did little towards establishing order and the supremacy of the law". Not a word of what they most effectually did in a contrary direction, nor of their flagrant treacheries towards. the native chieftains, and their frequent subornation of murder, and equally frequent commission of it by the directer means of mock trials, with iniquitous and barbarous sentences, arranged beforehand and ruthlessly carried out, and where facilities did not readily present themselves for these judicial enormities, then by the simpler and not more ruthless means of military execution.

After quoting Spenser, (whose sweet poetry can hardly be held to cover as with a cloak, his iniquitous participation in the murderous councils of the savage Lord Grey, and in the plunder and confiscations of the Irish,) as the main authority for his own account of the social condition of Ireland in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, he tells us that the 500,000 acres of confiscated lands in James the First's reign, had sheltered "only robbers and rebels," utterly ignoring all that historians of indisputable eredibility have told of the frauds, the falsehoods, and the tyrannous cruelty with which James's scheme of the "Plantation of Ulster," was carried out, and the misery, destitution, and death, thereby inflicted upon hundreds of thousands of unfortunates, without discrimination of age, sex, condition, or good or bad conduct. And in perfect keeping with the character throughout of this (henceforward to be) standard history of Ireland, he revives and endeavors, so far as simple assertion goes, to reintegrate the old exploded calumny of the "Massacre of 1641;" the unfaithful and bigoted Clarendon's invention of "the murder of 40 or 50,000 Protestants before suspecting any danger, or being able to provide for their own defence or safety"! Sir George Nicholls has taken no notice of the fact, that the Lords Justices of Ireland, in their despatches of that year, and notably in those of the later months of it, when whatever had occurred must have been fully known to them, make no mention of any such occurrence, although they in no manner spare their expressions of detestation of the Irish who had been driven by persecution to rise in arms in the North, and had undoubtedly plundered, and forced English settlers to fly. Lingard, in the Notes to that volume of his laborious and painstaking history which includes the year 1641, thus writes:

"In the Lords Justices' despatches of October the 25th, 1641, with accompanying documents, (see the Lords' Journals, iv. 12.), there is no mention of any murder. After detail



ing the rising and plundering by the insurgents, they add This, though much, is all that we yet hear is done by them.' In a letter to the Privy Council of November 15th, they thus describe the conduct of the rebels: They have seized the houses and estates of almost all the English and dispossessed them of arms, and some of the English gentlemen they barbarously murdered. They surprised the greater part of a troop of horse of His Majesty's army, and possessed themselves of their arms. They apprehended Lord Caulfield, Sir E. Trevor, Sir Charles Poyntz, and a great number of other gentlemen of good quality, and also Lord Blayney's wife and children, and several other ladies and gentlemen whom they keep prisoners. In these their assaults of the English in the Northern Counties they have slain many, robbed and spoiled thousands, reduced men of good estates to nakedness, &c., &c. They threaten all the English to be gone by a time, or they will destroy them."

On the 25th November, the Lords Justices write: "The English with their wives and children are stripped naked and banished."

On December 14th, in the same year, the same authorities write, that when "English and Protestants leave their goods for more safety with any Papists, these are called out by the rebels and the goods taken, and they proclaim that if any Irish harbour the English, it shall be penal to them, and thus though they put not those English actually to the sword, yet they do as certainly cut them off as if they had done it with the sword."

On the 23rd of December, the same Lords Justices granted a commission to the Protestant Dean of Kildare, and seven other clergymen, to "call before them and examine on oath all such persons as have been robbed and despoiled, and enquire into all the particulars of the robberies committed, and of all traitorous and disloyal speeches, and to examine also all other witnesses that can give evidence of the same." If 200,000, as May says, or 50,000, as Clarendon and others say, were massacred, will not the reader think it strange that the Lords Justices (who must have known the facts from the number of despoiled Protestants who took refuge in Dublin,

if from no other source) should have omitted to extend the enquiry into so bloody a transaction? If we consider the

language of these despatches, and recollect who the writers were, and what an interest they had in exaggerating the excesses of the insurgents, we must conclude that no general massacre had been made or attempted."

In January, 1643, more than a year later, when the importance and advantage (for ulterior designs and confiscations) of getting up a case against the Irish Papists had been more studied, a commission was issued to enquire into "what lands had been seized, what murders committed by the rebels, and what numbers of English had perished on their way to Dublin or elsewhere." Had there been a massacre it surely would have been specially mentioned and priority given to it over the "seizure of lands." The Commissioners reported in 1644, and the Protestant writer, Warner, after a diligent inspection, observed that "in infinitely the greater number of the depositions the words being duly sworn', have the pen drawn through them with the same ink the examinations were written with, and in several where those words remain, many parts of the examinations are crossed out."

The Commissioners themselves could not by any means deduce from the evidence a higher estimate of persons thus killed or perishing, than 2,109 in the two years 1641 and 1642, and even this estimate was glaringly open to suspicion, from the undoubted desire of the Government of the day to swell the amount as much as at all possible, and the natural and stimulated bias of the Commissioners in the same direction.

Dr. Lingard, says in conclusion," I shall not lengthen this note by narrating the recriminations of the Irish. That they suffered as much as they inflicted, cannot be doubted."

We have thought it necessary to delay upon this point because it, more than any other, illustrates the tone and character of Sir George Nicholls' lucubrations upon Ireland. What necessity was he under to touch upon subjects of such bitterness? What relevance had or have they to Poor Laws? And if the slightest connexion did exist, should he not have informed. himself of the facts, and "heard the other side," before treating the politico-sectarian lie of the massacre of Protestants in 1641 as an established atrocity and an established stain upon the fame and name of the Irish Catholics? From no Catholic source, but from the mouths or pens of the anti-Catholic Lords Justices

of the time themselves. Lingard convicts the propagators of the story of gross falsehood, and this withont one single word of quotation from the writings and testimonies of Catholics, either of that time or at any subsequent period.

What a legislator for Ireland, who, deciding the most difficult problems of her social state on the materials collected by him in a nine weeks posting tour,-revising and confirming his labors in a subsequent trip of five weeks,-now makes the occasion of reviewing them one for offering wanton insult, and at the expense of the truth of history, to the political and religious feelings and prepossessions of the people unhappily subjected to his experiments!

Proceeding onwards with his wonted rapidity, he notices Cromwell's visitation of Ireland, but with no word of regret for his slaughters, whether of the gallant Anglo-Irish garrison of Drogheda, or of the 300 helpless women and children round the market-cross of Wexford. According to him they were merely part of a "stern retribution" for the "atrocity" of the apocryphal "massacre of 1641." In the next paragraph he jumps to the rebellion of 1798, which allowing to be "doubtless lamentable," he yet says was "not without its use, as it helped to establish the legislative union"!! Truth at last! It did so help, it was so intended when it was got up by the govern ment of the day. But for its distraction and horrors they could not have overmastered the independent spirit of Ireland. They therefore allowed it to grow up towards maturity, fostering it by their secret agents and the open license of oppression, plunder, and torture of the people, and availed themselves of it as a pretext to crush discussion and all constitutional opposition to their measure of the union, which it thus did (as Sir George Nicholls congratulates himself) help, and that most potently "to carry" !

Ample illustration now has been furnished of the tone and spirit of our heaven-born legislator, and we proceed to the third division of our subject, the nature and working of his interferences.

This, which is of course the one requiring the longest delay, is reviewed by him at considerable length, and with a kind of prefatory introduction of a double kind, including as it does not only the topics on which we have just been commenting, but also a sketch of the history of legislation for Irish pauperism, from early times down to the period when he undertook the care and charge of us.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »